Her George Clinton xD
Start publishing on
DD Comics!
Advertise with us
Comic Talk and General Discussion *
The US Election
Banes wrote:Well he DID lead Parliament! :D
Her George Clinton xD
Funkmaster.
———
What do you think of all the racial and anti-homosexual attacks that have been caused by the Trump election.
It's worrying.
Obviously those criminals are in the minority, but the fact that they feel emboldened to gloat about the Trump victory in THAT way is really disturbing- a teacher telling immigrant children their parents will all be deported now, numerous incidents of people harassing Mexicans and Muslims (and even Asian people), saying they're not welcome in the country after the election…
The normal, non-crazy Trump voters need to stamp on those people.
A pile of years ago there was a book Backlash detailing the anti-feminist backlash during the Reagan and Bush and even into the Clinton years. We're seeing the same kind of backlash now with all kinds of anti-Political correctness types emerging from the woodwork. They're feeling empowered because "their" candidate won.
All the divisive rhetoric of the campaign has disappeared with call to all come together. We've seen Obama meet with Trump, we've seen the magnanimous victory and concession speeches. Just have to wait for the hate mongers to be soundly repudiated by the guy they thought was going to lead them back to the glory days of Andrew Jackson.
And of course we conveniently forget teachers telling students that the government was coming to take all their parents' guns away in 2008. The governmental schemes to get all children to tell the schools all about their parents guns ownership? In 2008 it came from the other direction. Destruction of traditional values? Humanist multi-culturalism coming to destroy a way of life? But of course since all enlightened liberals agree with that oppression and label traditional values as "-isms" that was okay and this is an evil "-ism." We're labeling and engaging in the same kind of behavior we find so repulsive.
Got to sit back, understand where they are coming from and then pull them kicking and screaming into the 21st Century. Not through labeling and PC but education and a steady stream of information to erase the ignorance that these "-isms" are based upon.
But man it can be so satisfying at the end of a hard day dealing with recalcitrant kiddies to threaten them with nasty things because the gov'ment is different now. The boogeymen Trump and his ICE Gestapo are coming to deport all of you! (insert maniacal laughter here)
I know you like to construct things to show an equivalence, but these things will never be equivalent:
"2008 it came from the other direction. Destruction of traditional values? Humanist multi-culturalism coming to destroy a way of life?"
Sorry, but taking religion out of schools and telling children about lesbians is not the same as threatening their parents with deportation or alienating and bulling gay people.
Things in cultures and societies do not have natural opposites that are equal. You're falling into the trap of false pattern recognition. An understandable fault, but a fault nonetheless.
I agree. It is not equal. But to people trapped in that belief system it is equivalent. Before we start labeling and dismissing we must understand their viewpoint rather than merely vilifying them.
In a right wing country the left becomes very defensive and insulting and that further entrenches the right who see their way of life at risk. So both sides dig in deeper and the left becomes really great at name calling and the media repeats and supports this view point, further entrenching the right who see this as a threat to what they have cherished their entire lives.
The most hated group in America are humanists. We're viewed as evil immoral monsters. The alternative media pushes that again and again. Even the regular US media outside of the East or West coast markets push that. There was a backlash against the reboot of Cosmos. Even mention evolution as a subject to be taught in biology class and face a firestorm as virulent as the nasty, intolerance some of us were exposed to on a certain other webcomic hosting site. The left is as intolerant as the right. Both are wrong about being intolerant. The left is correct with their viewpoints but that doesn't excuse labeling someone else a monster.
Everyone knows progressive people want rampant hedonistic humanism in our schools, teaching sex and evolution. We all knows that leads to a degenerate culture as in Europe with no guns, no religion and naked breasts on beaches! Remember I spend all day talking to truck drivers and refinery workers. I wasted ten years in the military. Two thirds of my FB friends are plastic model builders and army buddies. I can roll my eyes and yell and denounce and screech or I can sit them down and explain stuff and get them around to a more enlightened viewpoint. But you want to know what is impossible?
Trying to get a progressive left person trumpeting their agenda to the universe to be more tolerant.
I just want to walk around with a baseball bat and hit people of all intolerant groups over the head screaming "WRONG! WRONG!" "TOL-ER-ANCE!"
