The "All Things Politics" Thread (please review page 1)

BenjaminXMartinson

Unverified
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
3
In general the left just doesn't seem to care about actual American's and the hard earned freedom we have over other countries. They'd rather fight for the lives of ILLEGAL immigrants than for the rights of the American people. It just seems backwards. They'd rather attack our rights than have an open discussion and debate.
To my core. I tend to be a pessimist in all things, but with a general contempt for humanity as a whole. Regardless, history has shown us time and time again that revolution WILL happen in all nations/ civilizations. That revolution could be social, political, bloody, clean.....but it WILL happen. We are to think the US is any better, any different? How did we obtain our great nation in the first place? How did we keep it? We've had TWO civil wars already, a third is 100% within the realm of possibility.

The Left doesn't want a bloody civil war. It may think it is something it could win, but nah...my money's on bubba, the 2nd Amendment the ardent Left eschews, and sheer willpower. The Left has no hope of winning a civil war without an outside player or two supporting it with arms, ammunition, and training.

I don't want a war, but I see it as an inevitable rung on the ladder of history.

I absolutely agree with this.
 

SpitfireV

Strike first, strike hard, no mercy!
Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
5,014
Location
New Zealand
I'm on a few forums and things with Americans of all kinds. It's my (very personal) opinion that "left" and "right" are equally pigheaded. It's almost an inverse of when Obama was president.

Remember that threats of violence aren't just the "left's" prerogative- I recall a member on here advocating violence towards Hillary Clinton.

Also, I'd like to add that mass generalisations have never helped anyone.
 

Ooh-Rah

Marine
Moderator
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
11,736
I'm on a few forums and things with Americans of all kinds. It's my (very personal) opinion that "left" and "right" are equally pigheaded. It's almost an inverse of when Obama was president.

Same. In fact the cigar forum I use (out of Australia) has two forbidden topics. Religion and American Politics. Take note of the fact that politics as a whole are okay, just nothing to do with American politics...even an international forum of cigar lovers turn hate on each-other when it comes to talking about our great land. LOL
 

RackMaster

Nasty-Dirty-Canuck
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
10,336
Location
Land of Swine and Maple Syrup
I'm on a few forums and things with Americans of all kinds. It's my (very personal) opinion that "left" and "right" are equally pigheaded. It's almost an inverse of when Obama was president.

Remember that threats of violence aren't just the "left's" prerogative- I recall a member on here advocating violence towards Hillary Clinton.

Also, I'd like to add that mass generalisations have never helped anyone.

I suggest checking out Twitter. The calls for violence against Conservatives far outweigh any of the Obama insanity. I also don't remember that many Democrat politicians being verbally and physically assaulted under Obama. On shooting Congressional Representatives, their even.
 

SpitfireV

Strike first, strike hard, no mercy!
Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
5,014
Location
New Zealand
Same. In fact the cigar forum I use (out of Australia) has two forbidden topics. Religion and American Politics. Take note of the fact that politics as a whole are okay, just nothing to do with American politics...even an international forum of cigar lovers turn hate on each-other when it comes to talking about our great land. LOL

It's not as bad as some Israeli/Jewish posters I must say. Some people you can't even say "I'm not happy Israel did xyz" without being called an anti-Semite LOL.
 

SpitfireV

Strike first, strike hard, no mercy!
Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
5,014
Location
New Zealand
I suggest checking out Twitter. The calls for violence against Conservatives far outweigh any of the Obama insanity. I also don't remember that many Democrat politicians being verbally and physically assaulted under Obama. On shooting Congressional Representatives, their even.

I try to stay away from Twitter. Firstly, I can't operate the fucking thing half the time (I'm old beyond my years sometimes). Secondly, I think it just feeds confirmation bias.
 

RackMaster

Nasty-Dirty-Canuck
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
10,336
Location
Land of Swine and Maple Syrup
I try to stay away from Twitter. Firstly, I can't operate the fucking thing half the time (I'm old beyond my years sometimes). Secondly, I think it just feeds confirmation bias.

I avoid it as well but I think it's a better reflection of current society. Forums tend to attract more rational individuals and the insane get called out.
 

DozerB

Logistics
Verified Military
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Messages
96
@AWP answered the question as I would have.

We've stereotyped both Rightists and Leftists by their extremes; and moderate, open-minded, flexible, reasonable liberals and conservatives are lost behind all the rhetoric. This, I think is the major problem of both sides: the loud extremists fan the flames of hostility, the gap widens and becomes unbridgeable.

Concur wholeheartedly.

I also think one of the major influencing factors in this current madness is our generation's general ignorance of governmental institutions (I know, I know, its cliché to bash young people but I also think it's true). I could tweet right now to #KeepFamiliesTogether and IMMEDIATELY I'm one of the good guys. It doesn't matter whether I actually have a well thought-out solution as to how to mend immigration policy, how to house illegal immigrants detained for trespassing in our country, or how to right past wrongs; all that matters is that I'm saying things that are seemingly compassionate and "humanitarian" even if they are 100% fiction and altogether impossible.

