US US Politics General 2 - Discussion of President Trump and other politicians

​

Should be a wild four years.

Helpful links for those who need them:

Current members of the House of Representatives
https://www.house.gov/representatives

Current members of the Senate
https://www.senate.gov/senators/

Current members of the US Supreme Court
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx

Members of the Trump Administration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/

 

[Quiet Guy]

men, how do you feel about yourself not knowing if this place still has any men left?

Does this mean you're a woman?

 

[inetsone]

That's an embarrassing thing to say because it reveals that you think women are beyond complaint, which obviously isn't true, they're flawed human beings like everyone else. You're what's called a simp. But don't you think we should get on topic?

Bro, that's a funny thing for you to say because it reveals something different...

You're not use to women conforming to whatever you say. Because they don't listen to you. Because they don't respect you...which is why they don't give you pussy.

Like, my wife doesn't acktually like football. She knows it. I know it. She says the stupidest things about football and I mock her when she says them. But why would I ever complain about "women" let alone about how this woman wants to show me she's always on my side by annoying me when I just want to watch the game and get drunk???

 

[CaliforniaRaisin]

My grandmother hated women, my mother hates women, my wife hates women.
I come from a long line of women haters and I will not have you besmirch my heritage with falsities.

What about your brother's sister's cousin?

 

[inetsone]

My grandmother hated women, my mother hates women, my wife hates women.
I come from a long line of women haters and I will not have you besmirch my heritage with falsities.

Oh yes, well, that's fair. Women hate other women and bitch eternally about them. Which means if you're bitching about them...you're a woman. QEFUCKINGD.

 

[browserbowser]

Oh yes, well, that's fair. Women hate other women and bitch eternally about them. Which means if you're bitching about them...you're a woman. QEFUCKINGD.

No it means that women who bitch about men are clearly men who hate lesbians.

 

[The Last Stand]

Now the neat trick here if you're a batshit insane leftist is this doesn't just shrink the window. It actually makes fringe lefty beliefs -- "you can't be racist against white people" or "you can't arrest criminals if they're black because that's racist" -- slide into the window from the other side. It slides the window, it doesn't shrink it.

Social construct, that was the term I was looking for. Basically, the LGBTQ+ coalition exists within social constructs with an ideology that not everybody has to comply with evenly.

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

You can't have justice without the idea that there are "wrong" and "right" things to do, but that's ALL a social construct.

This is debatable. There are many philosophical "chicken or the egg" arguments about whether morality arises inherently with humans or as a result of socialization/evolution. It usually hinges on whether someone believes humans have souls or not.

 

[Local FloRida-man]

This is debatable. There are many philosophical "chicken or the egg" arguments about whether morality arises inherently with humans or as a result of socialization/evolution. It usually hinges on whether someone believes humans have souls or not.

If someone says morality springs from societal consensus, just ask them if they are giving up their right to judge societal consesuses on moral grounds. If they say no, then they're full of shit. If they say yes, then morality to them is just a synonym for opinion, and they can be ignored in any serious conversation on the topic.

 

[babyDunk]

>Come back to the thread

>Rape is a social construct and women should be banned from the site!

Huh?

Why in the world are you chuds arguing about whether rape is a social construct or not?

 

[inetsone]

If someone says morality springs from societal consensus, just ask them if they are giving up their right to judge societal consesuses on moral grounds. If they say no, then they're full of shit. If they say yes, then morality to them is just a synonym for opinion, and they can be ignored in any serious conversation on the topic.

Well yeah but that assumes morality must be objective to be meaningful. Consensus morality is descriptive tho, not prescriptive. I can judge a societal consensus because... obv I’m part of the ongoing dialogue shaping it and moving it forward. Rejecting absolutism doesn’t mean rejecting all standards. It's about anchoring them to shared human experience, not imaginary absolutes. Also, in this view, mortality proper is a tool for solving problems, not expressing opinion.

You mothers failed philosophy class didn't you?

 

[Honka Honka Burning Love]

Why in the world are you chuds arguing about whether rape is a social construct or not?

Because nothing ever happens so the chuds got bored.

 

[CarlKingofDucks]

>Come back to the thread

>Rape is a social construct and women should be banned from the site!

Huh?

Why in the world are you chuds arguing about whether rape is a social construct or not?

I think they cant help but get into the debate bro mindset.

 

[Hemlock Latte]

"you can't be racist against white people"

The left's messaging on this in the last twenty years has been a mess. This phrasing being a key example.

What they pushed is: "You can be prejudiced against anybody, but you can only be racist against marginalized minorities" because "racism equals prejudice plus power." This is incredibly complicated, this is adding steps that don't need to be there. What they should have pushed is: "You can be racist against someone of any ethnicity, but is rare for racism against whites to happen at the institutional level. Usually marginalized minorities like black people are pushing back against institutionalized racism."

The former narrative has everybody competing to see who's more marginalized ergo who experiences the most "prejudice plus power" ergo who deserves the most accommodations to counter it. It has white people arguing that they're institutionally discriminated against so that they don't lose out to things like affirmative action and DEI. If they'd gone with the latter narrative it would have helped people properly contextualize the struggles that marginalized minorities face.

Most people hear "You can't be racist against white people" and think, "Well that's bullshit," because it is. If they'd heard "You can be racist against white people, sure, but black people generally experience more and different racism," they would also have conceded the point. I think this is a massive marketing failure on the left's part and has helped get us where we are in terms of racial division in the U.S and Canada.

"Race is a social construct"

This, on the other hand, should just be apparent to people. "White" is the best example of this, it's an ever-moving goalpost. Over a hundred years "white" has been a half-dozen different things in America. The only reason people ever think "white" is real is because the people in power that dictate what "white" is have let them into the fold. Seeing Irish-American white supremacists is so funny to me.

 

[The Last Stand]

>Come back to the thread

>Rape is a social construct and women should be banned from the site!

Huh?

Why in the world are you chuds arguing about whether rape is a social construct or not?

I don't get it. Why would you need society to say that forcefully having sex with somebody is bad?

 

[debristar]

I don't get it. Why would you need society to say that forcefully having sex with somebody is bad?

because they disagree that all sex is rape

if it's a stranger it's rape, if it's husband it's not? fuck off.

but if it's a nigger at work it's not rape, fuck off again.

pets with rights.

 

[Hey Johnny Bravo]

>Come back to the thread

>Rape is a social construct and women should be banned from the site!

Huh?

Why in the world are you chuds arguing about whether rape is a social construct or not?

All the tourists left after getting BTFO so we're back to Captain Planetposting.

 

[More AWS-8Q Than You]

You sound like one of those fucked in the head degenerates who keep pushing to legalize those underage sex dolls saying, "Pedos can't help it but if they rape child sex dolls, then at least they're not raping real kids".

I'm actually kind of shocked at how people treat pedophilia, or violent sexual sociopaths, like it's some kind of preference or fetish that could be satisfied with some kind of substitute. These are mental disorders and paraphilias, a child sex doll will never satisfy a pedophile, their wiring is fucked up, they want real children and will always predate on real children. This isn't some "I like blondes" thing where a bottle blonde is good enough. It's why they always reoffend. They may consume related porn, but it doesn't satisfy them. I can look at pictures of emotionally unstable redheads, but it's not the same thing as actually having one.

 

[Thomas Talus]

I don't get it. Why would you need society to say that forcefully having sex with somebody is bad?

At least 50% of the participants enjoy it, so it's very democratic.

 

[Diana Moon Glampers]

If you don't ever wake up on the wrong side of the bed and want to argue with strangers on the internet what are you even doing in USPG?

 

[Local FloRida-man]

Well yeah but that assumes morality must be objective to be meaningful. Consensus morality is descriptive tho, not prescriptive. I can judge a societal consensus because... obv I’m part of the ongoing dialogue shaping it and moving it forward. Rejecting absolutism doesn’t mean rejecting all standards. It's about anchoring them to shared human experience, not imaginary absolutes. Also, in this view, mortality proper is a tool for solving problems, not expressing opinion.

You mothers failed philosophy class didn't you?

Adding objective as a qualifier is just hiding the ball. Objective morality is the only type worthy of the word, because otherwise, like I said, you're just arguing over opinions. Which you have no right to do, because you're claiming your moral framework comes from the consensus. It would be like saying your yardstick is closer to a yard than the yardstick you used to cut it. You have no way to say that because you only have your yardstick (your opinion) the calibrating yardstick (societies consensus) and you reject the idea of an outside, objectively true yardstick (objective moral frameworks). It's a nonsensical position.

You're not as smart as you think you are.