Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 27, 2017, 10:11:50 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 465
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How do you people do it? on: Today at 02:12:13 pm
i am pretty sure, hillary didn't surge in conservative states and areas and inside of the suburbs cause of her embracing "thug culture".

I'm sorry but I know for a fact you're incorrect.

One big news story of the last year or so here in the Cleveland area was the Tamir Rice shooting. Last April, the City of Cleveland paid his mother $6 million dollars after her lawsuit. I had 20 year old hot chicks I work with, who I didn't even know watch the news, bring it up the next day fuming mad that the city would "pay millions to a mother who didn't raise her kid right and had her 12 year old son outside in Cleveland playing with a realistic looking toy gun late at night."

Even I was stunned. The way these women were talking. Young women. Women who I assumed aren't political and if they are, they'd be liberal. "She gets $6 million dollars for being a bad mother", or "She gets $6 million dollars while our city is going broke."

Who met with this "terrible mother?" Hillary Clinton.

July 2016, Cleveland.com
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Hillary Clinton met Monday in Chicago with the mother of Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old shot and killed by a Cleveland police officer nearly a year ago.

There went a few thousand votes from Hillary to Trump in Northeast Ohio.
2  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How do you people do it? on: Today at 01:47:58 pm
@ReaganFan: So your support of Trumpism is reactive, not necessary in pursuit of an ideology. You're basically saying "bad things happen, Trump fix them." You don't have a coherent ideology that reflects Trumpism as an ideology set apart from neoliberalism Reaganism, do you?

This is a sincere debate question.

The President has definitely had a huge impact on ideology, even for myself. Ideologically, I am probably still more conservative than the President himself, but I think the focus of my opinions as of late has been more culturally than anything else.

This election was very different because it wasn't just an ideological struggle. Bush vs. Gore was ideological. I remember being 13 years old when it was important how we spent the budget surplus. The Trump Era is much more about culture vs. culture. I live near Cleveland where Lebron James is beloved. All my friends and people I know love him (although sometimes they wish his free throws were better). However, if he wears some kind of political T-Shirt while sitting out a game or campaigns with Hillary Clinton, my friends would have kind of a roll their eyes moment. They are still voting for Donald Trump, yet they love Lebron James when he's playing a game. See what I mean? It's not about political beliefs, it's about culture.

I do not believe racism exists in America anymore to the extent that the liberals say that it does. I believe it has much more to do with culture.

White Americans, and I know many of them right here in suburban areas near the middle of the country, have very similar tastes in culture. There is a reason why they will watch "Family Matters" and "Fresh Prince of Bel Air" reruns but don't watch "106 and Park" or "Blackish". There is a reason why they would vote for Barack Obama or (theoretically) Colin Powell or Condi Rice, but never for Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. There is a reason why they'll listen to Michael Jackson and The Four Tops but never listen to Jay-Z or Flo Rida. There is a reason why they'll shop in the suburban strips instead of the city malls.

It's not about skin color. That would be racism. It's about culture. A thug culture. A criminality culture.

If two young guys fight and put their hands in gang signs and say, "Yo bro, sup? Come at it, brah". They never used to freaking talk like that. Not even twenty years ago. It's the thug culture. Nothing to do with skin color. Hell, Eminem is as white as you get and many white people still role their eyeballs at it. It's the culture.

That's why I'm not convinced that a Bernie Sanders candidacy would have defeated Trump, because despite whatever similarities they had on some stances on issues, Bernie Sanders didn't embody the "Pull up your pants, quit being a thug" mentality that millions of Americans were grasping for.

In general, all of my ranting and ravings on this message board (which I'll admit, I am slightly younger than most who share my views) culminated when America took the same school of thought. Trump said, "I can run against what these people are tired of"....and win.

In a nutshell.
3  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: How do you people do it? on: Today at 01:29:13 pm
I have always believed in democracy. Sure, there are a lot of underinformed or misinformed people out there, but traditionally, western democracies have been capable of making decisions that were not completely horrifying. In that respect, democracies are surely superior to all other systems of government.

I do admit that this belief took a serious blow with the election of Donald Trump, which is pretty easily the most irresponsible act by a western electorate in history (I really wouldn't count the election of Hitler in Germany in the 30's in this respect). But usually, "the people" correct their ways when they make a horrible error in judgment. I do have reason to believe that this will happen this time as well, the main question really being whether democracy can handle four years of Trump or if he will succeed in effectively ending democracy. I don't think he will, but I do think that he will try.

