Quantcast
Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Election: Democratic Party Discussion

Moren said:

Done with this thread.

I'll say one more thing: I love how people here were quick to embrace a far-right bigot with a *ton* of verifiable history only because he showed sudden support for Bernie and has strong anti-establishment feelings.

And no, it's not Joe Rogan.

Do you talk about Tucker Carlson? Who is embracing him?

And what do you make about the media propping up quickly ultra-far-right John Bolton, after the possibility arised he might have dirt on Trump (then in reality he only wants to sell his book).

Last edited by Mnementh - on 28 January 2020

3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Around the Network

I think this is a pretty good analysis of the whole Joe Rogan situation: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/1/27/21081876/joe-rogan-bernie-sanders-henry-kissinger

EDIT: I probably should state where I stand. Interestingly enough, I am mostly a consequentialist. But there are red lines for me. But they are differently than the one described in the article. I am very deeply against killing. And that actually makes war and support for war a non-excusable fault for me, so I think Kissinger and Powell are much much worse than Joe Rogan, but not only from a consequentialist view, but also from a deontologist view. But that makes my rigid rules different than what was laid out in the article.

Last edited by Mnementh - on 28 January 2020

3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Moren said:
LurkerJ said:

More liberals need to speak about issues they deeply believe in, because otherwise, the narrative is controlled by hippies. How the media constantly vilifies certain positions also doesn't help. There are a lot of uncomfortable truths surrounding transgenders, immigration and Islam, and simply pointing out those truths get people riled up, let alone discussing them.

Want to expand on this?

It's fine for liberals to be anti immigration, and to be against providing citizenship to those who made it illegally to the US, the same goes for birth tourism which has become a joke. The way issues are handled now: Trump is anti-immigration = having a similar opinion makes you a person with questionable views. Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren goes on national TV expressing her intent to allow students from overseas who over stay their VISAS and become citizens and no eye brows are raised, because it's the opposite of what Trumps believes in so that somehow makes it ok. 

Someone cares to explain why Tucker is considered a far right bigot?

Quick reminders that both Obama, Bush, Hillary were all against gay marriage because it was the position that would net you the the most votes, until it wasn't. How the Rogan endorsement is generating so much discussion is beyond me. The point of running a presidential campaign is to convince most of the voters from both sides of the aisle why you would be a good president, Rogan is convinced = mission accomplished. I guess Bernie should learn from Hillary and preach that most of those who support Trump are deplorables, that would please the twitter crowd. 

Last edited by LurkerJ - on 28 January 2020

Mnementh said:

I think this is a pretty good analysis of the whole Joe Rogan situation: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/1/27/21081876/joe-rogan-bernie-sanders-henry-kissinger

EDIT: I probably should state where I stand. Interestingly enough, I am mostly a consequentialist. But there are red lines for me. But they are differently than the one described in the article. I am very deeply against killing. And that actually makes war and support for war a non-excusable fault for me, so I think Kissinger and Powell are much much worse than Joe Rogan, but not only from a consequentialist view, but also from a deontologist view. But that makes my rigid rules different than what was laid out in the article.

Few bits from the articles that make my eyes roll:

"Rogan has made his show a safe space for anti-Muslim bigotry as well. Islamophobia, like transphobia, has a history of being more tolerated in mainstream media outlets than other forms of bigotry, and the backlash against Rogan reflects frustration over that double standard as well."

So is Christianophobia but no one cares about that. Being Islamophobic, Christianophobic & religionphobic is not only reasonable, but necessary. After all, those religions have contributed heavily to the oppression of LGBT community throughout history & every where in the world. You should never be muslim-phobic, christian-phobic though, there is a big difference between the two.

Sick of the left taking the side of a religion that are composed of set of abhorrent believes just because there is a minority in the US that hold those value dearly. The left should stand for progressive values, not with a religion that goes completely against them just to please minorities. The mainstream believes among the majority of Muslims are far more dangerous than whatever Jo Ro ever said. 

The author seems to have accepted the fact that Rogan is a bigot and it discusses where to go from there, which is a shame, but it's Vox so my expectations were low to begin with.  



LurkerJ said:
Mnementh said:

I think this is a pretty good analysis of the whole Joe Rogan situation: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/1/27/21081876/joe-rogan-bernie-sanders-henry-kissinger

EDIT: I probably should state where I stand. Interestingly enough, I am mostly a consequentialist. But there are red lines for me. But they are differently than the one described in the article. I am very deeply against killing. And that actually makes war and support for war a non-excusable fault for me, so I think Kissinger and Powell are much much worse than Joe Rogan, but not only from a consequentialist view, but also from a deontologist view. But that makes my rigid rules different than what was laid out in the article.

Few bits from the articles that make my eyes roll:

"Rogan has made his show a safe space for anti-Muslim bigotry as well. Islamophobia, like transphobia, has a history of being more tolerated in mainstream media outlets than other forms of bigotry, and the backlash against Rogan reflects frustration over that double standard as well."

So is Christianophobia but no one cares about that. Being Islamophobic, Christianophobic & religionphobic is not only reasonable, but necessary. After all, those religions have contributed heavily to the oppression of LGBT community throughout history & every where in the world. You should never be muslim-phobic, christian-phobic though, there is a big difference between the two.

Sick of the left taking the side of a religion that are composed of set of abhorrent believes just because there is a minority in the US that hold those value dearly. The left should stand for progressive values, not with a religion that goes completely against them just to please minorities. The mainstream believes among the majority of Muslims are far more dangerous than whatever Jo Ro ever said. 

