Would you unfriend or blacklist someone over politics?

When they could of had Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee?!

They must have been mad!

 

Sauce for the goose. The GOP tossed in the towel with them as well. Romney was MIA the week before the election (much like Hillary, oddly enough) and Huckabee never had a chance. Hillary didn't have a chance either, Obama beat her with the race card. She was clearly more qualified than Obama.

 

Bad guess. With the resignation of Nikki Haley as U.N. Ambassador, the number of women in Trump's cabinet is down to 5, and one of those, Kirsten Nielson, is under attack. That means that currently women make up only 22% of Trump's cabinet, compared with 24% for G.W. and 30% for Obama. How does Trump's first cabinet compare to other president's? As far as executive branch appointments in general are concerned, Trump has appointed twice as many men as women, Trump has named twice as many men as women. The Very Male Trump Administration - The Atlantic Roughly one in three Trump appointees is female, as in the George W. Bush administration, whereas Obama and Bill Clinton granted roughly two in five positions to women.The Very Male Trump Administration - The Atlantic As for the judiciary, Trump has appointed a larger share of female judges than past GOP presidents, but still lags Obama.

 

These stats linked from a CNN website seem to suggest I was correct in my guess, unless I'm not reading it accurately or thrown off by the confirmed appointees part.

 

Your stat on the Trump cabinet may count Nikki Haley who recently resigned. Trump might replace her with a woman, which would bump the percentage up to 26% again. It can accurately be said that Trump has appointed more women to his cabinet than Bush did--26% compared with 24%. But there currently aren't more women:22%.

 

Is there any President in the history of the U.S., or head of government of any country in history for that matter, that you not think is a slimy criminal or scoundrel? Real world choices are always between flawed beings and cynicism can easily become a cop out from the task of exercising informed judgments.

 

So yah, regardless of if the stats account for her resignation or not, if one is ok with Bush's administration in regards to women, let's not act like Trump is some tyrant oppressor of women.

 

That is a very good question. And difficult to answer. Since I don't know about all of the presidents really, I can't assess which were assholes and which actually did the job without causing strife. And it's made more difficult by the folklore; Washington couldn't lie, Honest Abe etc.

But of the recent presidents, I can summarize what I saw. I saw Carter hamstrung by Iran over hostages. While this was happening Ross Perot flew to Iran with a sack of cash and bribed the Iranians into keeping the hostages out of the Iranian prisons while Jimmy sat on his thumb and turned his thermostat down so he could legitimately wear a cardigan. This and other failings made it too easy for Reagan to keep him from a second term.

Reagan came in talking tough, but when the Marine barracks in Beirut were blown up by a truck bomb, killing hundreds of Americans servicemen, Reagan pulled out of Lebanon entirely. To go off and invade a little Caribbean island. He also did fuck-all about the USS Stark being hit by an Iraqi Exocet missile (Saddam was a problem for quite a while). After Reagan came Bush 1, a lackluster president who made bold promises no president should make (and yet, we have Trump doing it too). Bush 1 made it easy for Clinton to wipe the floor with him while he was looking at his watch.

After making Bush 1 a single-term president, as if revenge for Carter, Clinton took office amid scandals that went back to his time as governor. But the real reason I don't care for Clinton is because he escalated the war on drugs. And this was after bullshitting the youth of America for their vote by talking positively about marijuana and playing his sax on Arsenio Hall. That's classic back stabbing. Bush 2 took office surrounded by voting irregularities where his brother was governor. He then shut down all the bribe money going to the middle east that Clinton had carefully crafted to keep us from being attacked. A matter of months later we got 9/11 which seemed to give GW a blank check to ship military hardware and personnel to Iraq and Afghanistan, on a hunch.

Bush 2, like his father, was all about pushing military solutions to problems because neither had any real diplomatic skills. It was humorous how many times the press pointed out how GW referred to "nuke-ya-ler" power plants. Bush 2 made it all about getting the guy who put Daddy Bush 1 on a hit list. So it's no wonder a democrat took the top seat after Bush 2. However, Hillary was far more qualified than Obama, it was literally her "turn" to be president.