And put the guillotine in the pick-up and drive around cutting off heads.
I think if one wants to grasp for a bigger picture, history is a good place to start. It took at least 50 years for American policy/society to arrive at this state. For example, Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential bid was a disaster, because the electorate despised his views, which today would be labeled neo-conservative. Today, he wouldn't get onto any Republican ticket anywhere, because he would be labeled a far-left liberal. What happened in those 50 years? I don't know, but it's time to start looking. This polarization is killing us.
Put on a shelf for a second what you think about Trump personally… Why has it become villainous for a U.S. citizen to be opposed to illegal immigration? Is there a country on earth that is totally okay with millions of illegal immigrants coming in, for whatever reason…? Doesn't take much googling to see that certain countries are not exactly the welcoming bastions of freedom they claim to be…
fallopiancrusader wrote:
I think if one wants to grasp for a bigger picture, history is a good place to start. It took at least 50 years for American policy/society to arrive at this state. For example, Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential bid was a disaster, because the electorate despised his views, which today would be labeled neo-conservative. Today, he wouldn't get onto any Republican ticket anywhere, because he would be labeled a far-left liberal. What happened in those 50 years? I don't know, but it's time to start looking. This polarization is killing us.
And then was the election of 1968. The assassination of RFK, the nomination of Humphrey and the silent majority overruling the protests and electing that most paranoid enemy of all that was liberal and left; Richard Nixon. Then came 1972 and the Democrats went hard, hard left to George McGovern and Nixon won the greatest landslide ever despite everything the media did. The voters were with Nixon not the progressive enlightened left. That polarization really took shape as the media could dig it's claws into Nixon over Watergate and trumpet that their views were vindicated. Generations of journalists have been raised on that.
Democrats have been going further and further left ever since alienating the so called "Reagan " Democrats and even forcing them out of their party and into becoming Republicans. There is no room for aNY conservative idea in the national Democratic party. Even at the state level it's getting harder. So in 2016 a Democrat who favors the policies of JFK has no home in the Democratic party.
Oliver Stone's silly revisionism aside JFK by modern standards was a conservative. A 1960 Liberal would be too conservative to be in the Democratic party of 2016. A 1960 conservative is now considered a moderate.
And in the greatest irony of all.the party that tried.to get.the voting rights acts and anti lynching laws passed for a century had to wait until a Southern Democrat president came along who could push it through the filibusters of Democrats to make it a law. Lbj's great voting rights laws had been written in the 1920s by Republicans. And yet who now is tarred and feathered as the party of racism? Rueful laughter.
As Soviet Russia and the Facists proved, you go far enough in one direction politically and you come back to the other side. Fascists were socialists and Communists were totalitarians. More Rueful laughter. It's like the snake biting its own tail.
And in order to get that Republican support for the Great Society, the Democrats couldn't appear weak on defense and communism. That led to the nuclear arms race and Vietnam. That's the irony of the Best and the Brightest. In order to be social liberals, tbey.had.to be what today we would call neo-cons. The Democrats who served Kennedy and Johnson made the same decisions that the Republicans under Bush junior made a generation later.
Nobody learns their lessons.
bravo1102 wrote:fallopiancrusader wrote:
I think if one wants to grasp for a bigger picture, history is a good place to start. It took at least 50 years for American policy/society to arrive at this state. For example, Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential bid was a disaster, because the electorate despised his views, which today would be labeled neo-conservative. Today, he wouldn't get onto any Republican ticket anywhere, because he would be labeled a far-left liberal. What happened in those 50 years? I don't know, but it's time to start looking. This polarization is killing us.
And then was the election of 1968. The assassination of RFK, the nomination of Humphrey and the silent majority overruling the protests and electing that most paranoid enemy of all that was liberal and left; Richard Nixon. Then came 1972 and the Democrats went hard, hard left to George McGovern and Nixon won the greatest landslide ever despite everything the media did. The voters were with Nixon not the progressive enlightened left. That polarization really took shape as the media could dig it's claws into Nixon over Watergate and trumpet that their views were vindicated.