The author seems to have accepted the fact that Rogan is a bigot and it discusses where to go from there, which is a shame, but it's Vox so my expectations were low to begin with.  

Fear is a strong feeling, and as all strong feelings it turns off rational thinking. Therefore fear is very bad for basing political decisions on. But we can't ignore the fears either, because strong feelings while detrimental to rational thinking are still real and existant. We should therefore reduce the fears and reintroduce thinking rational about the issues. Most christians and most muslims are fine, and I say that as an atheist. Some of the messages in the religious texts are harmful, but over the centuries people got used to ignoring stuff in their religious texts or reinterpret it. Still, there are a few christian fundamentalists and islamic fundamentalists, that are damaging or endagering society (Westboro Baptist Church for instance). We shouldn't ignore these real dangers, but also shouldn't vilify everyone in these religious groups.

I want also add, that as fear is a strong emotion, it is despicable to use said fear for political gain. Fearmongering is used among the left and the right, and in both cases it is hurtful for all.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Around the Network
LurkerJ said:
Mnementh said:

I think this is a pretty good analysis of the whole Joe Rogan situation: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/1/27/21081876/joe-rogan-bernie-sanders-henry-kissinger

EDIT: I probably should state where I stand. Interestingly enough, I am mostly a consequentialist. But there are red lines for me. But they are differently than the one described in the article. I am very deeply against killing. And that actually makes war and support for war a non-excusable fault for me, so I think Kissinger and Powell are much much worse than Joe Rogan, but not only from a consequentialist view, but also from a deontologist view. But that makes my rigid rules different than what was laid out in the article.

Few bits from the articles that make my eyes roll:

"Rogan has made his show a safe space for anti-Muslim bigotry as well. Islamophobia, like transphobia, has a history of being more tolerated in mainstream media outlets than other forms of bigotry, and the backlash against Rogan reflects frustration over that double standard as well."

So is Christianophobia but no one cares about that. Being Islamophobic, Christianophobic & religionphobic is not only reasonable, but necessary. After all, those religions have contributed heavily to the oppression of LGBT community throughout history & every where in the world. You should never be muslim-phobic, christian-phobic though, there is a big difference between the two.

Sick of the left taking the side of a religion that are composed of set of abhorrent believes just because there is a minority in the US that hold those value dearly. The left should stand for progressive values, not with a religion that goes completely against them just to please minorities. The mainstream believes among the majority of Muslims are far more dangerous than whatever Jo Ro ever said. 

The author seems to have accepted the fact that Rogan is a bigot and it discusses where to go from there, which is a shame, but it's Vox so my expectations were low to begin with.  

Even though we are way less likely to be religious or affiliated with an organized religion than non-queer people, a majority of the queer community are either religious or spiritual (believe in a creator/creators.) I myself being religious as well.

Religious thought changes over time to reflect the society in which their followers live. What was once unacceptable in a religious doctrine/teaching could become acceptable and vice versa when society changes and the followers interpret it differently from before. For Catholicism, that's what the Reformation essentially was.

On the whole, religion isn't bad but when taken to the extreme and without humane rational thinking it can become incredibly dangerous.



 

Moren said:
tsogud said:

Don't tell me what to do

Then keep being yourself so Bernie gains a lot of sympathy.

Really makes me wonder if after Bernie wins the primary Republicans will be the enemy for once, or progressives will keep denouncing Biden, Warren, Hillary, the DNC, the media up until election day.

Issue is, these people are little different than GOP at the end of the day, at least the establishment GOP which includes most aside from maybe Rand Paul and a few others.

Also, Bernie has to get past these people before he gets a shot at the GOP and Trump, which, in all honestly I give him far less of a chance of pulling off, ironically. Media collusion and Superdelegates and such... That's why they need to be the main focus, FOR NOW. 

He didn't overcome it in 2016, despite HRC being quite unpopular by a great many, and I still contend that if he did, he would at least have been more likely to beat Trump, b/c Trump's ace in the hole over Clinton was the Rust Belt/most of the Midwest (minus my hometown of Chicago) but Bernie also had this region, to as strong a degree or greater than 45. 

Additionally, Bernie calls out Trump on a regular basic on his social media so not too sure where you're goin with that..



Have you people done the new and improved WaPo quiz of which candidate agrees the most with you?

Apparently, I'm a Steyer boy, followed by Patrick and Klobuchar. On the other hand, Yang, Gabbard and Sanders are last, though I agree at least on half the answers with all candidates except Yang.

Link for the interested - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/



 

 

 

 

 

haxxiy said:

Have you people done the new and improved WaPo quiz of which candidate agrees the most with you?

Apparently, I'm a Steyer boy, followed by Patrick and Klobuchar. On the other hand, Yang, Gabbard and Sanders are last, though I agree at least on half the answers with all candidates except Yang.

Link for the interested - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/

Nice link. For me it's Bernie and Liz (with 17 and 15 points respectively) followed by Yang, Gabbard and Steyer all with 8 points. Biden and Bloomberg are dead last.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

haxxiy said:

Have you people done the new and improved WaPo quiz of which candidate agrees the most with you?

Apparently, I'm a Steyer boy, followed by Patrick and Klobuchar. On the other hand, Yang, Gabbard and Sanders are last, though I agree at least on half the answers with all candidates except Yang.

Link for the interested - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/quiz-which-candidate-agrees-with-me/

Oh, how fun! For me, the top three spots are Sanders (18), Warren (12), and Gabbard/Steyer tied (8). Biden, Bloomberg and Klobuchar are last with 3 each.