But, NOPE, Obama made fools of the Clintons by invoking the amazing race card (in fairness, he directed it at all of his white opponents and critics, but it was still a brutal slap-down for Bill and Hillarity). Obama was in over his head from day 1. Thankfully he pulled in a fairly competent cabinet that freed him up to campaign. And Obama campaigned a LOT while he was president. But his economic solutions were authored by conflicting members of his staff. I personally didn't care for the Obama apology tour, but the fact he did nothing about the war on drugs or prison reform really had me scratching my head. In the end all he did about the war on drugs was pardon a bunch of drug dealers.

As for other world leaders, I don't keep track much. However, I do take exception to the ones who bag on the US today, decades after the Americans bailed their asses out of the Nazi nightmare. Where's the gratitude? I also think they are creating a problem for themselves when they take in "refugees" and then warehouse them in what are essentially ghettos. I personally think that when you immigrate to a new nation, you assimilate. When in Rome, so to speak. What's the use in going to a new country only to reject its culture and remain segregated?

 

I'm not really okay with the Republican record of appointments of women. And giving positions to women isn't really the reason people have trouble with Trump's treatment of women. The Access Hollywood tape, the use of terms like 'fat pigs,' 'dogs,' 'slobs,' and 'disgusting animals,' do suggest a certain disrespect for the ladies.

 

Panic

Sorry but wow what a warped, simplistic and ill-informed view of US history oh and this been a particularly American view of history it is chauvinist and has an emphasis on drugs and conspiracy theory.

I mean you begin by saying “it's made more difficult by the folklore; Washington couldn't lie, Honest Abe etc” only then to do exactly that.

It reminds me of one of those kids cartoon books about British history, Alfred burnt the cakes, Henry VIII had six wives and Victoria was a small fat biddy who was never amused.

Carter wore cardigans, Reagan talked tough, George H.W. Bush was lacklustre and Clinton played the sax, for George W. Bush it was all about his dad and Obama played the race card. Oh and the people of the world should be unquestionably grateful to the US for all the good things it has done for it.

This is fine but it not the best base on which to build a rational political viewpoint.

It is something I have commented on a lot here many Americans talk of individual Presidents rather than their administrations and the policies been followed at the time by particular political factions and groupings.

Yes the personality of an individual can count but there are other influences and circumstances that play a role.

Take for example the role of anti-communism on US foreign policy that played a major part in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East, far right groups in other places and arguably lead ultimately to the refugee crisis happening in Europe. And as to the ‘war on drugs’ the problem was that it was a popular policy in the US up until relatively recently, especially in many right wing quarters and remember it had a racial dimension to it.

 

Not nearly a fraction of as much as the Trumpster, who does nothing else--except play golf.

You may not have noticed that Obama had to contend with a Congress that tried to block practically every move he made and challenged his use of executive orders. But to say he "did nothing" about the war on drugs isn't "fact".
How Obama quietly reshaped America’s war on drugs
Focusing On Prevention And Neuroscience, President Ends Reagan’s War On Drugs
Trump and Sessions’s quiet success: reinvigorating the federal war on drugs
President Obama supported several successful policy changes – such as reducing the crack/powder sentencing disparity, ending the ban on federal funding for syringe access programs, and ending federal interference with state medical marijuana laws. Funny you should focus on his inadequacies while not mentioning the Republican administrations that invented the drug war in the first place and the current administration that seems to be refueling it.

 

from "Social Problems: Continuity and Change". Writer here is some info on the war on drugs from my old trusty Sociology textbook.

 

Good points. legalize drugs, reduce prison population and spend the money on rehabilitation.

 

Surely you know the history behind the crack/powder issue. It was black leaders and clergy who asked for this. They saw their communities being destroyed by crack and the gang shit that surrounds it. They lobbied for this change in the law back in the 80s. They begged for it.

Now all of that seems to be forgotten and the conclusion being bounced around today is that this crack/powder disparity is firmly a race issue. When it never was. This is the problem we face as issues go into decades. The crack/powder issue should have been grandfathered out of existence. But laws in the S tend to stay on the books for a long time. It was only recently that Georgia rescinded the law against homosexuality. Other states still have laws requiring a red flag on the front of an automobile to warn horse-drawn vehicles.

 

Here's list of the banned controversial conservatives on Twitter:

Laura Loomer
Gavin McInnes
Milo Yiannopoulos
Alex Jones
Owen Benjamin
Thomas Wictor
Roger Stone
Martin Shkreli
Julian Assange
Chuck Johnson
Tommy Robinson
And more....


Now bring me a list of controversial left-tards that've been permanently banned from Twitter. I'll wait.

Meanwhile well known leftists can get away with hateful things like this, and not even get a temporary suspension:

Proof?

I've asked your disciples to provide me any concrete evidence that he literally instructed his subscribers to harass the families of Sandy Hook in a different thread. They couldn't do it. Maybe you can.

Meanwhile, Youtube promotes the crap out of The Young Turks. I keep seeing TYT in my "recommended" list, even though I have no interest in watching them. Nevertheless Cenk Ugyr is a nutter who still denies the Armenian Genocide, which was much much worse than any school shooting. The reason TYT gets free publicity is because they have the correct politics according to the status quo.

I've had to re-subscribe to Youtube channels of independent journalists and controversial figures I follow, because Youtube decided to go in and forcefully unsubscribe me from their channels. The same thing goes on with Twitter. Try following some people who are unpopular to common-everyday NPC politics and you'll see what I mean.

 

I agree with this, but does this mean denounce anti-white racism too? Because it seems to be a popular thing amongst the left these days. Racism is not a one-way street.

What if the people of the other culture, refuses to accept our culture? We see this in "multi-cultural" societies where people naturally segregate themselves from others.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. In order to help the concerns and needs of others, an individual must get his/her life together and in order first. If you don't help yourself and your own needs, you will fall behind and struggle hard.

I don't dislike you as a person, SoulCompromise. But I like to be here on a predominantly socialist board to see the viewpoints of my ideological opponents, and share my insights. You know that I don't stick around on the political forum alone; there's lots of other subforums I like to visit and hang out with a good group of people. The reason I started this thread, is to shine a light on the fact that even though some people have politics we don't agree with, that doesn't mean we cannot find common ground on something else. Friends come and go. Family is forever. Therefore I think it's wrong to alienate a family member based on their bad voting decisions. My handle is 8 years old and I've become a regular because I like coming here. Sure I admit I can be a bit brash and somewhat of a troublemaker from time to time. Contrarians keep this place interesting.

How often are you exposed to contrary opinions? You just said that right leaning perspectives rub you the wrong way.

What are you trying to ask?

Just because someone doesn't accept all the ideas you preach, that doesn't mean they embody hate. It's sort of a strawman argument to paint everyone you disagree with as a hater or a bigot.

 

Your Bob analogy didn't work the first time you said it, so why the hell would it work again this time?

But then again, you've been programmed to repeat the same lousy analogies and arguments again and again.

So it's a terrible thing to censor and deny people their freedom of speech as long as you agree with them? But not when they are people like me with the incorrect opinion?


Things that make you go Hmmmmmm

 

"That wasn't real socialism, because it wasn't MUH SOCIALISM!"

 

I don't think I'm racist to be honest. There is a dominant ethnicity. There is a problem. These are the things we should be saying. Not bowing to some sort of backward weird sociopath desire to uphold the status quo. You seem to have problems with all terminology that places the white majority on the spot. I think that there is something important being said with terms like "whiteness" or "white privilege" or "black lives matter". We don't agree. Don't think I'm misunderstanding the issue that you have pointed out, by the way I do understand what you are insinuating about racism coming from the other side. I feel that is wrong as well, but that doesn't mean "white privilege" goes out the window. It's still as real as the earth going around the sun.

This is harder to talk about because I often struggle with people of other cultures in my life particularly in suburban areas where I was raised and the status quo is by and large white. It feels like other cultures are out of place sometimes and I stop myself... remind myself that they have every right to be an American citizen just like me. It's really hard to accept that some cultures are different. When the other culture is seeming to refuse, I often take it to mean that they just aren't ready yet. Perhaps money is tight and they cling to something that's easier for them to understand... That's one thing. Another is when they practice a religion that I'm not familiar with. Today, for example, I saw a guy walking down the suburban/urban but far from metropolitan sidewalk wearing a turban (black) next to another guy with his head wrap (orange) tied like a bandanna. Being of the era that was of age when 9/11 happened, I have a negative/fear reaction upon seeing them. I don't think everyone of my generation feels that way. Many people are very open to middle eastern cultures. And I had to remind myself that there's nothing wrong with a man wearing a turban. Or an orange headwrap as a bandanna.

so I guess I would say they're not really refusing. there's no requirement that they conform. They'll just be different. I don't think that makes them outcasts. And if they don't know any better, so be it. I'd say we should take the responsibility upon ourselves to have cultural relativism and try to embrace and eventually promote multiculturalism.