The General US Politics Thread

@Wildcard

My line of thinking is a place like Reuter notices how Saudi Arabia keeps getting made head of the Humans Rights Council while kicking out Russia, and you wonder what's the point of being a part of the organization that is said to focus on human rights with people who are worse than Donald Trump on all the issues people criticize him for.

The Muslim ban was struck down by the courts, and even if he whines about not getting his way it 's not going to happen.

https://www.rt.com/news/364584-russia-saudi-unhrc-election/

One question in particular is why the UN has condemned Donald for his ban, but never the EU for their's on migrants from Africa.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/26/europe-crackdown-africa-immigration-vulnerable-refugees-sudan-eritrea

edited 5th Jun '17 9:29:23 AM by firewriter

That's not really what I'm talking about.

I'm saying it isn't likely that there are 100 million Trump cult followers running around.

Remember that the majority of people who voted for Trump weren't pro-Trump, they were anti-Hillary.

I'm sure Russia would so terrific work on the Human Rights council what with their satellite states putting gay people in camps. That seems like a recipe for success.

From a couple of pages back, but still, nope. When a lot of those same people blaming her for losing are often the same people who staunchly refused to vote for her out of "principles" they don't have the right to complain about how she "let them down". There are a lot of reasons this happened, and while there were certainly errors with her campaign, that's true of every campaign. In the end, elections always come down to the voters (well, free elections, but you know what I mean).

edited 5th Jun '17 9:34:47 AM by LSBK

As if the Saudi Arabian government or China are any better, we just switch around jerks.

edited 5th Jun '17 9:38:21 AM by firewriter

You've got a number of facts wrong here so let me go though them.

• Saudi Arabia is not head of the Human Rights Council, it has often been a member due to being part of (in fact a leading member of) a very small group fo which one must be a member (the Middle East section of the Asia group).
• Russia has not been kicked off the human rights council (its not on currently but that's because its term ended)
• The reason the UN human rights council has members with bad human rights records is because the members are elected based not on their human rights record but on their popularity with other countries in their group. That's why the US is a member. If you want better members for the council then you need to help countries with good human rights records gain power and popularity.

Because the EU hasn't issued a ban on refugees from Africa.

edited 5th Jun '17 9:42:23 AM by Silasw

Agreed, pinning the blame on Clinton alone erases the voters' responsibilites. Apart from the obvious, the people I blame the most are the ones who pride themselves in being 'neutral', as in "I'm utterly uninformed, but acting like both parties are as bad seems very smart to me."

I think for most part, the democrats simply had a hard time believing that people could actually be ignorant enough to vote Trump into office. I can't blame them for it, since I was guilty of the same thing, but a political party shouldn't underestimate any opponent no matter how much of a buffoon they are. The stakes are too high.

Basically what Silsaw said, and lets face it, a lot of the people who are all "yay Human Rights Council is going away" are totally hoping for all those things. Take a look at r_thedonald sometime and realize that a lot of Donald Trump voters want that and or don't care if that happens.

Edit: You do bring up a good point though firewater Nikki Haley shouldn't escape criticism of this.

edited 5th Jun '17 9:53:53 AM by Wildcard

@Wildcard

If you think in terms of types of Donald Trump voters (not all of them are supporters), groups of them actually would have more justified reasons to really think that the Human Rights Council is more like a Paper Tiger with no strength.

Actually I wasn't critical of her, but I am saying there are reasons besides the rather strawman ones put out.

edited 5th Jun '17 9:58:04 AM by firewriter

I agree with the general sentiment that if Trump wants to do this, it's not because of any actually good intentions, but I also get firewriter's point about Wildcard's strawmans.

edited 5th Jun '17 9:59:04 AM by LSBK

@firewater: True, and yet despite that. They voted for a man who had the cornerstone of his campagin built on "build a wall to stop most Mexicans", (yeah he said illegal immegrations yet he also made the "some are good people" comment) and we need to ban a religion from our country. Proving that a huge number just don't care and as we've seen a huge number of them also as hateful as we accuse them of being.

No I'm not going to give a huge number of them the benefit of the doubt or expect the default Trump voter to care about Trump's economic policy and assume they actually voted for his social issues. When they didn't care about the president feeding off racism and hatred as his campaign I have shown they either don't care or are in support..

Not really a strawman. Have you ever lived in a town with a bunch of Trump supporters?

edited 5th Jun '17 10:04:49 AM by Wildcard

I was talking to a Trump supporter, they seem to have this idea that the UN is horribly corrupt.

