Opinion: What's the Scariest Thing That's Happened in the Last Year of Politics?
- Thread starter luckyshot
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 25,464
- Reaction score
- 13,724
The complicity (or should I say collusion?) between most mainstream media outlets and political parties following a neo-liberal / globalist agenda.
This is obvious with the coverage of the migrant crisis in Europe as well as everything related to nationalism and protectionism.
This is obvious with the coverage of the migrant crisis in Europe as well as everything related to nationalism and protectionism.
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 11,265
- Reaction score
- 0
I disagree with most people's assessment of how the last year in politics was so crazy etc
It's something that almost everybody seems to agree on, some like it and see Trump as somebody who's totally different from something they hate, other's are scared. I think this election just made some things more obvious and certain problems reached a new low but both the existence of those patterns as well as the development are the same for decades. The media on both sides pushing their narrative, populism, cults of personality, lack of substance in political debates and public discourse, politicians who are flip-flopping on major issues, hatred towards people with different politicals views etc
For example when it comes to NATO expansion. There are quite a few of us who don't doubt that Putin is a power-driven, unscrupulously leader and that smaller Eastern European countries definitely might be in a tough spot without NATO. But we also think that we're allowed to ask if something is in our self-interest before we subsidize countries with ~10,000 soldiers which most Americans can't find on a map and make a commitment to send our friends and family members there to fight a war for them in case Russia attacks. But the new narrative is that you're sucking Putin's dick if you're opposing literally anything which might hurt Russia or if you're suggesting that a country with a smaller GDP than California and a somewhat rational (even though not moral) leadership won't start a war against the US.
Rand Paul gave a really good speech addressing those problems:
It's something that almost everybody seems to agree on, some like it and see Trump as somebody who's totally different from something they hate, other's are scared. I think this election just made some things more obvious and certain problems reached a new low but both the existence of those patterns as well as the development are the same for decades. The media on both sides pushing their narrative, populism, cults of personality, lack of substance in political debates and public discourse, politicians who are flip-flopping on major issues, hatred towards people with different politicals views etc
True for Trump, not true for all conservatives who oppose the new Russia fearmongering as an excuse for all sort of dumb policies.
For example when it comes to NATO expansion. There are quite a few of us who don't doubt that Putin is a power-driven, unscrupulously leader and that smaller Eastern European countries definitely might be in a tough spot without NATO. But we also think that we're allowed to ask if something is in our self-interest before we subsidize countries with ~10,000 soldiers which most Americans can't find on a map and make a commitment to send our friends and family members there to fight a war for them in case Russia attacks. But the new narrative is that you're sucking Putin's dick if you're opposing literally anything which might hurt Russia or if you're suggesting that a country with a smaller GDP than California and a somewhat rational (even though not moral) leadership won't start a war against the US.
Rand Paul gave a really good speech addressing those problems:
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2015
- Messages
- 9,939
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 9,082
- Reaction score
- 15
Yeah I know what you mean, I don't see anything wrong with trying to have good relations with Russia. If both Parties get an advantage.
And I don't blame Putin for what he is doing. If I were in his position I would do the same thing. The west is trying to damage him for years.
There is also no denying that he is a very smart and capable man and politician. It needs smart and capable politician to outsmart him politically.
It's just that people think Russia is somehow on the site of truth or freedom. They are not they dislike the truth more than our politicians.
You have to weight your options as far as the smaller eastern European countries go. Would it be in the US interest to have an unstable Europe with Russian aggression?
Compared to the money spent and human sacrifice for troops ion eastern Europe? Certainly worth asking questions, my personal opinion would be an unstable Europe would be worse for the US.
But yeah those should be legit questions.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2011
- Messages
- 5,958
- Reaction score
- 0
Collusion would be the better word yeah(collusion meaning secretly working with, compliant meaning carrying out a command) and I agree with you. The reach and power of those pushing the globalist liberal agenda is far and wide. They have their dirty claws wrapped around almost every news outlet and media platform in western civilization.
The censoring, silencing, and violence to those holding opposing viewpoints is also becoming more mainstream and acceptable and that is scary.
- Joined
- May 11, 2016
- Messages
- 16,971
- Reaction score
- 11,166
You're acting like Sanders is some kind of radical when, in fact, the social programs he is proposing are the norm in other developed nations, all of whom have lower GDP's than the US.
Taxes would have to go up, yeah, but it is not like we wouldn't be getting value in return. Also, middle class taxes wouldn't have to go up much if at all. I'm not saying this is the way it should go, but just taxing the top bracket could pay for everything.
Right now the top tax rate is 39%, and it applies to money over 415K per year. Trump is going to try cut this drasitcally.
What we really need to do is leave the people making half a million dollars alone but put in additional tax brackets at the very top where we really take a chunk. I would say 65% for money over $5 million per year. (This isn't radical at all compared to the rest of the world, or even compared to our own history. The top tax rate under FDR was 90%! And no, it didn't "end economic growth" or "kill jobs" or whatever other bullshit they will tell you. People did just fine in the 50's.)
We need much higher taxes on the obscenely wealthy.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 32,715
- Reaction score
- 9,821
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 37,262
- Reaction score
- 1,355
the entire Phillipines political situation
if it was in a country more people cared about, people'd be losing their minds
Trump is hilter tho
if it was in a country more people cared about, people'd be losing their minds
Trump is hilter tho
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2017
- Messages
- 319
- Reaction score
- 0
Russia compromising the highest office in the land while being cheered on by republicans
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,010
- Reaction score
- 0
So 4chan is a trusted news source?
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 2,910
- Reaction score
- 528
My Older Brother going into an anti-Trump rant. And me talking about Clinton being possibly worse. We haven't been on the best of terms, but damn I thought he was going to flat out disown me right there. His Wife already hates my guts, but she's one of those "fake" people that play nice. God it's so obvious too.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,543
- Reaction score
- 12,405
I think Trump ran a campaign of relativism. No one cared what was said even when he was conflicting what he previously said. He makes factual lies more often than not and it's just been excused. You can't have stuff like that because even if you think he isn't serious, what happened when he's in office and it turns out he was.
With that said, I'll try to put a positive. I think more people are politically engaged and that, in time, could be a good thing.
With that said, I'll try to put a positive. I think more people are politically engaged and that, in time, could be a good thing.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 45,543
- Reaction score
- 12,405
Actually this was the worst thing this year. The election fucked with families. People got way too invested in it and decided to disown people they actually have knowns for years because of an opposing view. Regardless of who wins an election, if that's how we react from the result, communities break down and America is worse off than it was before. People need to grow up and realize you can disagree strongly with someone and still love them.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 40,589
- Reaction score
- 10,891
Yeah, the republicans dealt really well with Obama beating them twice. So well, they lobbed thinly veiled racist remarks, signaling to their constituency that they were sympathetic to their reservations about a negro president, all culminating in the election of a retarded 10 year old in a 70 year old's body who won because he openly signaled his racism and bigotry. And that last sentence is the scariest thing to happen in politics in the past year.
This.
I think I've always had an idea, deep down.
But I've never seen the media so heavily (almost unanimously) one-sidedly biased on so many issues. For me, the realization started with the fact-bending coverage of police shootings and black lives matter. (Hands up don't shoot? Really?) And then it just continued throughout the election and is still going on today.
Partisans will be partisan. It would have been the exact same deal with liberals if the situation was reversed. After all, no liberals seemed to have a problem with NBC interfering with the election by carefully timing the release of Trump's "grab em by the pussy" tape.
With that said, I'm not okay with "Russia interfering" with our election but I'm also not against exposing political corruption.
Last edited:
