2020 Election

Perhaps that is why you were able to post this and why mods here for sure are in cult 45. There is in fact diversity not just to the extremes of right wing thinking. I've seen a few out right Nazis banned for example. Not Trump style "I just hate the globalists and Muslims but that's not raicst" Nazi actual posts about Hitler being a good guy.

As a private site there are rules. Use the free market to go elsewhere. There are a few VERY right wing sites bigger then this that exist now because twitter, reddit, etc don't allow it.

Problem is what was once extreme is now pretty common for the GOP.

 

Newbie-one

This is a politics debating forum (as stated in the guidelines)

The thing about honest debate in the context of free speech is that it has to be a two way process and has to be honest.

If people post statements that they then refuse to debate or defend from criticism then it is just the spreading of propaganda not debate, especially if such statements are debunked or do not seem to stand up to rational scrutiny, but then get repeated over and over regardless.

This can become a tactic (trolling) to curtail honest debate as others become tired of continuously fact checking and debunking all the dubious statements and factual errors that are never defended but constantly repeated.

Such behaviour is the opposite of open mindedness it is the refusal to be open minded.

Having ones ideas challenged has to be a two way thing people can’t just demand others accept their views and criticisms while refusing to accept or address any criticisms in return.

As to questioning authority well at the moment the wealth sponsored right wing are the dominant power in many countries including the US and UK, so if anything right wingers are the ‘authority’ that needs to be ‘questioned’ but as said too often many right wingers refuse to reply and as such are not welcome here.

 

It's certainly offensive for someone to praise a genocidal dictator. I'd much rather that people criticize and debate absurd or offensive perspectives than to suppress them because they have control of that forum of expression or debate.

What if the tables were turned, and there were no sites that allowed left wing views. Would you say, "Oh well, there's a free market, I can't complain"?

 

If someone said "Obama puts gerbils up his butt", and you replied "Do you have any evidence to support this?", and they had no reply, except to repeat "Obama puts gerbils up his butt", I could see deleting the repeated content. In a free society though, people are entitled to have wrong ideas.

You don't have to accept anyone's views or criticisms though. I argue that in a free society, people should be able to hold whatever views they want, even if those views are wrong.

Can you produce evidence to defend this statement? Simply observing that person or group x has donated money to support a cause that we agree is right wing is not sufficient; you are declaring that not simply that right wing views exists and that there are right wing activists, but that they are "the dominant power in many countries including the US and UK". Can you actually prove that right wing views hold a dominant position?

 

I hope we aren't talking about banning right wing views. I think the issue is not the ideological character of the views but whether or not, right or left, they observe certain minimal ground rules of civil discourse. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect either side to back up assertions with evidence. If I simply post "Trump is a jerk" over and over again, I think somebody should get the hook. Or if I post an assertion that Trump is secretly tied to a group of Neo-Nazi pedophiles who are sexually exploiting kids they keep in the basement of a Pizza parlor, that, too, should require supporting evidence. I find the posts of people who disagree with me useful in understanding the opposition. For example, if it weren't for people like OnceBurned, I might wonder if the stereotype of the mindless Trump supporter might be an exaggeration. His posts reassure me that it isn't. I think a discussion forum should give considerable latitude for the lively expression of viewpoints. But there comes a point where a blatant falsehood or an inarticulate grunt has to be disqualified as out of bounds.

 

I think they already are banned, if they are deemed offensive enough.

The problem I see is that it is that when someone has a free hand in defining the minimal ground rules, it is very easy to define them in a way that promotes a particular agenda. For example, if the minimum ground rules mean that which is offensive is disallowed, one can simply marginalize dissent by defining that dissent as offensive.

I think you should be able to say "Trump is a jerk" without having to defend it, just not flood the forum with it.

Similarly, I think you should be able to declare it, just not keep repeating it without defending it.

 

Let me know if what you told him sank in.

 

Hippies must conform to a certain set of beliefs!?

That’s news to me

 

Well, what's left to talk about? Where is Biden? Why are they hiding him?

Why the hell is Obama opening his mouth when Biden is supposed to be getting his face in the spotlight

Totally feels like there was a rush for anyone but Trump, then they realised too late, oh shit, Biden this guy, ooh, we can't really let him talk too often

 

Admittedly, the concept of "Hippie" is loose--a cluster of attributes, not all of which are required to make someone a hippie. Hippies were a counter-culture:counter to the prevailing mainstream culture of the 1950s and early 60s. Outward appearances and costume: for men, long hair, beard, sandals, love beads, colorful (especially tie-dye) shirts; bell bottoms, etc.;for women, flowered head bands, large loop earings, beads,loose-fitting garments like kaftans, peasant tops, maxi dresses and bell bottoms. Hygiene: bathless. Drug habits: pot and psychedelics. Values: Peace, love and understanding; Sex, drugs & rock n roll. Politics: Radical (not liberal); root and branch transformation of institutions. Attitudes: non-conformity; rejection of authority; anti-militarism. Approach to knowledge: intuitive, romantic; anti-intellectual. None of these were requirements for being a hippie (an absurd concept), but the presence or absence of most of them determined whether or not someone was perceived as a hippie. For example, a person who believes that Jews and Muslims are a threat to the country, that the United States needs a strong leader and military to become great again, and that large industrial corporations should have generous tax breaks, would not ordinarily be regarded as a hippie. In the sixties counter-culture, there was always a division between the "political", aggressive Yippies and the apolitical, "make Love, not war", hippies. The boundaries between the earlier beat subculture and the hippies of the fifties, and the later punk and post-punk subcultures of the seventies, were never clearcut.

Anyhow, yes hippies thought of themselves as non-conformists, and were tolerant of any beliefs except those of the dominant culture--Babylon. But nobody ever accused hippies of having good judgment. The important thing is that people sharing views on Hip Fourms respect the ground rules, which exclude lying in the name of free speech and substitution of slogans for substance. Hip Forums, as a private entity, can set whatever ground rules it wants for political discussions--just a private store owners can require customers to wear masks or say "No shoes, no shirt, no service!" I think it would be dull of only one viewpoint were allowed, but the standards outlined so far seem reasonable.

 

He seems to be ahead in the battleground states.
What the newest polls say about a Joe Biden vs Donald Trump matchup
Trump vs. Biden: Trump Leads in Battleground State Poll | Heavy.com
Donald Trump starts 2020 in the worst polling position since Harry Truman - CNNPolitics

Quinnipiac 5/14 - 5/18 1323 RV 2.7 50 39 Biden +11
CNBC 5/15 - 5/17 1424 LV 2.6 48 45 Biden +3
Economist/YouGov 5/17 - 5/19 1235 RV 3.2 47 42 Biden +5
Rasmussen Reports 5/18 - 5/19 1000 LV 3.0 48 43 Biden +5
Harvard-Harris 5/13 - 5/14 1854 RV 2.0 53 47 Biden +6
CNN 5/7 - 5/10 1001 RV 3.7 51 46 Biden +5

He's been challenging Trump's Covid 19 response and making some headway.
Biden knocks Trump’s coronavirus response ahead of Pennsylvania visit
Biden warns against coronavirus stimulus corruption

 

Donald J Trump on Twitter May 20, 2020

"Some wacko in China just released a statement blaming everybody other than China for the Virus which has now killed hundreds of thousands of people. Please explain to this dope that it was the “incompetence of China”, and nothing else, that did this mass Worldwide killing"

 

newbie

LOL Been there did the posting got the bans

I started posting online after 9/11 as I wanted to talk to real Americans, I’d studied US history and culture in an academic way but wanted to delve deeper but what I soon discovered was that someone with my type of left wing views was seemingly not welcome in virtually every forum I went into and got banned or hounded out of many of them before finding a home at Hipforums. In those other forums there was no willingness to debate or even accept a leftie to speak.

For me it’s not about knowing what American right wingers believe you can get that by just watching Fox but why they believe them – what is the reasoning behind the belief – the best way of doing that is through honest debate. And over the last 19 odd years I’ve been trying to make this a place where political debate is possible and that has been hard because there are many who don’t want debate, I get the impression some even fear debate because it has a tendency to show up how weak there arguments are.

 

newbie

But without debate and questioning how do they know if their views are right or wrong?

I don’t think many people say ‘My views are all wrong but I still have them’ most people think what they believe is correct and any rational person would change or adapt their viewpoint in accordance with new knowledge, insight or evidence.

And one of the best ways of gaining knowledge and insight is through honest and open debate, where ideas that cannot be defended are shown to be deficient.

And that deficiency should be noted because in politics holding views that do not stand up to rational scrutiny can be detrimental to a society even dangerous.

 

Newbie

LOL first we would have to define what is meant by left and right and I think billions of words have been written on that. I will try and be brief

To understand by viewpoint I will say first of all that I’d describe myself as a Democratic socialist with strong Keynesian and green leans

*

To me in basic terms the economic model been followed mainly in the UK and US for the last 30-40 odd years is to one degree or another neoliberal capitalism.

And since 1950 and in the UK the right wing Conservative Party have been the dominant political force in Britain and many on the left see Blair’s New Labour as basically Tory light so even that period of governance was right leaning. Also the media in the UK is very right centric.

As to the US you basically have two right leaning political groups one centre right the other further right there are factions within the Democratic Party that are leftish but as an entity it is right facing. And US media is dominated by wealthy individuals who are not calling for a socialist revolution.

There are ‘left’ leaning aspect in both countries but they are far from socialist and on the whole right wing views dominate.

Basically wealth talks it might not have the best arguments but it can certainly buy itself a lot of voices to get its message across.

Do you see things differently if so way?

 

In April, Trump's organization raised $16 million. In April, Biden's organization raised $43 million.

 

From one wacko to another.

 

Must be the guy who is tired of making trump's MAGA hats.

 

This 2020 presidential forecast says Trump faces historic defeat due to terrible economy

President Donald Trump could suffer a historic defeat in the fall if the economy doesn’t sharply recover from the coronavirus pandemic and the disease lingers, according to a model that has predicted the winner of the popular vote in 16 of the past 18 elections.

Oxford Economics predicts Trump would lose to Democrat Joe Biden by a margin of 65% to 35%, using a model based on the pioneering political-forecasting work of Yale economist Ray Fair.

How bad is that? William Howard Taft was the last president running for reelection to win fewer than 35% of the vote, when he finished third in 1912 behind Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt.

 

That would be the same model that got 2016 wrong would it?