Also, since Justice Kennedy resigned, kindling the whole SCOTUS discussion among people who didn't know who Anthony Kennedy was 48 hours ago, I've realized a few things about hardcore leftists:

- They aren't content to just say, "let's introduce legislation through the ordinary means of government that have been in place for nearly 250 years now and, if it receives enough support, it will become a law!" No, radical leftists would rather sue somebody, knowing that the court will radically re-interpret the law in their favor because if they don't, then they are a victim of hatred and bigotry and oppression and bleeding hearts across the country will come to their defense and demand change through any means necessary, regardless of what that actually means in a society of law and order and proper legislative procedures.

Example, Obergefell. Simply introducing legislation through traditional and ordinary means to eventually force a vote on the issue of same sex marriage was apparently not good enough. Instead, the Supreme Court completely skewed and perverted the 14th Amendment and somehow came to the idea that "due process" and "privacy" clauses now magically grant you the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have every state in the union acknowledge your marriage to a person of the same sex. The issue was actually being debated at the time, across the country, in the correct and appropriate forums when the Supreme Court made their decision. There's a reason why SCOTUS Justices must be (or SHOULD be) "originalists"; because to approach the Constitution as a "living document" that always tends to support the hot topic of the day that we just so happen to agree with is a terrifying, horribly dangerous framework within which to interpret the founding documents of our country. The left knows this, and they've weaponized the Supreme Court to achieve their desired ends, even if it means fitting a square peg into a round hole. "Diversity" and "tolerance" take unquestionable priority over any Constitutional foundation of law and order.

The point? If you want gay marriage to be legal, MAKE GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL! But do it through proper legislative channels. Demanding that the Supreme Court grant you legal rights that don't yet legally exist is so far outside of the (intended) power and scope of their duties that it should have ended before it even began; instead, we got a re-interpretation of 18th and 19th century documents to overwhelmingly support ideas that were non-existent before 1996. If the founding documents mean what we want them to mean, then they mean nothing. Want a new law? Pass a new law. But stop squeezing the Constitution dry to support every new idea that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

All this to say; when a judicial body is more concerned with interpreting the Constitution in a way that allows them to virtue signal and bypass the legislative process, the political sphere turns into an absolute cesspool of feel-good tweets and devastating one-liners against political opponents that don't ACTUALLY mean anything in real life, can't be enforced, are not sustainable in a free and civilized society, and don't actually have any substance whatsoever; we live in a world where words and one's feelings about topics are of infinitely greater value than the logic behind those arguments.

P.S. When Nancy Pelosi represents your party's MODERATES, it's safe to say that your platform has essentially been hijacked.
 

Blizzard

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
2,320
Probably drifting off topic a bit but to dove tail on the role of government and gay marriage topic. I've never been a fan but for probably a much different reason than most.

My view is the government should have no real interest in marriage period - gay or straight. That is an issue solely left to religion. At it's core, the government's stake should really only be the interest of the individual as a tax revenue generating source and protection of an individual's liberties.

If this were the case, I wonder where the arguments would lie?
 

DozerB

Logistics
Verified Military
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Messages
96
Probably drifting off topic a bit but to dove tail on the role of government and gay marriage topic. I've never been a fan but for probably a much different reason than most.

My view is the government should have no real interest in marriage period - gay or straight. That is an issue solely left to religion. At it's core, the government's stake should really only be the interest of the individual as a tax revenue generating source and protection of an individual's liberties.

If this were the case, I wonder where the arguments would lie?

Concur. I get it for tax purposes, job benefits, etc., but as far as the government "blessing off" on your marriage to make it legitimate? Yeah, no thanks.

(My intent was not to debate gay marriage but really to draw attention to our current society's disregard for the legislative process and obsession with re-interpreting a legal document)
 

757

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
290
Location
Chesapeake, Virginia
Concur. I get it for tax purposes, job benefits, etc., but as far as the government "blessing off" on your marriage to make it legitimate? Yeah, no thanks.

(My intent was not to debate gay marriage but really to draw attention to our current society's disregard for the legislative process and obsession with re-interpreting a legal document)

Agreed. Sadly our society has realized that it is easier to let the Supreme Court "settle" law than it is to go through the amendment process.
 

Blizzard

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
2,320
Concur. I get it for tax purposes, job benefits, etc., but as far as the government "blessing off" on your marriage to make it legitimate? Yeah, no thanks.

(My intent was not to debate gay marriage but really to draw attention to our current society's disregard for the legislative process and obsession with re-interpreting a legal document)
With you on the intent of your post.