I think it could be improved a lot, but still think the UN is a step in the right direction. It was created to give the nations of the world a forum to discuss issues and solutions.

edited 5th Jun '17 10:06:58 AM by megaeliz

That's actually been a conservative talking point for years. I don't believe it's going to usher in a world government as some end timers believe due to how incompetent they are, but it can often times feel that they don't really live up to their supposed mission.

Has WWIII happened yet? No? Then so far, they are accomplishing their main goal.

It's a strawman in the way of your blanket painting, not in the way of assuming those people exists and are a problem.

edited 5th Jun '17 10:06:47 AM by LSBK

It's not meant to have any strength, people keep mistakenly assuming that the UN is some kind of international government, it's not, it's just a big old town hall where everyone gathers to yell at each other and throw think veiled insults. The reason for its existence is so that the yelling happens in a controlled environment and the town doesn't get into a cross-town brawl.

X3 The mission of the UN is to give countries a place to yell at each other and argue, its primary goal is to enable the yelling and arguing so as to prevent a world war.

It's been a great success so far.

edited 5th Jun '17 10:07:24 AM by Silasw

@ M84

I call that Damned by Faint Praise. In fact, even Left Wing people are getting more critical of the UN. I am also surprised that the sex abuse scandals of UN workers haven't been a bigger issue.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/05/23/chinas-rights-abuses-infect-un

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/ap-investigation-5-things-to-know-about-un-sex-abuse/2017/05/27/a3085af6-429b-11e7-b29f-f40ffced2ddb_story.html?utm_term=.c3a64d907e38

"I call that Damned by Faint Praise. In fact, even Left Wing people are getting more critical of the UN. I am also surprised that the sex abuse scandals of UN workers haven't been a bigger issue."

Oh my god, stop spouting such bullshit. Being a forum that has thus far succeeded in its most fundamental aim of preventing another world war from breaking out is not, nor ever will be faint praise!

Also UN workers and UN peacekeepers are not the same thing. Now the issue with the UN not properly vetting peacekeepers that are sent to it is a serious one, but peacekeepers are UN workers go though very different recruitment processes.

"I'm not Pro-Trump, I'm Anti-Hillary" is and has always been a responsibility-shirking scapegoat. There were plenty of options in the election that weren't Hillary. Those people could have voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. They could have wrote in "Bernie Sanders". They could have chosen to abstain from voting in protest like many Democrats did.

Instead, they went to the voting box and cast a ballot that said, "Yes, out of all available options, I believe Donald Trump is the candidate who most reflects my values and will lead America towards the future I want to achieve." Identifying as Anti-Hillary is just a cheap way of blame-shifting. "It's not my fault that I put a hateful bigot into office. It's your fault for making me vote for him!"

More gerrymandering cases

I mean, to an extent I agree, but at the same time you can't deny that if it were anyone else besides her there a fair number of people who either would have voted for the Democrat or just not voted.

Now, whether the hatred of Hilary is justified or even rational by the facts, mostly no, but as we've been over repeatedly the media and Republican spin is garbage.

And, no, this isn't say that people who voted for Trump, it's just that actually attempting to understand stupid reasoning isn't the same thing as excusing it.

edited 5th Jun '17 10:27:55 AM by LSBK

As someone who voted for Gary Johnson in protest of thinking both candidates were unfavorable, I really wished for someone other than Hilary and actually was interested in Bernie had won the nomination instead of her.

I have never watched House of Cards, but how the hell are they supposed to keep up with reality? No wonder that the current season is supposed to be the last.....

Also, no, the EU cracking down on so called asylum seekers and/or refugees from Africa is NOT like the travel ban, like, at all. The rules to what is considered a refugee or someone who can seek asylum are very specific, and just coming from a poor country with corrupt government is not enough. The EU didn't crack down on Asylum seekers from certain countries because they from Africa, but because they were misusing a system created for those who really have nowhere to go and not for those who simply want to live in a country they perceived as "better". Before the EU focussed on those states, they did the same to Asylum seekers from the Kosovo, and pretty much for the same reason, even though most of those were nice, white Christians. Except that in this case an extra element of danger is part of the deal, since the smuggler, who are largely responsible for even people who have a secure existence risking their life to get to Europe, are taking the last bit of money from those people and then send them out in insecure boats or sell them into slavery. Not to mention that certain countries also refuse to take their own citizens back, especially if they have already a criminal record. This is nothing like the US refugee resettlement system, where every arrival has been looked into in detail and it has already been established that the person in question does have a right for asylum. To say that the EU making an effort to ensure that the asylum and refugee system is not misused as an easy way for immigration is nothing like the travel ban.

edited 5th Jun '17 10:38:46 AM by Swanpride

I mean with a braintrust like this I just can't find it in my heart to condemn protest voters for the Creature From the Brown Lagoon.