I think the biggest mistake many, including yourself, are taking is the idea that all Americans think like you do.

Donald Trump clearly won the electoral college. It's true he lost the popular vote, but so what? It happens occasionally. Her victory margin in the popular vote was roughly the amount of voters she received in Los Angeles County, California which (having been there two years ago firsthand) is about as different as almost any other part of the country.

Other than that, you can drive in an almost straight line from Coos Bay, Oregon to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina without ever leaving a Donald Trump county. I live in Ohio, which is certainly not New York City or San Francisco, but we are also far from rural. I live between Cleveland and Akron in a pretty busy suburban area. The liberal thinkers are clustered so tightly around inner cities that it looks almost pathetic as they drain every drop out of a few counties nationwide just to win one national election.

What Trump represented was a country saying things I had heard all my life. Since I was a kid in the 1990s, I've heard people say things like, "Politicians are all talk, no action"....Trump said that about Hillary Clinton. I've heard guys on bar stools for almost a decade talking about "Why don't we just throw out the damn illegals and build a wall and if they wanna come in do it legally!?"

All of this stuff is rather commonplace. I think the problem or the "divide" as it may be, is from how radical the left has gotten. Safe spaces? Trigger warnings? It's weak and ridiculous. It's so far from the norm that liberals are the outsiders. Liberals are the ones threatening democracy.

In New York City, you can list 31 "gender identities". Most Americans think that it's the people who believe in that stuff who have mental problems...not the President they elected to combat it.
4  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: New Generational Divide Suggestion on: Today at 03:45:23 am
I figured it this way, with rough birth year estimates.

The Lost Generation (1880-1900)
This generation included the last to have Civil War parents, children during the Industrial Revolution, World War I.
Memorable people: Dwight Eisenhower, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Harry Truman, Franklin Roosevelt.


The Greatest Generation (1900-1925)
This generation came of age before or during the Great Depression, and lived or fought during World War II.
Memorable people: Frank Sinatra, John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Walter Cronkite, Jackie Robinson


The Silent Generation (1925-1945)
Born during the Depression and WWII. Grew up during rough times, settled down very quickly. Many Korean War veterans and some WWII and Vietnam.
Memorable people: Clint Eastwood, William F. Buckley, Jr, Johnny Carson, Elvis Presley, The Beatles


Baby Boomers (1946-1960)
Born during the "happy days" of the post war-America. Grew up during unprecedented American exceptionalism. Some grew to be the counter-culture, some Vietnam vets, some disco-dancers and some yuppies.
Memorable people: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Michael Jackson, Stephen King)


Generation X (1961-1981)
The "lost" generation between the Boomers and the children of the Boomers. Came of age during the 70s and the 80s. This is the "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" or "Ferris Bueller" Generation. Their defining moment was the 9/11 attacks. (Many killed were Generation X-ers)
Memorable people: Barack Obama, Kurt Cobain, Quentin Tarantino, Tiger Woods


Millennials (1981-1998)
The children of the Boomers and some older Generation X-ers. Last generation to remember life before  computers, cell phones, and 9/11 attacks.

After that, it's still too soon to say.

 
5  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: C-SPAN Presidential Historians Survey 2017: Obama debuts at #12 on: February 26, 2017, 04:32:03 am
I winged it.

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Ronald Reagan
4. Franklin Roosevelt
5. Thomas Jefferson
6. Andrew Jackson
7. Theodore Roosevelt
8. Harry Truman
9. James Madison
10. John F. Kennedy


11. Richard Nixon
12. James Polk
13. James Monroe
14. Dwight Eisenhower
15. George H.W. Bush
16. William McKinley
17. John Adams
18. George W. Bush
19. Bill Clinton
20. Calvin Coolidge


21. Woodrow Wilson
22. Chester Arthur
23. Ulysses Grant
24. Grover Cleveland
25. Barack Obama
26. Lyndon Johnson
27. Gerald Ford
28. Rutherford Hayes
29. William Howard Taft
30. John Tyler


31. Jimmy Carter
32. Zachary Taylor
33. Benjamin Harrison
34. John Quincy Adams
35. James Garfield
36. William Henry Harrison
37. Herbert Hoover
38. Warren Harding
39. Franklin Pierce
40. Martin Van Buren


41. Millard Fillmore
42. James Buchanan
43. Andrew Johnson

George W. Bush, John Adams, Wilson, Arthur, Grant, and Cleveland... all before Obama? Really??

