The General US Politics Thread

Yeah that's a fucking terrible thing to do, from an ethical standpoint. Also if anything it would only widen the social divide and make it so there really are two separate Americas.

edited 12th Nov '16 11:33:30 PM by AlleyOop

Internal protectionism? That's such a bad idea I don't even know where to begin.

I would like to see some feasibility studies done for alternative energy industries in the Midwest/Appalachia and stuff. The biggest question would be, how many jobs would those create, and would it be cost-effective to build stations like that out there?

So bullying people because they made a decision you dislike is somehow anywhere near a good idea?

No dice. Now, I agreed with the idea of taxing the rich more, but only because they make overall more and can afford to do so, which having enough money to live comfortably. It also means less can be taxed on the far poorer so they have enough money to live decently(not necessarily have enough money for all the fun stuff they want, but that's not as important as basic living like bills, a house, food...). Keeping it proportionate to the money you make is fair for everyone as well, since it's based upon equality.

I don't see how trying to divide the nation does anything remotely good at all. But then again, when the hell does bullying people ever do anything worthwhile?

edited 12th Nov '16 11:41:33 PM by Irene

Well, you and most other people here don't like it either due to your upside-down flags, not to mention it would teach a lesson to other right-wing parties in other Western countries.

edited 12th Nov '16 11:44:03 PM by Bat178

I mean, a large part of the reason these regions voted for Trump is because the "liberal elite" is apparently trying to tell them what to do, right?

Because cutting off food exports to bully them into voting the way you want is pretty fucking elite.

Seriously, all this would do is create more resentment. They'd double down on their positions, and you might even lose the support of moderates and quite possibly some liberals who would get caught in the crossfire.

edited 12th Nov '16 11:51:21 PM by KarkatTheDalek

Not liking the decision isn't the same as advocating that people should suffer for the decision they made.

You know well that's a horrible example.

[Mod edit: Removing reference to thumped post]

You're like a walking advertisement for the right wing. Are you even American?

edited 13th Nov '16 5:09:13 AM by Berrenta

The vast majority of these states have said "we like religious fundamentalism, fascism and white supremacy". What I have seen in this election is that these people want to drag the rest of us into their idealized version of the 50s no matter where we live. I, and I believe many others, do not want the South and the Rust Belt foisting these outdated, insipid ideas on us.

Thus, we can show them what we can do, and make it clear - radiantly clear - we do not approve of them, nor will we support them in any way shape or form for their acts of destruction and self destruction.

I am. The right wing can splutter and bleat whatever it wants. I'm concerned with doing something against them and their assistants.

edited 12th Nov '16 11:50:53 PM by NickTheSwing

There's a difference between "oh, great, these folks just elected a guy who will probably pilot the country into the side of a cliff" and "oh, great, is there anything we can do to get them on our side that isn't a huge fucking stick"

The former can be done by itself pour encouragers les Front National électeurs, the second one is why us here are arguing against economic retribution, never mind that doing so is a pretty big violation of the spirit of the union.

edited 12th Nov '16 11:47:51 PM by Krieger22

They would see it as tyranny. And they would be right.

Aside of the fact that people have pointed out this is bullying people because they made a decision you didn't like, it's also probably not actually economically feasible. It is stupid on every level, and also cruel. Try a little harder to come up with plans that aren't horrible, ok?

I, for one, voted Hillary. I also live in Texas, one of the places you would negatively impact with this, despite being on what you consider the right side. My entire family lives here. So take that shit right out of here, please.

Actually you and a half dozen of these posters are totally new or infrequent posters to this thread. The rest of us regulars who were here before the election wouldn't pose this kind of crap question. Also, you appear to be ignoring the total disapproval this has met with the rest of us.

edited 12th Nov '16 11:58:43 PM by AceofSpades

"Probably". I'm going to find out for myself, one way or another, whether or not its economically feasible. If it truly isn't, I'll come up with another plan.

edited 12th Nov '16 11:57:34 PM by NickTheSwing

Again, that would legitimately start a second Civil War, and the states doing it would be the bad guys. That would be the unquestionable, irreversible end of the United States.

^It's not. Nothing about it is feasible in any sense, economically or morally.

edited 12th Nov '16 11:56:38 PM by RedSavant

Really? You are so dedicated to hurting people just because they're not on your side? That violates several codes of morality. If you think this is somehow excusable, this might not be the thread for you, Nick.

There are more moral ways to achieve your goals. And, again, feasible, since you'd have to convince literally the entirety of the Californian government and also somehow not get your state sued in court for discrimination, which this plan totally is. There are SO MANY BLOCKS TO THIS YOU HAVE NO IDEA.

edited 12th Nov '16 11:57:46 PM by AceofSpades

And just how do you plan to do that?

edited 12th Nov '16 11:58:33 PM by KarkatTheDalek

"#Dear Liberals" has taken off as one of the most popular tags on Twitter. It's basically become the Republican answer to #Not My President.

edited 13th Nov '16 12:05:46 AM by FluffyMcChicken

Admittedly, I do have Anti-Social Personality Disorder. I've no desire to pursue this, however, if it is economically unfeasible and ultimately will do harm to this state, the progress in this state being what I want to prevent from being abridged by the Social and Economic Conservatives.

If it will not work and has a risk of causing permanent damage, I am not about to force it through.

I have no moral objection to it - but rather, I am not about to go forward with a plan that will not work or which will backfire upon my face. I'm not about to repeat trickle-down economics' stupidity - if it does not work, it just does not work. Pragmatism before ideology.

edited 13th Nov '16 12:08:12 AM by NickTheSwing

The fact that you would suggest it suggests that your priorities are kind of fucked up. Revenge never helps anyone, especially not something this diffuse and ridiculou.

You really need to start thinking a lot more constructively if you want to get politically active. Because that's usually what organizations look for in their volunteers.

Anyway, back to something else... has anyone looked at the feasibility of clean-energy industries setting up in the Midwest/Appalachia/Rust Belt, both in terms of yield and in terms of jobs created? Replacing depleted fossil fuel jobs with other energy jobs may be just the first solution that comes to mind, but if it's workable, why not?

I do think #NotMyPresident gives off the wrong message of implying it's about being a sore loser. If their point is, he's not the kind of person who should've been allowed to run in the first place, or that they'll accept the results but not accept any hate resulting from it, then something else would've been better. Not that I would know what it is.

It's probably the suggestion I would favor the most, and there has been some trial attempts at it in Ohio and the like. If we could use crowdfunding, social awareness and the like to push renewable energy industries to start up in former coal regions that would be a great way to show rather than tell our point to them while also making an actual difference.

As someone who strongly believes in pragmatism before ideology what you're suggesting is almost Stupid Evil. It's the opposite of pragmatic. The real pragmatism would be finding a way to get those people on your side without alienating them, even if it's essentially by bribing them or telling them what they want to hear without knowing if you can follow up on that. Macchiavelli says it's better to be feared than loved if you have to pick one, but never to be hated. And what you suggest would encourage hate rather than fear.

edited 13th Nov '16 12:19:56 AM by AlleyOop

Speaking of the "Dear Liberals" issue, what are some of your arguments to people who try and discredit the protestors and "Not My President" types?

edited 13th Nov '16 12:10:15 AM by golgothasArisen

@Nick: I'm still perplexed as to where you would get the resources and influence to be this into motion, let alone how you would handle the inevitable backlash.

Sanders and his fellows would eviscerate you.

edited 13th Nov '16 12:13:40 AM by KarkatTheDalek

"#Not My Kind Of President"?

edited 13th Nov '16 12:11:40 AM by FluffyMcChicken