I view the issue as a good one in viewing where arguments stem from on both sides. It speaks to the role of government at it's core. As an example, if the government stepped out of the marriage space completely, does that change the argument? Is there even really an argument to be had? Does the divide still exist? If so, why?

As to benefits and who receives them, it's not really a government decision but rather a business one. Fundamentally, it's no different than the Colorado baker deciding which customers he will bake for/serve. Don't like that he won't take your business? Take your business somewhere else; it's not the governments role. Similarly with benefits. It's up to each business to determine the benefits they offer their employees. Don't like the package that's offered? Move on.
 
Last edited:

757

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
290
Location
Chesapeake, Virginia
I really like what Scott Pavelle (lawyer from Pittsburgh) wrote on another website I frequent:
  • "Liberals" – People who see a social problem, want to fix it, think of a solution, and try to implement it. General themes would be that social experiments are good so long as you’re willing to adjust it as time goes by, and that problems put off are problems that never get fixed.
  • "Conservatives" – People who see a social problem, want to fix it, but strongly prefer their solutions to be incremental. General themes would be that current society grew from roots that are hard too see but ought to be respected, and that rapid change is a harm in and of itself. Changes need to be made but only with caution and care.
  • "Radical" – The system is broken, needs to be blown up, and something new built on the ruins.
I think our society is becoming more radical on both sides. However, since the "right" is currently in power across the board, the "radical leftists" seem to be getting more vocal and active. I was rucking with my dad this morning and I asked him whether or not he thought Civil War was a real possibility. His answer was essentially and echo of what Marauder said. Maybe the country is in worse shape than I thought, but I am struggling to envision a divided US in conflict.
 

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,962
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
Concur wholeheartedly.

I also think one of the major influencing factors in this current madness is our generation's general ignorance of governmental institutions (I know, I know, its cliché to bash young people but I also think it's true). I could tweet right now to #KeepFamiliesTogether and IMMEDIATELY I'm one of the good guys. It doesn't matter whether I actually have a well thought-out solution as to how to mend immigration policy, how to house illegal immigrants detained for trespassing in our country, or how to right past wrongs; all that matters is that I'm saying things that are seemingly compassionate and "humanitarian" even if they are 100% fiction and altogether impossible.

Also, since Justice Kennedy resigned, kindling the whole SCOTUS discussion among people who didn't know who Anthony Kennedy was 48 hours ago, I've realized a few things about hardcore leftists:

- They aren't content to just say, "let's introduce legislation through the ordinary means of government that have been in place for nearly 250 years now and, if it receives enough support, it will become a law!" No, radical leftists would rather sue somebody, knowing that the court will radically re-interpret the law in their favor because if they don't, then they are a victim of hatred and bigotry and oppression and bleeding hearts across the country will come to their defense and demand change through any means necessary, regardless of what that actually means in a society of law and order and proper legislative procedures.

Example, Obergefell. Simply introducing legislation through traditional and ordinary means to eventually force a vote on the issue of same sex marriage was apparently not good enough. Instead, the Supreme Court completely skewed and perverted the 14th Amendment and somehow came to the idea that "due process" and "privacy" clauses now magically grant you the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have every state in the union acknowledge your marriage to a person of the same sex. The issue was actually being debated at the time, across the country, in the correct and appropriate forums when the Supreme Court made their decision. There's a reason why SCOTUS Justices must be (or SHOULD be) "originalists"; because to approach the Constitution as a "living document" that always tends to support the hot topic of the day that we just so happen to agree with is a terrifying, horribly dangerous framework within which to interpret the founding documents of our country. The left knows this, and they've weaponized the Supreme Court to achieve their desired ends, even if it means fitting a square peg into a round hole. "Diversity" and "tolerance" take unquestionable priority over any Constitutional foundation of law and order.

The point? If you want gay marriage to be legal, MAKE GAY MARRIAGE LEGAL! But do it through proper legislative channels. Demanding that the Supreme Court grant you legal rights that don't yet legally exist is so far outside of the (intended) power and scope of their duties that it should have ended before it even began; instead, we got a re-interpretation of 18th and 19th century documents to overwhelmingly support ideas that were non-existent before 1996. If the founding documents mean what we want them to mean, then they mean nothing. Want a new law? Pass a new law. But stop squeezing the Constitution dry to support every new idea that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

All this to say; when a judicial body is more concerned with interpreting the Constitution in a way that allows them to virtue signal and bypass the legislative process, the political sphere turns into an absolute cesspool of feel-good tweets and devastating one-liners against political opponents that don't ACTUALLY mean anything in real life, can't be enforced, are not sustainable in a free and civilized society, and don't actually have any substance whatsoever; we live in a world where words and one's feelings about topics are of infinitely greater value than the logic behind those arguments.

P.S. When Nancy Pelosi represents your party's MODERATES, it's safe to say that your platform has essentially been hijacked.

Great post!
 
Top