I wouldn't out McKinley, Coolidge, Jackson, or Nixon before him either.


Absolutely.

John Adams is a founder, Wilson led us during WW1, Arthur was a vastly better President than many realize. Grant was a great General during the Civil War. George W. Bush was President on 9/11 which has historical impact which will only grow in the coming decades. Grover Cleveland...meh...you might be right about that.
6  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: C-SPAN Presidential Historians Survey 2017: Obama debuts at #12 on: February 23, 2017, 07:38:42 pm
I winged it.

1. Abraham Lincoln
2. George Washington
3. Ronald Reagan
4. Franklin Roosevelt
5. Thomas Jefferson
6. Andrew Jackson
7. Theodore Roosevelt
8. Harry Truman
9. James Madison
10. John F. Kennedy


11. Richard Nixon
12. James Polk
13. James Monroe
14. Dwight Eisenhower
15. George H.W. Bush
16. William McKinley
17. John Adams
18. George W. Bush
19. Bill Clinton
20. Calvin Coolidge


21. Woodrow Wilson
22. Chester Arthur
23. Ulysses Grant
24. Grover Cleveland
25. Barack Obama
26. Lyndon Johnson
27. Gerald Ford
28. Rutherford Hayes
29. William Howard Taft
30. John Tyler


31. Jimmy Carter
32. Zachary Taylor
33. Benjamin Harrison
34. John Quincy Adams
35. James Garfield
36. William Henry Harrison
37. Herbert Hoover
38. Warren Harding
39. Franklin Pierce
40. Martin Van Buren


41. Millard Fillmore
42. James Buchanan
43. Andrew Johnson
7  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Lawyer for detained “Dreamer” says ICE documents were doctored on: February 21, 2017, 08:27:36 pm
I skimmed the first two lines and saw the words "Seattle", "Tacoma" and "gangs".

Didn't read after that.
8  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: ICE arrests woman reporting domestic abuse on: February 16, 2017, 07:03:50 pm
The reason this is a losing issue for liberals is because of one word: "ILLEGAL".

I'm sorry. We have laws, don't we?

I assume you never jaywalked, loitered, or anything like that?

Don't think I have.
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: ICE arrests woman reporting domestic abuse on: February 16, 2017, 03:49:30 pm
Expecting Trump supporters to show sympathy for a domestic abuse victim is asking waaaaay too much of them.

No one is excusing domestic abuse and no one deserves to be abused, and our country doesn't deserve to be abused by deporting the same person 6 times who has an interesting rap sheet.

This is why liberals keep being seen as the party of criminality.

Legalize drugs, get rid of voter I.D. laws, open the borders and given amnesty.

It really says something when your best hopes of winning elections are if they let felons vote. LOL

Washington and Jefferson were criminals too. Its not like something being a crime automatically makes people who do that thing bad.

That's worse than alternative facts.
10  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: When does the winning start? on: February 16, 2017, 03:45:03 pm
It's not racism. Racism has become something liberals shout when they lose the argument. Now, tell me again, what is "normal and mainstream" about what "progressives" support?

Nothing. That's when you yell racism or sexism or whatever. You lose the argument.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If we did have a first woman president, what do you envision her being like? on: February 16, 2017, 03:42:30 pm
An attractive woman that white males tolerate because they think she's hot. IE Palin, Ivanka.
12  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: ICE arrests woman reporting domestic abuse on: February 16, 2017, 03:40:52 pm
Expecting Trump supporters to show sympathy for a domestic abuse victim is asking waaaaay too much of them.

No one is excusing domestic abuse and no one deserves to be abused, and our country doesn't deserve to be abused by deporting the same person 6 times who has an interesting rap sheet.

This is why liberals keep being seen as the party of criminality.

Legalize drugs, get rid of voter I.D. laws, open the borders and given amnesty.

It really says something when your best hopes of winning elections are if they let felons vote. LOL
13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: When does the winning start? on: February 16, 2017, 03:38:28 pm
Plus liberals look ridiculously out of touch with mainstream America.

why is mainstream the minority?

I don't believe mainstream is. What's more mainstream? Definition: the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional.

What's normal about New York City saying there are 31 gender "identities"?
What's normal about a black cop justifiably shooting a black criminal in Milwaukee and black lives matters protesters saying "Let's burn down the black suburbs."
What's normal about having open borders in the most powerful country in the world?
What's normal about letting in Muslim refugees when some of them can go to Ohio State and decide to kill innocent Americans?
What's normal about being penalized for wanting to choose your own health insurance?