But wait, there was a backlash. During the Carter years of malaise there was a growing movement swinging to the right. Nixon had been too liberal domestically and too soft on communism as well as corrupt. One leader of this was Ronald Resgan. The foot soldiers were a hitherto untapped group; the evangelical Christians. Both had been around awhile but they finally found their voice (and scared the pants off of a young liberal me. Look up the book The New Right: we are ready to lead.) So the Democrats had swung left under McGovern in reaction to the 1960s. The Republicans swung right to fight it and led another landslide election for Ronald Reagan.
Reagan got rid of the ridiculous fairness doctrine for the public airwaves opening the door for political talk radio. According to who you ask that further polarized opinion because for some strange reason liberals made for bad ratings so the airwaves are dominated by central right to crazy WTF right.
Stuff that no other nations would tolerate was on the radio everyday because of that horrible Freedom of Speech. Don't you wish the US was as enlightened as Australia where you can be imprisoned for Holocaust denial or Canada where you get finef for protesting female rights in Saudi Arabia? Freedom of speech means everybody has their say, offensive or not, wagreeable or not. That discourse is necessary for a truly free Republic whether we like it or not. Damn those dead White guys in knee pants strike again…
And after 8 years of the left the pendulum swings to the right once more and the Republic is still here. The Bill of Rights won't be going away any time soon because the right defends it longer and harder and many on the American left would love to make a few of those pesky amendments go away.
You can almost tell that I taught this on both the middle school and high school level. Now if we could get police officers to be color blind and better able to tell cell phones and wallets from hand guns,
And that's enough out me. I wish the far extremes of both sides would realize how small a minority they are. They may yell the loudest, but shut up. Let's steer a steady course not leaning too far in either direction as we do not want the ship of state to capsize. But please let him govern before we condemn him. Words are so much air. What will he end up doing? Then we can tear him to pieces revelling in the wonder of the Freedom of Speech.
@Kim - I confess I don't know enough about immigration/illegal immigration to come out and just "of course" your question, but on the surface it seems like an "of course."
Although I personally know a girl who had believed she was a citizen all her life, a bright, industrious, model student, who lost her full college scholarship and was facing possible deportation when she applied for an internship that required a full background check.
@bravo - Thank you for the U.S. political history review. I may need to copy it (with due credit) when I try to convince people that our two-party system is so convoluted, if not outright corrupt, that our only choice to regain a government of/by/for the people is to work towards the creation of at least one more valid party.
Btw, I attribute the continual morphing of political stance to modern media. Compare yesterday's fairly unbiased, Cronkite-like journalism to the pick-and-choose CNN coverage, where pollster results are extrapolated to inform both potential ratings opportunities and, simultaneously, political policy. As much as freedom of speech is a double-edged sword, the contemplation of a "free press" can blow one's mind. Last not least, there's the phenom of social networking that enabled Sanders to have a swing at it. I can't imagine what the race will look like in 4 years.
All right, so we need a viable third party (or more) after we need to maintain the freedom of the internet. And candidates that accept the scientifically-corroborated fact of climate change. We need that, too. And enforcing the gun control regulations already on the books. Important. And ...
The democrats not wanting any conservative ideas?
Bravo, the left wing in the US is what is considered centre right in other countries. And the right wing is VERY, VERY right wing compared to other nations. The US as a whole is a very right leaning country, a classical example of it. In every aspect.
Yes, even the media.
Your media is more partisan than it should be, but it's not overly "left". You have right-wing media, left-wing media, and media that has so called "pundits" who favour both sides.
One of the main problems is that conservative people often gravitate towards ideas that interfere with social rights of the individual (eg abortion, gay rights etc), they mix church and state, and they let their simple nationalism and short term thinking cloud their ideas on climate change and environmental regulation- Not ALL conservative people have those biases, but enough of them do that when the press rightly criticises these positions and those who support them they are wrongly thought of as supporting the left wing when in reality they're just criticising stupid ideas.
ozoneocean wrote:
when the press rightly criticises these positions and those who support them they are wrongly thought of as supporting the left wing when in reality they're just criticising stupid ideas.
