Should Canada Be Preparing for a Destabilized USA?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Stryker

This is such crap.

Divorce rates are down because no one is getting married or having kids.

No. Yes, the marriage rate is down, but the divorce rate has gone down even faster.

For people who do get married, the chance that they stay together has gone up considerably over the past few decades and it continues to rise. Divorce is not the social pandemic people are claiming it to be.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Stryker

Anyone that watches a tonne of porn can't really claim to be 100 percent straight.

Part of the reason I think it's so odd that people still have a hang up on being gay.

Virtually any guy under the age 30 has seen more throbbing penises in their lives than any man born before 1900.

Alot of people claiming to be bi, are just overly prideful that they like every other normal person doesn't collaspe into a meltdown upon being close to another mans manhood.

There is some truth to this. I came out a few months before I graduated high school and on a few occasions in those last few months I had straight boys come up to me and say "I think I'm gay because I got turned on by a dick I saw in porn." Even then it made me roll my eyes.

That said, I think this sort of thing fades away rapidly with age and/or education because I never had these experiences in university... there, people know who they are. For example, at Queen's I had straight men compliment my body in the locker room without feeling insecure about their sexuality.

[big W]

Originally Posted by Stryker

This is where the delusion of gender equality comes in.

Men and women are not equal and how they attain status is not equal.

We live in a world where femtards are propagating the notions that women can compete with men on a 1:1 level.

The reality is our biologies give us very different advantages.

And the femtards are sabotaging a generation.

I will completely disagree with the statement I bolded. Now what I will give you is that they are not the same in everything. Genetics ensures that they are different but that does not mean they are not equal. They can easily be equal but different. Just like I may be better at something then the guy next to me and he better than me at something else. Equal does not mean we are the same at everything. On average men are physically taller stronger faster but on average woman are better at feeling empathy, understanding others etc. Not one of these are characteristics is overall better than the other but we as a society need both equally.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by big W

I will completely disagree with the statement I bolded. Now what I will give you is that they are not the same in everything. Genetics ensures that they are different but that does not mean they are not equal.

Originally Posted by big W

They can easily be equal but different.

Originally Posted by big W

Just like I may be better at something then the guy next to me and he better than me at something else. Equal does not mean we are the same at everything. On average men are physically taller stronger faster but on average woman are better at feeling empathy, understanding others etc. Not one of these are characteristics is overall better than the other but we as a society need both equally.

Your snipering in on the word Equal.

I don't disagree with what your saying but, your making it sound like these two things happen spontaneously

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Stryker

I blame for porn for this one.


Anyone that watches a tonne of porn can't really claim to be 100 percent straight.

Part of the reason I think it's so odd that people still have a hang up on being gay.

Virtually any guy under the age 30 has seen more throbbing penises in their lives than any man born before 1900.

.

OTOH even in my dad's generation males (friends or strangers) walked around in the nude in front of each other a lot more readily and comfortably than they do today.

I've played sports with my male friends and never seen most of them naked.

Guys in general cover up a lot more in the presence of other guys these days (locker rooms, etc.) because of more self-consciousness about body shape, body hair, penis size or even out of a fear of being checked by gay guys.

[Loco101]

Getting back on topic...a bit..the next U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is quite anti-LGBT. Just research that guy and it's quite scary how ultra-conservative he is and how he seriously wants to eliminate same-sex marriages and even human rights for LGBT people.

[1overcosc]

The electoral college met to cast its votes today.

There were a total of 10 faithless electors (electors who violate the convention of voting for the candidate who won their state's popular vote), although 3 were later overturned. This is the highest number of faithless electors in American history.

-3 Democrat electors (1 in each in Hawaii, Maine, and Minnesota) voted for Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton (the ones in Maine and Minnesota were overturned).
-1 Democrat elector in Colorado voted for failed Republican primary candidate John Kasich (overturned).
-In Washington State, 4 of the 12 electors in the state went faithless: 3 voted for Colin Powell (a former Republican Secretary of State) and 1 voted for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American activist leading the Standing Rock protest
-2 Republican electors in Texas voted against Donald Trump. 1 one voted for John Kasich, and another voted for Paul Ryan

As a result, the results of the electoral college are:
-Donald Trump: 304
-Hillary Clinton: 227
-Colin Powell: 3
-Paul Ryan: 1
-John Kasich: 1
-Faith Spotted Eagle: 1
-Bernie Sanders: 1

[geotag277]

Way more faithless electors against Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. Fancy that.

[rousseau]

The excitement/disgust of the U.S. election cycle has faded a bit, but every now and then I catch myself thinking just how amazing it is that Donald Trump is going to be president of the U.S. Tonight on As It Happens a media spokesperson for some dictionary declared the word of the year to be "surreal." This was based partly on upticks in searches of the word after the truck massacre in Nice and then again in early November.

It really does feel surreal, doesn't it?

Is there any aspect of what he's said and done so far or of what he plans to do that isn't objectively idiotic, regressive, terrifying and/or bad for humanity in general? Anything at all?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by rousseau

Is there any aspect of what he's said and done so far or of what he plans to do that isn't objectively idiotic, regressive, terrifying and/or bad for humanity in general? Anything at all?

It seems patently absurd to me how anyone can non-ironically utter the sentiment that "There is absolutely zero redeemable qualities of this political figure who I disagree with, I simply can't understand how anyone could possibly support them".

Just the frame of mind it takes to utter such rhetoric is very telling.

I don't think anyone can argue the fact that people like rousseau (and similarly MolsonExport, who is a professor IIRC) are extremely intelligent people. They express themselves very well, and can utter multi-layered multi-faceted satire almost on a whim. They can share deep insights across a variety of cultural dimensions and their contributions to this forum, when they put in the effort, are invaluable.

But then, when it comes to politics, the discourse short circuits to this kind of banal commentary that "There is simply no understanding why anyone supports this individual who I happen not to support".

Politics does strange things to people. It puts up blinders and all of a sudden things have this sense of gravitas that causes only "one true way" to open up, and inevitably it comes with a label, be it Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or Democrat. The alternative is unthinkable, unimaginable, incomprehensible, and we cannot possibly make any attempts to understand it.

We have all been witnesses to a slow slide into extremism. With Huffington Post, The Daily Show, John Oliver, and others shouting misinformation on the left, and institutions like Fox News and The Rebel, and others shouting misinformation on the right. Facebook is the megaphone.

And the scariest aspect to me of all, is how the current political atmosphere can turn otherwise reasonably intelligent people like Rousseau and MolsonExport into rabid zealots incapable of understanding their fellow man and putting up blinders for any conceivable argument for an individual who disagrees with their political leanings.

The end result is viewing their political opponents as sub human, as stupid, to quote Animal Farm - as not being equal, which leads to more extreme behaviour such as the rioting and violence seen in the USA after Trump's election. Because with rhetoric like rousseau espouses above, it seems justified to use violence if your enemies are in fact "racist", "xenophobic", "sexist", "terrifying", and "bad for humanity".

Politics does very strange things to people.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by geotag277

It seems patently absurd to me how anyone can non-ironically utter the sentiment that "There is absolutely zero redeemable qualities of this political figure who I disagree with, I simply can't understand how anyone could possibly support them".

Just the frame of mind it takes to utter such rhetoric is very telling.

I don't think anyone can argue the fact that people like rousseau (and similarly MolsonExport, who is a professor IIRC) are extremely intelligent people. They express themselves very well, and can utter multi-layered multi-faceted satire almost on a whim. They can share deep insights across a variety of cultural dimensions and their contributions to this forum, when they put in the effort, are invaluable.

But then, when it comes to politics, the discourse short circuits to this kind of banal commentary that "There is simply no understanding why anyone supports this individual who I happen not to support".

Politics does strange things to people. It puts up blinders and all of a sudden things have this sense of gravitas that causes only "one true way" to open up, and inevitably it comes with a label, be it Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or Democrat. The alternative is unthinkable, unimaginable, incomprehensible, and we cannot possibly make any attempts to understand it.

We have all been witnesses to a slow slide into extremism. With Huffington Post, The Daily Show, John Oliver, and others shouting misinformation on the left, and institutions like Fox News and The Rebel, and others shouting misinformation on the right. Facebook is the megaphone.

And the scariest aspect to me of all, is how the current political atmosphere can turn otherwise reasonably intelligent people like Rousseau and MolsonExport into rabid zealots incapable of understanding their fellow man and putting up blinders for any conceivable argument for an individual who disagrees with their political leanings.

The end result is viewing their political opponents as sub human, as stupid, to quote Animal Farm - as not being equal, which leads to more extreme behaviour such as the rioting and violence seen in the USA after Trump's election. Because with rhetoric like rousseau espouses above, it seems justified to use violence if your enemies are in fact "racist", "xenophobic", "sexist", "terrifying", and "bad for humanity".

Politics does very strange things to people.

I appreciate a lot of what you're saying and even share it, but I think you're being a bit unfair. I don't think they'd ever be apologists for violence. In a sense you're kinda doing the same thing you're accusing them of doing...

[lio45]

One interesting statistic I happened to stumble upon was that close to 6% of Vermont voters wrote in Bernie (he wasn't on the ballot). Johnson and Stein, who were, came in 4th and 5th place, respectively.

The number of Vermonters who wrote Bernie's name on their ballots was over 10% of the total number of Hillary votes cast in the state.

I'm glad he got at least one elector (that Hawaii one) for his troubles... I know some states don't allow faithless electors, what happened exactly in ME and MN? (Feels weird to ask, given I could easily google it...)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Acajack

... but I think you're being a bit unfair. I don't think they'd ever be apologists for violence.

Except against Chadillaccc, in the case of MolsonExport.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I appreciate a lot of what you're saying and even share it, but I think you're being a bit unfair. I don't think they'd ever be apologists for violence. In a sense you're kinda doing the same thing you're accusing them of doing...

I don't think you understand what I'm saying if you think I'm doing what I am accusing them of.

To be clear I don't think they would be apologists for violence in any way shape or form - but at the same time there is consequences to rhetoric. And this frame of mind that starts from a position of offering absolutely zero understanding of another fellow human being is a dangerous rhetorical position to be starting from (and espousing).

[rousseau]

We're not talking about Reagan. Or Bush the first. Or even, gawd help us, Harper. The disagreements on policy with people who voted for them were often constructive and mostly civil.

These are polarizing times, sure. But we're talking about Donald Trump. Donald...fucking...Trump. Your intellectually dishonest parlour game of equivalence, of "meh, left, right, Clinton, Trump, they're all the same" doesn't pass the barest scrutiny. Like, the Daily Show and The Rebel are both producers of misinformation?

Christ. Where do you come up with this stuff? Have you ever actually seen those two shows? There's an argument to be made that Jon Stewart and his ilk are merely preaching to the choir in the same way as the alt-right media cretins do, but the idea that there is equivalency in terms of accuracy and honesty is just ridiculous. It's objectively untrue.

You're just calling black white, and up down. It's a measure of the times we live in. No shame, no tentativeness, just bald-faced idiocy and lying about the most obvious of things.

Like suggesting that it's those of us on the centre and left who are demonizing the political opposition as "sub-human." That's a blatant falsehood that embodies so much that is "post-factual" about the alt-right.

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by geotag277

It seems patently absurd to me how anyone can non-ironically utter the sentiment that "There is absolutely zero redeemable qualities of this political figure who I disagree with, I simply can't understand how anyone could possibly support them".

Just the frame of mind it takes to utter such rhetoric is very telling.

I don't think anyone can argue the fact that people like rousseau (and similarly MolsonExport, who is a professor IIRC) are extremely intelligent people. They express themselves very well, and can utter multi-layered multi-faceted satire almost on a whim. They can share deep insights across a variety of cultural dimensions and their contributions to this forum, when they put in the effort, are invaluable.

But then, when it comes to politics, the discourse short circuits to this kind of banal commentary that "There is simply no understanding why anyone supports this individual who I happen not to support".

Politics does strange things to people. It puts up blinders and all of a sudden things have this sense of gravitas that causes only "one true way" to open up, and inevitably it comes with a label, be it Liberal, Conservative, Republican, or Democrat. The alternative is unthinkable, unimaginable, incomprehensible, and we cannot possibly make any attempts to understand it.

We have all been witnesses to a slow slide into extremism. With Huffington Post, The Daily Show, John Oliver, and others shouting misinformation on the left, and institutions like Fox News and The Rebel, and others shouting misinformation on the right. Facebook is the megaphone.

And the scariest aspect to me of all, is how the current political atmosphere can turn otherwise reasonably intelligent people like Rousseau and MolsonExport into rabid zealots incapable of understanding their fellow man and putting up blinders for any conceivable argument for an individual who disagrees with their political leanings.

The end result is viewing their political opponents as sub human, as stupid, to quote Animal Farm - as not being equal, which leads to more extreme behaviour such as the rioting and violence seen in the USA after Trump's election. Because with rhetoric like rousseau espouses above, it seems justified to use violence if your enemies are in fact "racist", "xenophobic", "sexist", "terrifying", and "bad for humanity".

Politics does very strange things to people.

The interesting thing about Donald Trump of course, is that he represents the most interesting facet of this phenomenon. He is not a conservative or a right winger, nor a Republican. He says things that would make Republicans' heads explode in a typical year. But because he represents their team, Republicans and even right wingers in Canada jump on board and forget about what they once believed in. Bizarre.

So I think what Rousseau highlights is less partisan than you make it out to be. In fact, I don't think your post makes sense in respect to Trump. Trump does not represent a political philosophy and the typical left-right divide that you were discussing, he rejected the philosophy of many of his own supporters (especially on foreign policy). What he represents is a team, and supporters blindly follow their team no matter what. Political beliefs, apparently, are fluid.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by rousseau

We're not talking about Reagan. Or Bush the first. Or even, gawd help us, Harper. The disagreements on policy with people who voted for them were often constructive and mostly civil.

These are polarizing times, sure. But we're talking about Donald Trump. Donald...fucking...Trump. Your intellectually dishonest parlour game of equivalence, of "meh, left, right, Clinton, Trump, they're all the same" doesn't pass the barest scrutiny. Like, the Daily Show and The Rebel are both producers of misinformation?

Christ. Where do you come up with this stuff? Have you ever actually seen those two shows? There's an argument to be made that Jon Stewart and his ilk are merely preaching to the choir in the same way as the alt-right media cretins do, but the idea that there is equivalency in terms of accuracy and honesty is just ridiculous. It's objectively untrue.

You're just calling black white, and up down. It's a measure of the times we live in. No shame, no tentativeness, just bald-faced idiocy and lying about the most obvious of things.

Like suggesting that it's those of us on the centre and left who are demonizing the political opposition as "sub-human." That's a blatant falsehood that embodies so much that is "post-factual" about the alt-right.

Politics does strange things to otherwise intelligent people.

When it comes to politics, you have one mode. Sensationalist rhetoric.

At the heart of my response is, it is patently absurd to say "This political opponent has zero appeal to other people and is obviously bad for humanity".

No where in this inflammatory response did you elicit any kind of self awareness for this absurd statement.

Trump has talked about a range of issues, from unfair trade deals, to systemic immigration problems, to corruption in Washington, to a re-imagining of a foreign policy that is a mess and has left many of the most troubled places in the world a mess.

It's important to note that, people do not support a candidate for his or her flaws. They support a candidate because they get the major stuff right.

If you are completely unaware of any possible policy position of Trump that could potentially appeal to a reasonable human being, I think it's fair enough to recognize that you have been living in an extreme political bubble echo chamber and have fallen far from the place you need to be to have a reasonable conversation about politics. And knowing that you are an otherwise intelligent person, it speaks volumes to the problems (and dangers) that the modern political environment has had.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by csbvan

The interesting thing about Donald Trump of course, is that he represents the most interesting facet of this phenomenon. He is not a conservative or a right winger, nor a Republican. He says things that would make Republicans' heads explode in a typical year. But because he represents their team, Republicans and even right wingers in Canada jump on board and forget about what they once believed in. Bizarre.

So I think what Rousseau highlights is less partisan than you make it out to be. In fact, I don't think your post makes sense in respect to Trump. Trump does not represent a political philosophy and the typical left-right divide that you were discussing, he rejected the philosophy of many of his own supporters (especially on foreign policy). What he represents is a team, and supporters blindly follow their team no matter what. Political beliefs, apparently, are fluid.

I think you have vastly misunderstood my post.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lio45

I'm glad he got at least one elector (that Hawaii one) for his troubles... I know some states don't allow faithless electors, what happened exactly in ME and MN? (Feels weird to ask, given I could easily google it...)

In Maine, the tabulation officers declared his vote invalid. He was asked to vote again, and chose Clinton.

In Minnesota (and in Colorado with that one Democrat who tried to vote Kasich), the state's Secretary of State declared the faithless electors disqualified and replaced them with new electors who agreed to vote for Clinton.

All of these actions by officials were valid by the laws of the states in question. There is some debate about whether it's constitutional for a state to do that. If at least 37 Republican electors had gone faithless and thus denied Trump the presidency, but enough faithless votes were overturned to ensure Trump's majority, the faithless electors would have probably gone to court and the Supreme Court would have had to make a choice on the matter.

One interesting thing about the US is that it does not allow the election of a president or vice president without an absolute majority in the electoral college. So if the first place candidate has less than half the votes, the entire election is thrown out and Congress decides who the President and Vice President are according to a rather complicated procedure spelled out in great detail in the Constitution.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by rousseau

There's an argument to be made that Jon Stewart and his ilk are merely preaching to the choir in the same way as the alt-right media cretins do, but the idea that there is equivalency in terms of accuracy and honesty is just ridiculous. It's objectively untrue.

I also want to highlight this insidious rhetorical device which invokes an extremist group as typifying a political opponent, yet another mechanism being used to paint political opponents as "sub human".

To be clear, in no way shape or form am I trying to form some sort of equivalence between the racist "alt right" and viewers of Jon Steward, only insofar as like you said, both these sources are viewing material that is preaching to the choir.

If we are playing equivalence games, I would perhaps put Hillary supporters who opportunistically loot stores during demonstrations and protests against election results in the same "bag of deplorables" as those who generally self-identify as alt right.

But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that those looters are typical of Hillary supporters as it is to pretend that racist white supremacists typify Trump supporters.

It is far more honest to put forward examples of people from economically ravaged areas of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan, who have been largely failed and left behind by policies surrounding free trade and globalization. Or people who are frustrated by the out right defiance of the law that "sanctuary cities" afford illegal immigrants when they themselves fought hard and sacrificed to enter the country through legal means. Or the people who have seen an interventionist foreign policy with a Bush and Clinton at the head of the table leave the world in a mess and are desperate for any voice to push the country in a different direction.

Likewise, instead of focusing on far left looters and Black Lives Matter voices calling for violence against white people - it is far more intellectually honest to typify Clinton supporters as those who are worried about climate change, are worried about erosion of rights concerning abortion and gay marriage, and have seen tax cuts as a policy fail the middle class for generations.

These are the conversations that need to be had, and no one is served by focusing on extremism, and walking around saying "There is no possible reason that any reasonable human being could possibly support my political opponent" is the antithesis to democracy.

And again, the most concerning thing is that otherwise intelligent people like rousseau (and MolsonExport) are the ones doing it.