The Democrats may be a lot of things, but they're far from the mainstream. So you may have big protests in many major cities. Well organized, far from "peaceful". Most of them kids with rich parents who voted for Trump. They'll outgrow it someday.

Until then, we will keep winning while watching all of the Chris Hayes-Rachel Maddow lookalikes scrambling frantically, searching desperately for inner cities precinct votes in the hopes of stopping the mainstream from winning.
14  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: ICE arrests woman reporting domestic abuse on: February 16, 2017, 03:27:52 pm
The reason this is a losing issue for liberals is because of one word: "ILLEGAL".

I'm sorry. We have laws, don't we?
15  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: This press conference... on: February 16, 2017, 03:25:15 pm
Hate to break it to you guys but while we think this is insane, to his supporters hes just "BTFO pathetic cuck media elites"
Well f**k em.

Unfortunately were stuck with them

If anything...this press conference fired up his base after so much losing.
But it just keeps driving anyway anyone with a iq above 50.

Trump was a mess in the debates and had several stream of concious meltdowns in the final weeks and still won.

People on here really mis-underestimate the WWC. Most of the tea party governors had terrible approval ratings and left their states in the sh**tter and they all got re-elected

Oh okay. Then what about all the African American voters for Obama in Harlem who didn't even know his positions on issues but supported him for "sentimental" reasons. Or all the inner cities who continue to re-elect the same old corrupt liberal politicians who don't bring any results but win their votes because they're "one of them".

How come it's okay to have black sentimentality but not white?

Chris Matthews on Election Night called it a "counter-punch". He said something to the effect of "We have this strong urban vote and it's being offset by this counter-punch from the suburbs and rural areas. It's not a pretty picture."

Why is the rural and suburban vote the counter-punch? How come the "counter-punch" isn't the inner cities vote? That seems much more likely when you look at the county maps of the country. Why is the high urban turnout good but high rural turnout bad?
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: When does the winning start? on: February 16, 2017, 02:40:37 pm
Stocks have been up and up, hitting record levels. That is because of Donald Trump. The pipelines are going to be built, our border beefed up, and we will have much more strict immigration policies from the Middle East.

A big tax cut is coming and Neil Gorsuch is will be on the Supreme Court, with possibly more to come.

Plus liberals look ridiculously out of touch with mainstream America.
17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Patrick Park very likely to be the next ambassador to Austria on: February 13, 2017, 04:00:33 pm
Damn who is that pretty woman in the center?
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: What truly doomed Hillary? on: February 12, 2017, 11:22:57 am
As someone who clearly is biased against her, I'll admit I was surprised by her lack of popularity.

I remember back in 2014, I was talking to a friend of mine (a really beautiful girl who enjoys chatting politics, but she's much more liberal than myself) and I cringed and said, "I don't know...I really don't want Hillary to win but I can't see beating her." Her response was, "Oh no way, those e-mails will do in Hillary."

I remember kinda chuckling because I thought, "Nobody will care about stupid e-mail stuff".

I am still utterly shocked when I look back. John Kerry never scared me as a Republican. When I was younger, I always felt confident against the Gore campaign. But Obama and Hillary freaked me out. I kept thinking: The first female candidate, known for decades. How can anyone beat her?

It still is kinda stunning when you hear people talk about "Hillary lost the election". She actually lost the election. Wow.
19  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Appeals court denies Trump administration request to reinstate ban on: February 10, 2017, 11:40:05 am
On the point of constitutionality, the US has banned immigration on similar grounds before many times. We banned Chinese coal workers for fear that they were stealing American jobs. We banned Jewish refugees (Judaism is a religion btw) from Germany during WWII. We've even banned Iranians before during the hostage crisis in the 70's. In all of these cases the constitutionality held. The 9th would be overturning quite the precedent in ruling this unconstitutional.

That's why I mentioned the liberals seem to be on the wrong side of history on this one.
20  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: New PPP poll: 46% of Americans think Trump should be impeached. on: February 10, 2017, 11:15:11 am
This is a stupid discussion. In all my dislike of Barack Obama, even when I thought he overreached, I saw no reason to even half-jokingly discuss impeachment. You don't do that even if you loathe a politician. You wait to defeat them electorally or wait for them to be out of office.

But President Obama never issued an executive order that couldn't be undone by legislation, and he would have gone along with a ruling by the courts that it is unconstitutional or in violation of statutory law.