That's fine in editorials and opine pieces, but we have gotten to the point that that no one even tries to objectively report facts, or to provide a counterbalance when A propones this, and B advocates that. It is becoming incredibly difficult to self-educate or educate when many people adhere to the first "reports" they read.
I think the current state of the U.S. media is a big problem. The budgets for real, professional journalism are being gutted, and many reputable papers are either going out of business, or becoming partisan. Sometimes it seems that most current events reporting is being relegated to all sorts of semi-objective internet groups that cater exclusively to audiences who already live in their own respective conservative or liberal bubbles.
Does anybody here have any recommendations for what they consider a reputable and circumspect source of current events? For the past year, I have limited my news reading to AlJazeera and Der Spiegel, but I wonder if there are other sources out there that people on this site consider worthwhile.
After years of study. I concluded that objective news reporting was an illusion. It is a wonderful ideal. It only really exists when a nation is United in purpose or by an authoritarian government.
Most journalists choose that profession because they feel they.have something to say. They often have a desire to change the world in the same way as every person with access to a printing press has. The modern journalist is merely another in a long line of reporters who give you the events in order to convince you to think like them.
In the 19th Century the most common prior occupation of a politician was newspaper publisher. For every Walter Cronkite reporter there is always an Edward R. Murrow investigator. That's what Freedom of the press means. The press wasn't expected to observe and report, but to report and persuade and all sides had to have their say without the government picking sides.
And yes, outside of a Muslim country, the US is the most conservative and anti-intellectual society. I reference many different studies and polls. But then it seems for a powerful nation, domestic conservatism is the standard. Too liberal and the people put themselves on the dole and everyone else walks all over you unless there is a conservative culture willing to take care of all the unpleasant business of state craft for the liberal masses enjoying socialist largesse. But then I have been reading a lot about Rome lately.
And I fear the American people just elected Julius Caesar consul.
Political terminology is relative. Most of the time the most.accurate description of a position is one in relation to another position. And the the spectrum of left and right is a snake eating its own tail.
The French Revolution where the terms originated with seating arrangements of the assembly illustrated this. The Jacobins were the most radical left and in defense of the Revolution circled around back to very conservative views.
And then it came full circle as in Rome to an authoritarian dictatorship with extremely liberal views on economy and society. Napoleon as First Consul is remembered for his great liberal reform of European law. Something that at the time inspired the progressive thinkers of the time. Then he just had to make himself emperor to inspire the people and satisfy.his ego.
Honestly I have no idea what I am talking about. The comic Assassination of Franz Ferdinand updated again and I was thinking again. Bad habit.
There is a certain comfort that 100 proof cynicism offers, and it's not necessarily an inaccurate perspective, but other perspectives help complete the picture. Just as science strives for pure fact, at one time journalism did also. Both pursuits are ideals that succeed only in the hands of ethical masters (yes, a bit hyperbolic, but then we're balancing on the word ideal).
I have one of my degrees in mass communications, so I've studied the topic, too, and it's been a long time interest. As you depicted, generally my classmates were either Murrow curious or with a Cronkite desire to inform. One class specifically studied the ethics of journalism, and took an analytic view of Hurst publications, Pulitzer, 60 Minutes, and so on, including speculations about newborn CNN.
My other degree was in business, and the curriculum included marketing classes, where one prof was a diehard McLuhan devotee. Here is where I and others learned to tint a picture.
They, marketing and journalism, were two distinct studies in two different schools. Both involved research, but one shaped facts (the business, number-based one) and one didn't.
What I now observe is a "journalism" so tainted with marketing, if not unadulterated luridness, that you'd have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt's administration to match the yellow.
We live in an age of marketing and manipulation, and have so for a few generations – but not to the wallowing it has insidiously grown to become today. More and more people are waking up to this fact, led by the Millennials who have only experienced first-hand our present morass.
Which means, even with Trump in office, I am hopeful. More of us are beginning to see with fewer filters, and there might be enough passion that we can do some fixing, but Only if we can stop being passionate about individual viewpoints and unite for a common improvement. It would be easier if Trump were on our side, but it's not impossible despite him.
Trump is a deal making huckster. Notice how his demeanor practically flipped once he won the election? (sealed the deal)
And now he's back pedaling on his promises? The wall will become a fence, the mass deportation will become following the existing laws regarding immigrant felons and the haters will fade back into the dark corners they came out from. "Stop it!,
And our political system will work exactly the way it was designed to and stop another Caesar from crossing the Rubicon and becoming dictator.
And the right will have its own way for a few years rolling back executive orders that should never have made in the first place. For someone who was in office eight years Obama didn't do a whole lot that couldn't be undone with a signature as opposed to actually going to Congress. His rhetorical house of Cards was already beginning to fall in on itself. Obama was all potential and no product. His legacy will be some great speeches and winning a Nobel prize merely for being elected. He could have done a lot more than complain about previous presidents. He was a great intellect that failed the test of leadership. Eight years ago Rush Limbaugh said "I hope he fails"and Obama just had to go and prove him right. Sad.
And weren't we warned that a reality show star would become president in the movie Idiocracy?
Cynicism does provide comfort. And maybe it will be a lot worse, or least the media will paint it that way.
Bravo it's important to remember that "liberalism" is not a blanket term for one set of political values.
Case in point: the Australian Liberal party is so named because of the classical use of that word referring to economic liberalism.
Economic liberalism is what the right wing gravitates towards.
The left is economically conservative while being socially liberal, the right is the converse.
These the simplest way to put it.
Neither manages the economy better because of some good trait in their political DNA. Right wing conservatives get countries into disastrous debt just as much as anyone else.
The main difference is that their interests lie in aggressive foreign policy, helping those with resources at the expense of everyone else: helping certain individuals in order to make society better for them and hoping that they will spread their largess to the rest of the population.
While classically the priority of the left is social services: helping everyone in order to make our society better for all of us.
Thank you for making clear what I was trying to say. The right and left have used liberalism as they have seen fit. On person and government can do all kinds of things fitting both definitions as befits the government's interest. See all the liberal parties in Europe lining up for war in 1914. Of course liberals are against such things. A Europe ruled by social progressive liberal governments could never go to war! Couple of really good books on the topic came out for the centennial. One can only truly understand the present through careful examination of the past. And there's more to the past than Nazi Germany.
Liberal and conservative views often co-exist in one person. People and governments are very good at holding several seemingly contradictory views at the same time.
Nah, I should stop talking politics. Some people act like their hair is on fire, worrying and screaming and running around pointlessly rather than simply reaching for a fire extinguisher.
A friend did a comic about it. One guy was wandering aimlessly in his pajamas, frantically looking for coffee. The other was dressed, showered and calmly handing him a coffee cup the the first in his aimless frenzy didn't see.
And something very similar is occurring over this election with that same person. I tried explaining the Constitution and Supreme Court to him but he still.thinks that gay marriage and abortion will vanish in a Trump administration. Then I came across several articles by experts in constitutional law who said all the same things that I had. I don't pull this stuff out of the air. Peopld only believe and listen to what they want to hear.
In some ways, I agree with Bravo. Without recapping the whole conversation, I fully agree that the American institution will continue on, much as it has for the last 200 years, because Donald Trump is extreme, but so have many other things our country's history been and for the most part someone stopped them cold of the "logical solution". In other ways, I disagree, because I see a country of idiots, willing to tear themselves apart over their own imagined fears, anxieties and hatred, system be damned, because it's not their system.
I've been abroad enough to know that America is conservative compared to large parts of the world, but is insanely liberal compared to others. My time in Kuwait was one of quite literally threatening local cops and men with implied intimidation and violence to stop them from harassing my female Soldiers ( including them trying to proposition my Soldiers for sex, because they thought women walking without a man were automatically whores. ) on and near our base, while the time I spent in Italy saw them asking me why we were so against immigration and equal rights. My college degree in illustration taught me to hate and despise marketing and business majors as people who would happily gut a message and string what was left of it over their selling points.
I think things are becoming more volatile in America. I think that's a sign of America's waning power on the world stage, because from what I've learned in history class, most of the other big powers throughout history, from the Spanish and British Empires, to the Chinese Dynasties saw some of the same strife and arguing in their waning periods. I think it's entirely normal and frankly OK. It happens to all countries. It's just a matter of grace.
Truth be told, maybe I'm just cynical as all hell, because I've been playing copper too long, but all I see is the same old couple tribes of monkeys hurling rock and screeching over who gets the best tree. Anymore, I see the old conflict of "this monkey has power; the monkey he took it from doesn't like it; noise ensues." It'll all come back around when a new monkey who isn't quite strong enough anymore allies himself with the old monkey to overtake the current monkey; and the system will go on. We just need to make sure that the little monkeys who aren't quite strong enough to do for themselves don't get turned into leopard food in the process and maybe see if we can get the leopard to change his shorts and stop eating monkeys while we're at it.
kyupol wrote:A step towards total failure.
But he's a step in the right direction.
He's just a conman, as many ultra-rich are. Dangerously stupid though.
Managing business gives idiots like him a huge safety-net. If something goes wrong it's only his investors that suffer, he goes on scott free with their money and uses it to con more investors.
But as the president of an entire country the consequences of his foolishness can cost lives and trillions of dollars of not only US citizens but those all around the world.
My prediction is that the first (and hopefully only) term of Trump will see a massive investment bubble, with rampant investing, huge stock market values, with nothing at all behind it so that the crash when it comes will be very, very harsh.
So if that happens and the stock market seems deceptively good- invest quickly, make your money while you can but DO NOT stay for the ride or you will be very sorry.
Can you say Panic of 1837?
Or it could be boom economy like that brought on by JFK tax cuts in the early 1960s. They created a nation so wealthy it could send men to the moon, fight a war in Southeast Asia and fund massive social welfare programs all at once. That's what a few prominent economists are predicting.
But of course we know better don't we? After all the world is unliveable with a huge population and no ice caps and runaway inflation and no oil and Soviet union more powerful than ever just like all the good liberals predicted 40 years ago. Except there was that idiot Reagan who ruined the end of the world for everyone. Trump will probably ruin all the end of times forecasts again. They always do. If there is a boom, there will be a bust. There usually is.
Trump could the greatest.disaster as president since James Buchanan or another TR as Kissenger is pushing for him to be. He won't be Obama or Clinton so we'll have to see how the hand plays out.
But Australia will have to learn Cantonese when China annexes the South China Sea. Or would you prefer adaptation of Sharia law as part of a Greater Asian Caliphate?
Political forecasts aren't my Forte either. I predicted the first black president in 2000 as Colin Powell. I only record history, not predict it.
The will never be a greater Asian caliphate man XD
Muslim countries hate each other more than they hate other nations.
China could try invading this far south but it'd just be a massive ongoing war, since none of the Asian countries between us and them would acquiesce quietly and would probably join us on our soil.
More like Australia would become part of a southern Asian federation with Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, etc plus New Zealand.
But the Trump prediction is pretty damn solid really. Nothing poor about that. The world is not as it was I the mid 1800s, in the 60s or the 80s. The US has no big bogeyman to temper it's ambition and make it cautious anymore. Information moves faster than ever and we're seeing a lot of boom and bust cycles due to crazy speculation in the financial sector.
He's already selected a joke of a cabinet, the writing is on the wall.
Advertise with us
DDComics is community owned.
The following patrons help keep the lights on. You can support DDComics on Patreon.
- Banes
- JustNoPoint
- RMccool
- Abt_Nihil
- Gunwallace
- cresc
- PaulEberhardt
- Emma_Clare
- FunctionCreep
- SinJinsoku
- Smkinoshita
- jerrie
- Chickfighter
- Andreas_Helixfinger
- Tantz_Aerine
- Genejoke
- Davey Do
- Gullas
- Roma
- NanoCritters
- Teh Andeh
- Peipei
- Digital_Genesis
- Hushicho
- Palouka
- Cheeko
- Paneltastic
- L.C.Stein
- Zombienomicon
- Dpat57
- Bravo1102
- TheJagged
- LoliGen
- OrcGirl
- Fallopiancrusader
- Arborcides
- ChipperChartreuse
- Mogtrost
- InkyMoondrop
- jgib99
- Call me tom
- OrGiveMeDeath_Ind
- Mks_monsters
- GregJ
- HawkandFloAdventures
- Soushiyo