Donald Trump can propose all sorts of unpopular measures that Make America Great Again (but only for about 2% of the people) but he has no prerogative to violate the Constitutional rights of anyone.

My cousin was at Ohio State when the Somali refugee who "came to America to study" carried out a knife attack. If this ban had been in place two years ago, that person wouldn't have been in America and my cousin's life wouldn't have been at risk.

Who are YOU to tell me these people have American constitutional rights? You are putting the security of innocent lives at risk because you care about the constitutional rights of foreigners.

If you read the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, you'll notice it gives rights to persons not citizens.

Many Constitutional statues also refer to the President as "he". Does that mean that women are constitutionally ineligible to run for President?

21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: PPP national poll: Clinton 49% Trump 45% on: February 10, 2017, 11:14:00 am
Funny enough, a 49-45 poll for Hillary could still equate to an electoral win for the President.


22  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Trump 1.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: February 10, 2017, 11:07:45 am
I'm not bothered by this. Approvals are mid-40s to low 50s depending on the polls, which were all off for two years with him, and he always polls bad anyways. Unless his name is on the ballot.

Again, reading this forum gives false predictors. Going by the posts on this forum, 2014 was going to be a decent year for Dems, Jack Conway was going to be Gov of KY, and 2016 was going to be a DEM landslide. Why believe you now?
23  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: New PPP poll: 46% of Americans think Trump should be impeached. on: February 10, 2017, 10:47:55 am
This is a stupid discussion. In all my dislike of Barack Obama, even when I thought he overreached, I saw no reason to even half-jokingly discuss impeachment. You don't do that even if you loathe a politician. You wait to defeat them electorally or wait for them to be out of office.

But President Obama never issued an executive order that couldn't be undone by legislation, and he would have gone along with a ruling by the courts that it is unconstitutional or in violation of statutory law.

Donald Trump can propose all sorts of unpopular measures that Make America Great Again (but only for about 2% of the people) but he has no prerogative to violate the Constitutional rights of anyone.

My cousin was at Ohio State when the Somali refugee who "came to America to study" carried out a knife attack. If this ban had been in place two years ago, that person wouldn't have been in America and my cousin's life wouldn't have been at risk.

Who are YOU to tell me these people have American constitutional rights? You are putting the security of innocent lives at risk because you care about the constitutional rights of foreigners.

24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: BREAKING: Appeals court denies Trump administration request to reinstate ban on: February 10, 2017, 10:44:36 am
If Trump was smart, he would redraft. Competence matters. I wouldn't be surprised if SCOTUS upheld this decision.

Not along party lines either. I actually think some liberal justices understand that the Constitution is on the side of this decision.

You're missing the point. This EO affected legal permanent residents, the sloppiness just undercuts Trumps argument.

"On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies," the judges wrote. "And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination. We need not characterize the public interest more definitely than this... The emergency motion for a stay pending appeal is denied."


I read this argument as an amateur liberal opinion. It feels like something written by a 20 year old college student at Berkeley. I do not believe that they have a legal case going forward on Constitutional grounds. At all.

The legality of his EO is sound. Period. The Constitution doesn't talk about discrimination against foreign travelers. A Syrian immigrant is not entitled to due process under United States laws.


What makes you qualified to make such definitive statements? Are you a judge? A lawyer? Did you go to law school? Do you do anything besides watch Fox News all day and parrot talking points?

I believe that this has much more to do with liberal identity politics than anything else. The Constitutionality of this executive order seems quite sound. What is the LEGAL argument, not political, not cultural, but the LEGAL argument against this executive order?

None of the arguments from the judges discussed the law which specifically gives the president authority to suspend the entry of any aliens into the U.S. if he believes their entry would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States." Unless that legal provision is unconstitutional, the president has acted completely within the law. PERIOD.

Nathaniel Gorton of the District Court in Massachusetts cited the law (8 U.SC. §1182 (f)) and said "the decision to prevent aliens from entering the country is a fundamental sovereign attribute realized through the legislative and executive branches that is largely immune from judicial control."

Again, the law states:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.


How can any person disagree with the President's authority on this?
25  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: New PPP poll: 46% of Americans think Trump should be impeached. on: February 10, 2017, 10:28:02 am
This is a stupid discussion. In all my dislike of Barack Obama, even when I thought he overreached, I saw no reason to even half-jokingly discuss impeachment. You don't do that even if you loathe a politician. You wait to defeat them electorally or wait for them to be out of office.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 465


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines