thekingofkings wrote: I dont agree, interests change over time and countries that were once useful allies don't always remain that way.
You can disagree all you want, but that just means you're wrong. This is not something that is open to debate, and you even concede that you're wrong in your own statement. You say that France and the UK are expendable now, but, as you said, interests change over time and useful allies don't always remain that way. An alliance with China may be less useful in 20 years, while events of that time make the UK a desperately needed ally. That's why it's utter lunacy to treat strong alliances that you already have as expendable, especially when you aren't getting anything in return.
I think its time to move on from the old world and start looking more to the rising economies of asia for alliances and trade. We could invest in South America more and Africa. be as incredulous as you want but are you seriously suggesting that Europe has more to offer than Asia?
{whynotboth.gif}
I don't have to suggest that Europe has more to offer because the two are not in conflict. We are not damaging our existing alliances as the unfortunate but necessary price of building other, more valuable alliances. We're throwing them away out of sheer incompetence as Trump fumbles around with no coherent policy plans beyond impulsive rants on twitter. The most likely result of Trump's foreign policy incompetence is that we lose our current allies while failing to get new allies, and end the Trump era in a far worse position than where we started.
I dont agree, interests change over time and countries that were once useful allies don't always remain that way. I think its time to move on from the old world and start looking more to the rising economies of asia for alliances and trade. We could invest in South America more and Africa. be as incredulous as you want but are you seriously suggesting that Europe has more to offer than Asia?
Yes.
Assuming you're not a fan of tyranny, slavery, and poor quality goods. Unless you think you're selling something to them,and then my only response is LOL.
thekingofkings wrote: I dont agree, interests change over time and countries that were once useful allies don't always remain that way.
You can disagree all you want, but that just means you're wrong. This is not something that is open to debate, and you even concede that you're wrong in your own statement. You say that France and the UK are expendable now, but, as you said, interests change over time and useful allies don't always remain that way. An alliance with China may be less useful in 20 years, while events of that time make the UK a desperately needed ally. That's why it's utter lunacy to treat strong alliances that you already have as expendable, especially when you aren't getting anything in return.
I think its time to move on from the old world and start looking more to the rising economies of asia for alliances and trade. We could invest in South America more and Africa. be as incredulous as you want but are you seriously suggesting that Europe has more to offer than Asia?
{whynotboth.gif}
I don't have to suggest that Europe has more to offer because the two are not in conflict. We are not damaging our existing alliances as the unfortunate but necessary price of building other, more valuable alliances. We're throwing them away out of sheer incompetence as Trump fumbles around with no coherent policy plans beyond impulsive rants on twitter. The most likely result of Trump's foreign policy incompetence is that we lose our current allies while failing to get new allies, and end the Trump era in a far worse position than where we started.
you love saying things are not open to debate, obviously it is open, I dont agree with you and we are arguing. these "strong" alliances are really not so great. Trump wont be a problem much longer. About the only part I can agree with you on is the last paragraph.
I dont agree, interests change over time and countries that were once useful allies don't always remain that way. I think its time to move on from the old world and start looking more to the rising economies of asia for alliances and trade. We could invest in South America more and Africa. be as incredulous as you want but are you seriously suggesting that Europe has more to offer than Asia?
Yes.
Assuming you're not a fan of tyranny, slavery, and poor quality goods. Unless you think you're selling something to them,and then my only response is LOL.
Surely you jest. Japan and Singapore have much better tech than Europe produces. As for tyranny and slavery, yeah Europe was and is still pretty good at that.
It;s not how long he's president, it's how much damage he can do to the world before someone stops him, possibly permanently.
sometime this November. Even if he is not removed from office (and pence with him) he will be effectively sidelined. I think he will be removed personally.
Surely you jest. Japan and Singapore have much better tech than Europe produces. As for tyranny and slavery, yeah Europe was and is still pretty good at that.
No, they really don't. Best tech comes out of Finland these days. You'd be surprised how many companies people assume are Asian and they're actually European.
thekingofkings wrote: you love saying things are not open to debate, obviously it is open, I dont agree with you and we are arguing.
I say it because it's true. You are stubbornly writing words, but those words are the equivalent of yelling "1+1=3" over and over again. You aren't just wrong, you're so badly wrong and so far outside the realm of legitimate foreign policy disagreements that nothing you say can be taken seriously.
these "strong" alliances are really not so great.
...
No, of course not. No strength at all in a relationship with the UK where the UK is willing to do whatever we want from them, and where nobody on either side ever questions that we are allies with common goals. Nope, better just throw that away in exchange for nothing but smug satisfaction at doing the opposite of everything Obama did.
thekingofkings wrote: you love saying things are not open to debate, obviously it is open, I dont agree with you and we are arguing.
I say it because it's true. You are stubbornly writing words, but those words are the equivalent of yelling "1+1=3" over and over again. You aren't just wrong, you're so badly wrong and so far outside the realm of legitimate foreign policy disagreements that nothing you say can be taken seriously.
these "strong" alliances are really not so great.
...
No, of course not. No strength at all in a relationship with the UK where the UK is willing to do whatever we want from them, and where nobody on either side ever questions that we are allies with common goals. Nope, better just throw that away in exchange for nothing but smug satisfaction at doing the opposite of everything Obama did.
Amazing, I think the same about what you are saying.
The difference is that what I'm saying aligns with the consensus of experts in foreign policy, while your position finds its only support in (arguably) the worst president in US history.
The difference is that what I'm saying aligns with the consensus of experts in foreign policy, while your position finds its only support in (arguably) the worst president in US history.
you mean experts you agree with. Like him or not, Bolton, Pompeo, etc are also experts.
Ouze wrote: You're asking why I don't think the US government is establishing concentration camps for migrant children? Because I'm not a fething idiot, I guess.
Hm.
That didn't quite come out the way I meant it, re-reading. To be clear, I'm not saying you're an idiot, or implying it; just that I think this "Auschwitz 2.0" theory is absolutely pants on head Alex Jones style crazy talk. This country did some awful things and still does some rather crappy things but that is really, really out there.
I have family from Germany that was around when Auschwitz 1.0 was in operation. And right up until the death camps were captured by allied soldiers and put in the public eye, they were considered, by the wider population of Germany, exactly that sort of crazy idea that no one took seriously.
That's why it's a bad idea to discount stuff like this instead of keep a wary eye on it. Stuff happens when no one is looking, so we'd best keep looking to make sure stuff DOESN'T happen. Or to put it another way, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".
Trump has not exactly endured himself to non-european counties either. For example his calling African counties "gakholes". Considering Africa as a whole is rapidly growing economically, enough that China has been investing quite a bit of capital themselves into it, the cheeto's brazen flippantly is not going to get us anything good, even if we decide to switch gears on foreign policy.
I'm for letting him have his whole term. One is on principle, if a POTUS is elected they deserve to get the whole four years, or put another way the nation deserves to endure the whole four years. Every month of his nonsense we endure will ingrain the memory of why not to elect people like him a little bit more. But on another note; there is nothing anyone can do to Trump that will be worse or carry more justice than what he will do to himself.
At risk of sounding overly dramatic, for Trump to destroy himself while dragging the country through the mud will be a terrible experience for people all around but sometimes that's the only thing humans learn from.
Vulcan wrote: I have family from Germany that was around when Auschwitz 1.0 was in operation. And right up until the death camps were captured by allied soldiers and put in the public eye, they were considered, by the wider population of Germany, exactly that sort of crazy idea that no one took seriously.
The difference is that what I'm saying aligns with the consensus of experts in foreign policy, while your position finds its only support in (arguably) the worst president in US history.
Exactly, not to mention that the US already has interests in both Africa and Asia. Yet the alliance system in Asia is more 'unstable' because WW2 still causes tension between US allies in the region which requires stronger US leadership, Europe can function more cooperatively as a US ally. Trump is actually doing well in allowing the Asian allies to drift away leaderless. The TPP Trump hates was important in retaining the upper hand in East Asia and force China to play by the rules of the US. Nothing Trump is doing has furthered US power anywhere. China couldn't be happier with Trump.
Vulcan wrote: I have family from Germany that was around when Auschwitz 1.0 was in operation. And right up until the death camps were captured by allied soldiers and put in the public eye, they were considered, by the wider population of Germany, exactly that sort of crazy idea that no one took seriously.
The Netherlands even has a saying for it right after 45: "wir haben es nicht gewusst", the German attitude towards the Holocaust in an ironically meant saying.
Already in 1941 the highest level of German government was discussing how to prevent 'rumors' from circulating about what was happening to Jewish people. Surviving SD reports back up that most of the population had an idea of what was happening. In certain parts of Silesia the slogan "Russland-Katyn, Deutschland-Auschwitz" started showing up in 43. How could most people not have an inkling of what was happening when half of the male adult population that served in the army was witnessing and partcipating in the operations of the Einsatzgruppen in the East?
Already in 1941 the highest level of German government was discussing how to prevent 'rumors' from circulating about what was happening to Jewish people. Surviving SD reports back up that most of the population had an idea of what was happening. In certain parts of Silesia the slogan "Russland-Katyn, Deutschland-Auschwitz" started showing up in 43. How could most people not have an inkling of what was happening when half of the male adult population that served in the army was witnessing and partcipating in the operations of the Einsatzgruppen in the East?
While I think any letters coming from the frontlines and occupied territories were prone to censorship, the sheer flux of wounded soldiers coming back from the front for medical treatment in their home states must've brought a lot of harrowing news for the civilians there.
My paternal grandfather was a dentist who got drafted into working for/with the Wehrmacht. I never talked to him about WW2 before he died - I was too young - but in hindsight I wouldn't believe him if he said he had no idea what was going on.
Already in 1941 the highest level of German government was discussing how to prevent 'rumors' from circulating about what was happening to Jewish people. Surviving SD reports back up that most of the population had an idea of what was happening. In certain parts of Silesia the slogan "Russland-Katyn, Deutschland-Auschwitz" started showing up in 43. How could most people not have an inkling of what was happening when half of the male adult population that served in the army was witnessing and partcipating in the operations of the Einsatzgruppen in the East?
While I think any letters coming from the frontlines and occupied territories were prone to censorship, the sheer flux of wounded soldiers coming back from the front for medical treatment in their home states must've brought a lot of harrowing news for the civilians there.
My paternal grandfather was a dentist who got drafted into working for/with the Wehrmacht. I never talked to him about WW2 before he died - I was too young - but in hindsight I wouldn't believe him if he said he had no idea what was going on.
I did some research into letters from the Eastern Front for my degree and you would be surprised in what was allowed to stay in in regards to censorship. Antisemitism, rascism and even descriptions of shooting people are not crossed out. But self censorship has always been an issue in these types of documents.
As for what your grandfather knew. It really depends on when he was drafted and where he served. But its unlikely that if he served in the East in 41-42 he didn't hear or see anything in regards to what was happening. And while not directly applicable to the Holocaust, even more soldiers would have known or participated in the even more widespread violence outside of that directed against the Jewish population in the East since 41.
The idea that this can be kept secret is simply untrue. Its even more unreasonable to expect it can in the current day in regards to the US.
reds8n wrote: Confidence in US leadership, change from Obama to Trump: -75%: Germany -71%: South Korea -70%: France -57%: UK -54% Japan +42%: Russia (Pew Research 2017)
To be fair, Trump like a lot of Republicans seems to think that being able to scream "feth you" at the top of your lungs is what being respected means
That is true respect indeed, at least until the big guys in white coats come with an anti-thrash jacket and big syringe of Thorazine.
However such things don't happen in international diplomacy, so the USA is safe for at least a decade while the EU and other and allies try to construct a world order in which they don't need the USA any more.
However such things don't happen in international diplomacy, so the USA is safe for at least a decade while the EU and other and allies try to construct a world order in which they don't need the USA any more.
I don't think Trump is capable of single handedly destroying US foreign policy. The danger, and what everyone is probably waiting to see, is will the present disfunction be the new norm of Republican politics. We're still I think at a point where a new president in 2020 with an actual foreign policy (as opposed to no policy) can recover things to at least the point we can write off the Trump years as an embarrassing but fluke failure. If however Trump wins reelection, which dear god please no any Republican at this point is a better choice and that's saying something, or his style becomes the style of the party then we're looking at a serious problem. Republicans talking nonsense has always been a problem, but it's generally been tempered by the party being more pragmatic in practical terms but that's been sliding off the cliff ever since the loss in 2008.
As I've said before, to look to the American future, you have to look to the past.
And in this case, comparing the USA to great empires of the past: Britain and the Roman Empire.
Rome didn't fall over night, rather it was a systematic decline over decades. And it was two world wars that did for Britain.
But even after WW1 when the Empire reached its zenith and controlled a quater of the globe, the Great War had knocked the stuffing out of Britain and it was down hill from there...
The Founding Fathers laid rock solid foundations when they built America and 9 times out of 10, the system is good enough to cope, the Civil War being a prime example
but those foundations are not impregnable
and the decline will be slow, like waves crashing on rocks for years before the rocks collapse...
Unless of course a modern day FDR springs up to turn things around
This is what happens when you let people operate under the belief that 'government is bad and can never do anything right' actually becone in charge of the government. All they know how to do is purposefully make government not work.
skyth wrote: This is what happens when you let people operate under the belief that 'government is bad and can never do anything right' actually becone in charge of the government. All they know how to do is purposefully make government not work.
For me, that's probably the saddest part of modern US politics.
For more than 200 years, political parties in America have obviously been opponents and at each other's throats.
But there was always a sense that yeah, we hate each other, but if we have to unite for the national good, we'll do it...
That is now missing, and American politics is all the poorer for it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm for letting him have his whole term. One is on principle, if a POTUS is elected they deserve to get the whole four years, or put another way the nation deserves to endure the whole four years
I think it would be best for Trump to go the whole term, barring communist revolution lmao, for the very simple reason that he's so much of a fuckup that he won't leave any room for the competent evil people with him to breathe. If he didn't essentially impose constant crisis mode they would be able to go much further. The damage that Trump does is less than the damage that Pence would do.
BaronIveagh wrote: Happened at the same time as the most recent school shooting. Only one of these two things gets the media dick hard.
Alternatively, an "assassination attempt" that occurred when Trump was nowhere near the location and was clearly an attempted suicide by cop gets no coverage because it isn't newsworthy. No need to resort to complaining about media coverage of school shootings to explain it.
BaronIveagh wrote: Happened at the same time as the most recent school shooting. Only one of these two things gets the media dick hard.
Alternatively, an "assassination attempt" that occurred when Trump was nowhere near the location and was clearly an attempted suicide by cop gets no coverage because it isn't newsworthy. No need to resort to complaining about media coverage of school shootings to explain it.
You would not believe the number of attempted hits that have come nowhere near a president. Some people just assume because a name is on a building that they're there.
Happened at the same time as the most recent school shooting. Only one of these two things gets the media dick hard.
BaronIveagh wrote:You would not believe the number of attempted hits that have come nowhere near a president. Some people just assume because a name is on a building that they're there.
Sounds like you're agreeing it wasn't really newsworthy, which is a pretty big swing from literally 2 posts ago
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm for letting him have his whole term. One is on principle, if a POTUS is elected they deserve to get the whole four years, or put another way the nation deserves to endure the whole four years
I think it would be best for Trump to go the whole term, barring communist revolution lmao, for the very simple reason that he's so much of a fuckup that he won't leave any room for the competent evil people with him to breathe. If he didn't essentially impose constant crisis mode they would be able to go much further. The damage that Trump does is less than the damage that Pence would do.
Not so long ago they had Bush and now with Trump some people long for those times as if he did so much better. No matter how far it swings to the left, after Trump is done with the USA it will swing back again after people have pushed this chapter from their memories. I don't know where on the "competent <-> feth up" scale that one will reside but it feels like the pants on head crazy part of the right wing is here to stay for a while and can't be dislodged that easily.
Vulcan wrote: I have family from Germany that was around when Auschwitz 1.0 was in operation. And right up until the death camps were captured by allied soldiers and put in the public eye, they were considered, by the wider population of Germany, exactly that sort of crazy idea that no one took seriously.
Yes, rumors were all over the place. Yes, soldiers came back with stories of rounding Jews up, and even summary executions. And yes, a hideous amount of anti-Semetism was written into German law at the time. But a camp where they have turned murder into an industrial process? Pull the other one, it's got bells on...
Out here in New Mexico we've got secret military installations all over, not least of which is Area 51. Nobody knows exactly what's going on there, not even people whose lands border on the property those installations are on. And that's with the U.S security apparatus keeping the curious away; I can only imagine anyone who got too close to one of the Nazi death camps didn't come home to tell the tale.
Vulcan wrote: I have family from Germany that was around when Auschwitz 1.0 was in operation. And right up until the death camps were captured by allied soldiers and put in the public eye, they were considered, by the wider population of Germany, exactly that sort of crazy idea that no one took seriously.
J
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.
Yes, rumors were all over the place. Yes, soldiers came back with stories of rounding Jews up, and even summary executions. And yes, a hideous amount of anti-Semetism was written into German law at the time. But a camp where they have turned murder into an industrial process? Pull the other one, it's got bells on...
Out here in New Mexico we've got secret military installations all over, not least of which is Area 51. Nobody knows exactly what's going on there, not even people whose lands border on the property those installations are on. And that's with the U.S security apparatus keeping the curious away; I can only imagine anyone who got too close to one of the Nazi death camps didn't come home to tell the tale.
Another thing that gets missed in the evolution of the concentration camps is that they started with revolving doors. It's not a perfect example, but think of them as a jail for non criminal crimes. Some folks did their time and were released in the early days of the concentration camps in Germany. Another factor was outside of Germany when Jews were being rounded up it was frequently done by locals with little German oversight. Something else lost in history is the number of other non desirables rounded up. Statistically, if you were a Jew in a concentration camp and you looked to your left and right one of those people was not a Jew.
A minor quibble, Jews weren't sent to Concentration Camps under the Final Solution but Extermination Camps, there was a difference even if these days Concentration Camp tends to be used as a catch-all.
But a camp where they have turned murder into an industrial process? Pull the other one, it's got bells on...
It was no accident that the Extermination Camps were all situated outside of Germany.
Trump did a good deed the other day when he pardoned Jack Johnson the boxer.
His 'crime' was to have a relationship with a white woman, and with Johnson being African-American, that kind of thing was frowned upon in those days with Jim Crow and all that.
His life story is quite interesting and he ended up being a freemason in Scotland of all places...
Vulcan wrote: I have family from Germany that was around when Auschwitz 1.0 was in operation. And right up until the death camps were captured by allied soldiers and put in the public eye, they were considered, by the wider population of Germany, exactly that sort of crazy idea that no one took seriously.
Yes, rumors were all over the place. Yes, soldiers came back with stories of rounding Jews up, and even summary executions. And yes, a hideous amount of anti-Semetism was written into German law at the time. But a camp where they have turned murder into an industrial process? Pull the other one, it's got bells on...
Out here in New Mexico we've got secret military installations all over, not least of which is Area 51. Nobody knows exactly what's going on there, not even people whose lands border on the property those installations are on. And that's with the U.S security apparatus keeping the curious away; I can only imagine anyone who got too close to one of the Nazi death camps didn't come home to tell the tale.
Actually this is wrong too. Nazi Germany prosecuted Germans for spreading 'rumors' that Jews were being gassed in 43 and 44. SD reports from the time claim that for at least parts of Eastern Germany the name of Auschwitz was known. Of course they didn't know exactly what was going on, but the murder of Jews on a vast scale wasn't exactly a secret even in Germany itself.
And as pointed out above, the death camps were not in Germany itself. Germans lived relaticely close to concentration camps in Germany and even benefitted from slave labor. The idea that something like this can be kept utterly secret in the US is just a fantasy. There are too many people involved in these sort of things.
Vulcan wrote: I have family from Germany that was around when Auschwitz 1.0 was in operation. And right up until the death camps were captured by allied soldiers and put in the public eye, they were considered, by the wider population of Germany, exactly that sort of crazy idea that no one took seriously.
Yes, rumors were all over the place. Yes, soldiers came back with stories of rounding Jews up, and even summary executions. And yes, a hideous amount of anti-Semetism was written into German law at the time. But a camp where they have turned murder into an industrial process? Pull the other one, it's got bells on...
Out here in New Mexico we've got secret military installations all over, not least of which is Area 51. Nobody knows exactly what's going on there, not even people whose lands border on the property those installations are on. And that's with the U.S security apparatus keeping the curious away; I can only imagine anyone who got too close to one of the Nazi death camps didn't come home to tell the tale.
Actually this is wrong too. Nazi Germany prosecuted Germans for spreading 'rumors' that Jews were being gassed in 43 and 44. SD reports from the time claim that for at least parts of Eastern Germany the name of Auschwitz was known. Of course they didn't know exactly what was going on, but the murder of Jews on a vast scale wasn't exactly a secret even in Germany itself.
And as pointed out above, the death camps were not in Germany itself. Germans lived relaticely close to concentration camps in Germany and even benefitted from slave labor. The idea that something like this can be kept utterly secret in the US is just a fantasy. There are too many people involved in these sort of things.
Auschwitz or Auschwitz II-Birkenau? Because Auschwitz was widely known, it was used for propaganda purposes, showing off the wonderful care the camp inhabitants had including sports facilities, medical care, swimming pool etc.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Auschwitz or Auschwitz II-Birkenau? Because Auschwitz was widely known, it was used for propaganda purposes, showing off the wonderful care the camp inhabitants had including sports facilities, medical care, swimming pool etc.
Sorry, yes Auschwitz-Birkenau. The SD was monitoring what people knew and heard about what was going on. People in the Eastern part of Germany knew relatively more than those in the West based on those documents.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well the NK story still continues. Kim seems to keep hammering on the meeting with Trump, Kim is certainly making himself look better in comparison.
And as pointed out above, the death camps were not in Germany itself. Germans lived relaticely close to concentration camps in Germany and even benefitted from slave labor. The idea that something like this can be kept utterly secret in the US is just a fantasy. There are too many people involved in these sort of things.
If you think that, I refer you to the testimony of the gas chamber door delivery and installation team. They ordered the doors from a company, who sent out two guys and a truck to install what would become the gas chamber doors. On arriving at the scene the only people these men saw were armed guards. Armed guards on the roofs, armed guards on the ground, armed guards inspecting their papers. They went to the directed building, they unloaded, and, as they installed them, asked the commander why they needed these doors. The commander replied it was for experiments with pressure. To which the men suggested that they had another model that was actually better for what they claimed to be doing at the same cost, and they could go get those doors instead. The commander replied that no, we'll go with these, and would not be deterred by the door deliverymen that they had a better one. So the men installed the doors, and drove away, feeling something was distinctly wrong, but never seeing a single inmate.
And as pointed out above, the death camps were not in Germany itself. Germans lived relaticely close to concentration camps in Germany and even benefitted from slave labor. The idea that something like this can be kept utterly secret in the US is just a fantasy. There are too many people involved in these sort of things.
If you think that, I refer you to the testimony of the gas chamber door delivery and installation team. They ordered the doors from a company, who sent out two guys and a truck to install what would become the gas chamber doors. On arriving at the scene the only people these men saw were armed guards. Armed guards on the roofs, armed guards on the ground, armed guards inspecting their papers. They went to the directed building, they unloaded, and, as they installed them, asked the commander why they needed these doors. The commander replied it was for experiments with pressure. To which the men suggested that they had another model that was actually better for what they claimed to be doing at the same cost, and they could go get those doors instead. The commander replied that no, we'll go with these, and would not be deterred by the door deliverymen that they had a better one. So the men installed the doors, and drove away, feeling something was distinctly wrong, but never seeing a single inmate.
Its not what I think, its about what is historically documented. Sure, some might not have any idea what was going on, but a lot of it was "out of sight, out of mind". The documents exist showing that Nazi Germany had to supress rumors about them gassing Jews.
As for the testimony above, without more context its hard to say why they saw no inmates, such as what the year was or which camp etc. But yes, some people might really not have noticed, but that gets harder and harder once the war progresses and it becomes much more visible.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The documents exist showing that Nazi Germany had to supress rumors about them gassing Jews.
I can show you documents proving they had to suppress rumors about the actions of the einsatzgruppen as well, but I highly doubt that anyone would have actually believed half the gak that men like Oskar Dirlewanger, a man deemed cruel and inhuman in his treatment of Jews by the SS, actually did. To the degree that the army Chaplains of the of the German army filed a protest due to the effect they were having on moral when they involved regular soldiers in their operations.
It's one thing to hear a rumor, it's another to actually believe it.
Disciple of Fate wrote: The documents exist showing that Nazi Germany had to supress rumors about them gassing Jews.
I can show you documents proving they had to suppress rumors about the actions of the einsatzgruppen as well, but I highly doubt that anyone would have actually believed half the gak that men like Oskar Dirlewanger, a man deemed cruel and inhuman in his treatment of Jews by the SS, actually did. To the degree that the army Chaplains of the of the German army filed a protest due to the effect they were having on moral when they involved regular soldiers in their operations.
It's one thing to hear a rumor, it's another to actually believe it.
True, but there had been plenty of horrible things directly witnessed even if the details were rumors. Germans after the war put quite some effort into obfuscating what they really knew. They build up the entire clean Wehrmacht myth as well. To say that most Germans didn't know because they weren't aware of the exact details is just not true is what I'm saying. In certain aspects the Germans have gone really far in taking responsibility while in other aspects it took decades to face what truly happened with fathers and grandfathers.
I feel this is getting awfully off topic from ICE death camps though
Well, to circle back, I think it's impossible right now that in the US that migrant children are being herded into death camps. Remember this is now a country where literally 50% of the country would give anything to make the other team look bad; there isn't a real sense of national unity. Too many people would know.
If you want to make the point that it's possible for the US to slide into industrial genocide like Germany did, or the way we did to the Native Americans like the trail of tears and so on, and we need to stay vigilant to prevent that I would readily agree. There is nothing magical or special about US citizens that would prevent the exact same kind of stuff from developing here the same way that it did there, the way it did back then.
We're pretty far from that now I think and hopefully we won't ever go back in the direction, hopefully the baby steps we've taken now towards authoritarianism do not last.
I think I would agree. Though I believe you are further down the road than baby steps given the militarized nature of your police forces and the level of incarceration in your society. I also find it terrifying that the most powerful country in the world is on that road at all. Nazi Germany was horrific, but beatable. The USA is likely not. At least not with anything resembling current society afterwards, in my view. You've built yourselves a military that no one can stand up to, and weapons of such fearsome power that the world has to cower and cringe to keep you happy.
The world hardly cowers and cringes to keep the US happy. And thay amazing military is less valuable in the nuclear age when a world war is just going to see the world burn.
Have you seen how our leaders in Europe speak to Trump? The only one who even vaguely doesn't tolerate his gak is Merkel, and I 50% believe that is because she knows she can't fake it very well. Politically, we absolutely do cringe and pander to the US's bs.
But Europe has always done that since 45 with the exception of France for a time, because it benefits us immensly. The world is larger than one of the most dedicated groups of US allies. If anything the moment when the US wielded the most power (1989/1991-2010ish) is over when considering how opposing powers have started behaving since the 2010s.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And thay amazing military is less valuable in the nuclear age when a world war is just going to see the world burn.
I think that's really only useful as a last-ditch invasion deterrent. No one stopped the annexation of Crimea or the low-intensity conflict in Ukraine.
Disciple of Fate wrote: And thay amazing military is less valuable in the nuclear age when a world war is just going to see the world burn.
I think that's really only useful as a last-ditch invasion deterrent. No one stopped the annexation of Crimea or the low-intensity conflict in Ukraine.
No of course not, but if we're talking about the US going full Nazi then world war 3 might no be far off either, as Da Boss said Nazi Germany was beatable in relation to current US might. Having a great military in a rational world is much better like you say.
Ouze wrote: Well, to circle back, I think it's impossible right now that in the US that migrant children are being herded into death camps. Remember this is now a country where literally 50% of the country would give anything to make the other team look bad; there isn't a real sense of national unity. Too many people would know.
If you want to make the point that it's possible for the US to slide into industrial genocide like Germany did, or the way we did to the Native Americans like the trail of tears and so on, and we need to stay vigilant to prevent that I would readily agree. There is nothing magical or special about US citizens that would prevent the exact same kind of stuff from developing here the same way that it did there, the way it did back then.
We're pretty far from that now I think and hopefully we won't ever go back in the direction, hopefully the baby steps we've taken now towards authoritarianism do not last.
Da Boss wrote: Have you seen how our leaders in Europe speak to Trump? The only one who even vaguely doesn't tolerate his gak is Merkel, and I 50% believe that is because she knows she can't fake it very well. Politically, we absolutely do cringe and pander to the US's bs.
The key here is that it's so dam EASY to manipulate Trump, why not act nice towards him and reap the benefits?
NinthMusketeer: I'm not seeing that myself. I see him pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, pulling out of the Iran deal, and generally trashing multilateral-ism all over the place. And we pretty much have to play nice.
I can't believe they are getting this thing back on track. It makes Trump look even worse after the official letter. What are they hoping to get out of this is the big question, meeting Kim has nothing to do with Trump's stated goals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: NinthMusketeer: I'm not seeing that myself. I see him pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, pulling out of the Iran deal, and generally trashing multilateral-ism all over the place. And we pretty much have to play nice.
Consider it damage control, Trump could be a lot worse towards Europe. We're not going to convince Trump otherwise, but we can reduce the potential damage to Europe.
It could be a negotiation tactic. North Korea is historically flakey, but if you threaten to cancel before they’ve gotten their handout they might be more willing to actually be genuine.
North Korea might be the one place where Trump being Trump is a good thing. He is unpredictable so NKs usual bait and switch isn’t a sure thing like against a “normal” US president.
But NK isn't trying to do a bait and switch. Kim actually wants to meet Trump because it will make him look good. What will be the bait and switch is NK ignoring any deal made there.
And that, the damage control you are talking about, that is what I mean when I say we cringe towards America. Any other country that behaved the way they behaved, we'd at least be discussing sanctions on them. Instead we suck up to Trump and flatter him. Forgive me if I'm not particularly impressed with that, but it's of course due to America's unrivalled power. Which is why America taking ANY steps on the road to fascism is fething terrifying.
And from where I'm sitting, plenty of them are cheering the fascists on.
(edit to add: I find it terrifying, but I do not think it is likely that the US will become a fascist state, just now much more possible than it seemed six years ago. And that's worrying enough! It looks to me like your systems have been corroded and damaged by excesses of money and lies, but they are still remarkably strong and well thought through in many regards. I have some hope that your legal system will help to protect your democratic systems, damaged as they are).
Da Boss wrote: And that, the damage control you are talking about, that is what I mean when I say we cringe towards America. Any other country that behaved the way they behaved, we'd at least be discussing sanctions on them. Instead we suck up to Trump and flatter him. Forgive me if I'm not particularly impressed with that, but it's of course due to America's unrivalled power. Which is why America taking ANY steps on the road to fascism is fething terrifying.
But again, you said the world, not Europe. Europe has played that role to the US since 45 because we benefit from being the junior partner in the US hegemony. We're not going to shoot ourselves in the foot by trying to destoy our own system. NATO and the Washington Consensus are hugely important just to burn down with sanctions over one stupid President.
You're trying to put the actions of some of the closest US allies as somehow representative of the whole world.
I'd agree with that, for now. I'm saying the mere possibility is terrifying. America is a bloody scary country, when you're not under it's protection. You could wipe my country off the map without breaking a sweat, and without using nuclear weapons. To see your country behaving so erratically is deeply worrying.
Da Boss wrote: And that, the damage control you are talking about, that is what I mean when I say we cringe towards America. Any other country that behaved the way they behaved, we'd at least be discussing sanctions on them. Instead we suck up to Trump and flatter him. Forgive me if I'm not particularly impressed with that, but it's of course due to America's unrivalled power. Which is why America taking ANY steps on the road to fascism is fething terrifying.
But again, you said the world, not Europe. Europe has played that role to the US since 45 because we benefit from being the junior partner in the US hegemony. We're not going to shoot ourselves in the foot by trying to destoy our own system.
You're trying to put the actions of some of the closest US allies as somehow representative of the whole world.
That's a fair cop. Re-write that to "The allies of the US". However, even their main opponents are pretty damn careful not to antagonize them.
Da Boss wrote: And that, the damage control you are talking about, that is what I mean when I say we cringe towards America. Any other country that behaved the way they behaved, we'd at least be discussing sanctions on them. Instead we suck up to Trump and flatter him. Forgive me if I'm not particularly impressed with that, but it's of course due to America's unrivalled power. Which is why America taking ANY steps on the road to fascism is fething terrifying.
But again, you said the world, not Europe. Europe has played that role to the US since 45 because we benefit from being the junior partner in the US hegemony. We're not going to shoot ourselves in the foot by trying to destoy our own system.
You're trying to put the actions of some of the closest US allies as somehow representative of the whole world.
That's a fair cop. Re-write that to "The allies of the US". However, even their main opponents are pretty damn careful not to antagonize them.
Because the main opponents have nothing to gain from directly antagonizing the US. The US is in an entirely different hemisphere from its opponents. You can undermine the US without directly going against it. Both China and Russia are doing that pretty well in the Middle East and East Asia without needing to directly clash with the US. Letting Trump dig his own grave is much better than useless confrontation.
Da Boss wrote: I'd agree with that, for now. I'm saying the mere possibility is terrifying. America is a bloody scary country, when you're not under it's protection. You could wipe my country off the map without breaking a sweat, and without using nuclear weapons. To see your country behaving so erratically is deeply worrying.
I think you have much more to worry about a possible 2nd Civil War then my country wiping your country "off the map".
Even then, it's such a remote possibility...that the odds are you'd be struck by lightning twice.
Keep in mind, our country goes through a "mini-revolution" every 4 years or so. Whether it's a different party taking control of the Whitehouse and/or swinging the House/Senate to different party.
We & you will be fine. Keep calling out the BS's and mind the bluster. Ya'll be fine.
whembly wrote:Da Boss... ya don't have to worry about the US going the fascism route.
Way too many armed citizens here.
And way too many are okay with things as they are going (and a two party system that leans rather to the right anyways). Pledge of Allegiance in school (I think?), that kneeling could be seen as disrespect to the country (and be a controversy for such a long time). Why are there so many flags? Or look through any police shooting thread where half the people justify any police shooting with the flimsiest of justifications. Or how about the deification of soldiers and the military? Relatively high degree of religiousness. Then we have all the rugged individualists/patriots who on the one hand say they'd stand up to fascism/totalitarianism but on the other hand also seem to implicitly support all kinds of policies that point towards fascism(-lite). To me it looks like most of them would fall in line instead of actually doing something about it.
At times it's creepy and worrying.
whembly wrote:
Da Boss wrote: I'd agree with that, for now. I'm saying the mere possibility is terrifying. America is a bloody scary country, when you're not under it's protection. You could wipe my country off the map without breaking a sweat, and without using nuclear weapons. To see your country behaving so erratically is deeply worrying.
I think you have much more to worry about a possible 2nd Civil War then my country wiping your country "off the map".
Even then, it's such a remote possibility...that the odds are you'd be struck by lightning twice.
Keep in mind, our country goes through a "mini-revolution" every 4 years or so. Whether it's a different party taking control of the Whitehouse and/or swinging the House/Senate to different party.
We & you will be fine. Keep calling out the BS's and mind the bluster. Ya'll be fine.
That's not a mini-revolution, just an election in a rather homogenous two party system. Those are two right wing parties, one more centrist (with a few left-ish ideas at times) and the other fell off the crazy cliff somewhere (right now). That's a barely more radical than a mild course correction. From the inside it may look like politically left and right but only because all the options outside of the tiny accepted window get ignored.
Da Boss wrote: I'd agree with that, for now. I'm saying the mere possibility is terrifying. America is a bloody scary country, when you're not under it's protection. You could wipe my country off the map without breaking a sweat, and without using nuclear weapons. To see your country behaving so erratically is deeply worrying.
Unprecedented, but not erratic. The current administration and sheer incompetence/corruption of the GOP is a direct result of a trend that has been clearly going on for decades. There is a very distinct cause and effect here whereby 40% of citizens have become increasingly delusional while the other 60% become increasingly apathetic. But what the current administration has done is mobilize a lot of those citizens who didn't bother to vote and made them realize that yes, elections do have consequences. And like I've mentioned before one could not create a plan that would set the GOP up for long-term failure more than what they are already doing. This is the party of white people (shrinking demographic), cuts to supporting the elderly (growing demographic), denying climate change (increasingly a problem), sexual harassment (with women trending towards greater political participation), and favoring the rich (as we enter the worst wealth gap since the 1920s). They have spent the last decade promising a lot only to finally get power and deliver worse than nothing. They have nothing left but lies, which are all well and good until the next economic crash hits. All of this was something a lot of people saw coming, whether they wanted to believe it or not anyone looking at things with a reasonably intelligent mindset knew US politics were going to get worse before they got better. But they will get better.
Very few Americans have enjoyed steadily rising pay beyond inflation over the last couple of decades, a shift from prior years in which the working and middle classes enjoyed broad-based wage gains as the economy expanded.
Why it matters: Now, executives of big U.S. companies suggest that the days of most people getting a pay raise are over, and that they also plan to reduce their work forces further.
Show less
Quick take: This was rare, candid and bracing talk from executives atop corporate America, made at a conference Thursday at the Dallas Fed. The message is that Americans should stop waiting for across-the-board pay hikes coinciding with higher corporate profit; to cash in, workers will need to shift to higher-skilled jobs that command more income.
Troy Taylor, CEO of the Coke franchise for Florida, said he is currently adding employees with the idea of later reducing the staff over time "as we invest in automation." Those being hired: technically-skilled people. "It's highly technical just being a driver," he said.
The moderator asked the panel whether there would be broad-based wage gains again. "It's just not going to happen," Taylor said. The gains would go mostly to technically-skilled employees, he said. As for a general raise? "Absolutely not in my business," he said.
John Stephens, chief financial officer at AT&T, said 20% of the company's employees are call-center workers. He said he doesn't need that many. In addition, he added, "I don't need that many guys to install coaxial cables."
Because of the changes coming, AT&T is pushing employees to take nano-degree programs to prepare them for other jobs — either at AT&T or elsewhere.
It's almost like thinking saving the rich money will result in a better job situation for everyone is completely out of touch with reality or something.
LordofHats wrote: It's almost like thinking saving the rich money will result in a better job situation for everyone is completely out of touch with reality or something.
If only there was some way people could have known!
reds8n wrote: The message is that Americans should stop waiting for across-the-board pay hikes coinciding with higher corporate profit; to cash in, workers will need to shift to higher-skilled jobs that command more income.
Which are actually few and far between even if you have the skills and experience.
LordofHats wrote: It's almost like thinking saving the rich money will result in a better job situation for everyone is completely out of touch with reality or something.
If only there was some way people could have known!
Ouze wrote: No, no, it will be different this time!
I swear, it's like an episode of COPS. . .but one of those episodes where the wife is throwing that super redneck husband's gak all over the lawn through the windows of the house, while he's on the lawn saying "baby I'm sorry!!! I swear this time will be different!!!"
Only problem is. . . some of the "wives" in this situation happily welcome the trashy dude back into the house and believe that things will be different this time.
It's all eighteenth-dimensional chess. The more people are underpaid or even lose their jobs, the more economic anxiety they'll have. And, as we all know, economic anxiety is the defining trait of the Trump supporter!
Poland wants a permanent U.S. military presence — and is willing to pony up as much as $2 billion
to get it, according to a defense ministry proposal obtained by Polish news portal Onet.
The Polish offer reflects a long-standing desire in Warsaw to build closer security relations with the U.S.
and put American boots on the ground. The push dates back to Poland’s entry into NATO in 1999, but has taken
on added urgency in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region four years ago and aggressive posture toward the alliance.
Coming just over a month before NATO leaders gather in Brussels for a summit, the Polish initiative is bound
to anger Russia, and will be looked at with skepticism by European allies that want to improve relations with Moscow, such as Italy and at times Germany.
Very few Americans have enjoyed steadily rising pay beyond inflation over the last couple of decades, a shift from prior years in which the working and middle classes enjoyed broad-based wage gains as the economy expanded.
Why it matters: Now, executives of big U.S. companies suggest that the days of most people getting a pay raise are over, and that they also plan to reduce their work forces further.
Show less
Quick take: This was rare, candid and bracing talk from executives atop corporate America, made at a conference Thursday at the Dallas Fed. The message is that Americans should stop waiting for across-the-board pay hikes coinciding with higher corporate profit; to cash in, workers will need to shift to higher-skilled jobs that command more income.
Troy Taylor, CEO of the Coke franchise for Florida, said he is currently adding employees with the idea of later reducing the staff over time "as we invest in automation." Those being hired: technically-skilled people. "It's highly technical just being a driver," he said.
The moderator asked the panel whether there would be broad-based wage gains again. "It's just not going to happen," Taylor said. The gains would go mostly to technically-skilled employees, he said. As for a general raise? "Absolutely not in my business," he said.
John Stephens, chief financial officer at AT&T, said 20% of the company's employees are call-center workers. He said he doesn't need that many. In addition, he added, "I don't need that many guys to install coaxial cables."
Because of the changes coming, AT&T is pushing employees to take nano-degree programs to prepare them for other jobs — either at AT&T or elsewhere.
..thanks for the tax cuts though.
I ain't rich... just barely able to maintain my Warhammer hobby. And the tax cut gave me an immediate benefit.
Might as well, we already train there on a regular basis, and they are very committed members of NATO.
I went to Poland twice for maintenance support during the first + second (I think but could be wrong, I remember it was a big deal for us to enter Poland in 2000 ) training exercises that Poland hosted after it became a NATO member in 1999. It was a hellacious drive from my post in Bamberg.
Poland wants a permanent U.S. military presence — and is willing to pony up as much as $2 billion
to get it, according to a defense ministry proposal obtained by Polish news portal Onet.
The Polish offer reflects a long-standing desire in Warsaw to build closer security relations with the U.S.
and put American boots on the ground. The push dates back to Poland’s entry into NATO in 1999, but has taken
on added urgency in the wake of Russia’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region four years ago and aggressive posture toward the alliance.
Coming just over a month before NATO leaders gather in Brussels for a summit, the Polish initiative is bound
to anger Russia, and will be looked at with skepticism by European allies that want to improve relations with Moscow, such as Italy and at times Germany.
OOOOOOoooh... Trump may take them up on that offer...
Da Boss wrote: Have you seen how our leaders in Europe speak to Trump? The only one who even vaguely doesn't tolerate his gak is Merkel, and I 50% believe that is because she knows she can't fake it very well. Politically, we absolutely do cringe and pander to the US's bs.
The key here is that it's so dam EASY to manipulate Trump, why not act nice towards him and reap the benefits?
Quite simply, because it doesn't work. Take the UK as an example. Apart from the people thinking he's a massive bell-end the government has been consistently simpering upto him and kissing his arse, but that won't stop him trying to get us to break up the NHS and sell it off to American health companies, but only after he's forced us to pony up even more money for drugs because the American health system can't compete.
He's not a capitalist, he's a monopolist, and he wants Americans to hold all the monopolies, and feth everyone else.
As a foreign national you can no more manipulate Trump than you can control a drunken bull in a China shop with a balloon on a stick.
Da Boss wrote: Have you seen how our leaders in Europe speak to Trump? The only one who even vaguely doesn't tolerate his gak is Merkel, and I 50% believe that is because she knows she can't fake it very well. Politically, we absolutely do cringe and pander to the US's bs.
The key here is that it's so dam EASY to manipulate Trump, why not act nice towards him and reap the benefits?
Quite simply, because it doesn't work. Take the UK as an example. Apart from the people thinking he's a massive bell-end the government has been consistently simpering upto him and kissing his arse, but that won't stop him trying to get us to break up the NHS and sell it off to American health companies, but only after he's forced us to pony up even more money for drugs because the American health system can't compete.
He's not a capitalist, he's a monopolist, and he wants Americans to hold all the monopolies, and feth everyone else.
As a foreign national you can no more manipulate Trump than you can control a drunken bull in a China shop with a balloon on a stick.
Where are you getting this Trump trying to break up the NHS to sell it to American health companies?? o.O
Da Boss wrote: Have you seen how our leaders in Europe speak to Trump? The only one who even vaguely doesn't tolerate his gak is Merkel, and I 50% believe that is because she knows she can't fake it very well. Politically, we absolutely do cringe and pander to the US's bs.
The key here is that it's so dam EASY to manipulate Trump, why not act nice towards him and reap the benefits?
Quite simply, because it doesn't work. Take the UK as an example. Apart from the people thinking he's a massive bell-end the government has been consistently simpering upto him and kissing his arse, but that won't stop him trying to get us to break up the NHS and sell it off to American health companies, but only after he's forced us to pony up even more money for drugs because the American health system can't compete.
He's not a capitalist, he's a monopolist, and he wants Americans to hold all the monopolies, and feth everyone else.
As a foreign national you can no more manipulate Trump than you can control a drunken bull in a China shop with a balloon on a stick.
Where are you getting this Trump trying to break up the NHS to sell it to American health companies?? o.O
It's widely reported in the UK that American Health companies are desperate to sink their teeth into the NHS, and because of our weakness post Brexit and desperation to get a deal with the US it is feared that May will sell off parts to the US to secure that deal. But, as we know Trump is not a reliable business partner, especially to a weakened partner.
If she does sell us down the river on this, the Tories will be unelectable for a generation as public anger would be considerable. Most Brits are appalled at the thought of US style health provision. Frankly we find it repugnant, and would much rather you chaps keep your mitts of what's ours and we won't mess with yours.
He may as well fly over and take a dump on the Union Flag.
PotUS wrote: “Happy Memorial Day! Those who died for our great country would be very happy and proud at how well our country is doing today. Best economy in decades, lowest unemployment numbers for Blacks and Hispanics EVER (& women in 18years), rebuilding our Military and so much more. Nice!”
Kilkrazy wrote: There's no telling what the Trump lout might do once he's got hold of a ludicrous idea and convinced himself it's (a) great and (b) his.
Kilkrazy wrote: There's no telling what the Trump lout might do once he's got hold of a ludicrous idea and convinced himself it's (a) great and (b) his.
Yeah, I wonder if that bit about Poland willing to pay for a military base might give him some ideas on how to make some extra money around the world:
"Nice country you've got here. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it. For $2 billion we could put a base here for you, and keep things from...breaking."
Kilkrazy wrote: There's no telling what the Trump lout might do once he's got hold of a ludicrous idea and convinced himself it's (a) great and (b) his.
Yeah, I wonder if that bit about Poland willing to pay for a military base might give him some ideas on how to make some extra money around the world:
"Nice country you've got here. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it. For $2 billion we could put a base here for you, and keep things from...breaking."
In regards to nothing in particular, I have to say politics has not been nearly as entertaining of late. The GOP congress hasn't tried to do anything of particular note and the White House hasn't done much other than denial, brags, and bribes. Blatant corruption is not as entertaining as blatant incompetence.
BaronIveagh wrote: Happened at the same time as the most recent school shooting. Only one of these two things gets the media dick hard.
Also at the same time as the Texas shooting there was another mass shooting in Texas - a man in the midst of a divorce shot his children then himself. Leaving the wife alive and grieving to spite him. It's a kind of shooting that's extremely common but barely covered in the media.
The reasons why are complex. But just look at your post, complexity is not entering the picture. You want your crude fantasy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its quickly becoming a soap opera. The "will they, won't they?" North Korea-US summit saga continues:
My favourite part was when the NYT reported Trump's staff saying the talks were off, only for Trump to declare they were on again the next day. Trump then got very angry at the Times for using a made up, anonymous source, only for it to later come out that the source was just the daily background briefing, where Trump's aide told all media present that the talks were off.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I totally agree. I think this policy of separating the minor children serves no serious, useful purpose other than cruelty.
The best and most satisfying explanation I've yet read for Trump is he embraces a kind of performative cruelty targeted at (mostly) groups that his base love to hate on.
On the greater issue you were addressing, ICE and the freakout its suddenly created, I don't really have much to add. The idea of 1,400 lost kids is silly, so is likening the camps to Nazi Germany, but at the same time the idea of seperating kids from their parents over as minor an infringement as a breach of VISA is abhorrent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: In this country... separating parents from their childrens happens all the time... especially when said parents breaks the law and goes to jail.
What you've missed is that courts use discretion in how and when people are imprisoned, with the interests of the kids being an important part of those considerations. Often house detention will be used so the parent is there for the kid. Other times if both parents are convicted one sentence will be delayed until the first parent has served their time, so there is always a parent free to raise the child. Very minor crimes will have suspended sentences because the interest of the state in ensuring the child is raised by its parent is considered more important than full punishment.
What we're seeing now is breaches of immigration being elevated to something as serious as violent crime, which plainly ridiculous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: The most important/powerful country on that list happens to be the only one where the confidence rose. Russia is also the only one on the list capable of using both its soft and hard power to further its interests.
You think Russia is more powerful than Japan, Germany, South Korea, France and the UK? Russia is weaker than all those countries by a very large margin. You need to stop confusing the Putin strong man fantasy with actual real world political realities.
Also, you don't know what soft power means.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: they have been able to pretty much do whatever they want on the world stage and noone has done anything significant about it. They simply took large chunks of the ukraine, shot down an airliner and are calling the shots in syria.
Having to fall back on overt military power because direct neighbours and long time strategic allies is not a sign of strength. It is the last resort because all other methods have failed due to weakness.
Think about it this way, China is expanding its ports across SE Asia and the east coast of Africa, and its doing it with strategic alliances and cold hard cash. In contrast Russia can't keep a military port within spitting distance of its own border, and ends up having to invade Ukraine just to keep it.
And the response to that overt use of force by Russia has been international sanctions which have crippled Russia. Russia responded with sanctions of its own, and I challenge you to find a single person that even noticed Russia put up sanctions. This is largely why Russia has gone on this new strategy of trying to subvert democracy in other countries - Russia is choosing a new form of asymmetric conflict because Russia is so utterly unable to engage in normal economic conflict.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: other than an insult, how about showing why they are? what do they provide that the US needs them for?
Intel sharing between these countries is enormously valuable. This information sharing isn't so much traded as organic - the NSA is often described as the central hub of a vast intel collective, in which info developed by British or other allied countries moves freely to the US, just as it moves freely from the US to its strategic allies.
Trade with France totals $80 billion per year. Trade with the UK totals $110 billion per year.
Both France and the UK have close relationships with their widely dispersed former colonies, this often extends to supporting military facilities. While the US blue seas capability is extraordinary, ultimately extended operations need local ports or they become impractical very quickly. Through close relations with the US and France those disperse port facilities are easier accessed.
Both France and the UK have very large economic and political footprints in world affairs. The US age of dominance has been achieved not merely because it has the largest economy and military, but because the US succeeded in bringing together an alliance including all other major nations, including the UK and France.
So there you are, you've got the explanation you asked for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: I dont agree, interests change over time and countries that were once useful allies don't always remain that way. I think its time to move on from the old world and start looking more to the rising economies of asia for alliances and trade. We could invest in South America more and Africa. be as incredulous as you want but are you seriously suggesting that Europe has more to offer than Asia?
1) The US does invest in South America and Africa. This level of investment is not in any way impacted by the relationship with any nation in Europe. 2) Close relations with Europe don't impact relations with any Asian nations. Quite the opposite, by maintaining close co-ordination with European powers it allows the US to give a unified front in establishing deals with Asian nations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: you mean experts you agree with. Like him or not, Bolton, Pompeo, etc are also experts.
John Bolton is trained in international law, and built his expertise in legal argument working with the UN. Legal issues are the beginning and end of Bolton's understanding of foreign policy. Did anyone but me actually read Bolton's argument for an attack on North Korea. Bolton's entire argument was that such an attack would be a legal action. Bolton didn't even address any notion of how such an attack might align with US interests, or what potential risks it entailed. He didn't even entertain those most basic of strategic concepts. When asked what the US should do, all Bolton can do is give you his personal, legal opinion on what it is legal to do.
Pompeo is also not an expert. He's a completely run of the mill politician. His resume is quite impressive, service in the tank corps, impressive legal education, then a shift in to using Republican connected investment funds (Koch & Bain) to build a small business empire, before switching in to politics. His run at the CIA was notably smooth, quite a feat given Trump's attack on US intelligence services at the time. But notice the complete and utter lack of any experience or education in foreign policy. The only claim to that is Trump appointing him Secretary of State - but Trump also appointed Rick Perry as Energy Secretary, it didn't make Perry an expert on nuclear physics.
Yep. A one way train line carried hundreds of thousands of people to a camp that housed a few thousand. People knew.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mario wrote: Not so long ago they had Bush and now with Trump some people long for those times as if he did so much better. No matter how far it swings to the left, after Trump is done with the USA it will swing back again after people have pushed this chapter from their memories. I don't know where on the "competent <-> feth up" scale that one will reside but it feels like the pants on head crazy part of the right wing is here to stay for a while and can't be dislodged that easily.
If I buy one brand of car for 60 years and they deliver quality and value for money every time, then one time I get a lemon, well I'll give them a mulligan. Everybody screws up from time to time. But if a couple of cars later I get another stinker, well this time I'm probably not going to ignore it so easily. At the very least I might start to look in to what's changed in the company, if something has happened that they might no longer be able to produced good cars so reliably.
When GW Bush happened and he had his stupid Iraq war, the international world gave America a mulligan. Now we've got an even bigger lemon than Bush. If nothing else, it's prompted other countries to cast a more cynical eye over US politics, and see what's actually going on inside Republican politics. It is far from certain, but it is becoming possible that foreign policy catastrophe is just what we can expect now when Republicans control the presidency.
Even the possibility that might be somewhat true has enormous implications for world affairs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Da Boss... ya don't have to worry about the US going the fascism route.
Way too many armed citizens here.
Fascism doesn't happen because there aren't enough citizens with guns to stop it. Fascism happens because the citizens with guns want it to happen.
Note I'm not saying the US is becoming fascist, or that gun owners in the US are fascist or anything like that. I'm saying the idea that guns keep democracy safe from fascist takeover is wildly wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I ain't rich... just barely able to maintain my Warhammer hobby. And the tax cut gave me an immediate benefit.
The cost of the tax cut is now out to $1.8 trillion.
It's like some guy walked up to whembly, and said the two of them should co-sign on a loan for $100, the other guy will keep $90 and whembly will get $10. whembly, smile beaming across his face, runs all the way home shouting 'I got me $10!'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Yeah, I wonder if that bit about Poland willing to pay for a military base might give him some ideas on how to make some extra money around the world: "Nice country you've got here. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it. For $2 billion we could put a base here for you, and keep things from...breaking."
Trump already did that. Remember when he was fixated on NATO and started talking how the other countries don't pay for it. It seems someone had shown Trump other countries falling short of the 2% commitment, but Trump seemed to treat it as the amount other countries should be paying to the US in tribute or something. And he just would not stop repeating that nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: In regards to nothing in particular, I have to say politics has not been nearly as entertaining of late. The GOP congress hasn't tried to do anything of particular note and the White House hasn't done much other than denial, brags, and bribes. Blatant corruption is not as entertaining as blatant incompetence.
The Republican congress is laying low until after mid-terms, because literally everything they want to pass would cost them terribly if it was still fresh on the voters minds come elections. People talk about Trump's rising approvals and GOP gains in the generic polls, and keep assigning it to something Trump has done. Truth is, apart from Republicans loyally returning to their tribe before election, most of the gain is because its been a long time since the ACA repeal and tax scam were the focus of politics. Incredibly just giving it 6 or 12 months is enough for many people to just kind of forget the legislation Republicans are committed to.
To an extent the electorate is kind of getting what it deserves. "OMG that's outrageous working people lose healthcare and the deficit explodes just so CEOs can pay less tax we need to protest and oh what was I talking about something about politics but whatever they're all the same I mean there was those emails and yeah I'm definitely voting Green because the major parties are all the same."
So Abe briefed Trump on the NK meeting that is back on again (or not depending on what happens in the time I write this). Trump is still intent on winging it and I can't imagine we're going to get a productive meeting. Trump has no idea what he actually wants from NK besides not having nukes. Trump is doing all this flip flopping to get a personal meeting with Kim just to demand something he could have put in a letter. Somehow this is going to be a 'great deal' I feel. Curious how they are going to spin this right after and once either NK or the US simply flakes on any vague promises made. You almost feel bad for Abe having to go through this.
On Poland offering 2 billion, that is peanuts, about .3% of the US defense budget. It sounds like a great deal but when you really think about it, has 0.3% of a yearly budget really held back a base for almost 20 years? The US has already an entire infrastructure set up one country over.
Disciple of Fate wrote: On Poland offering 2 billion, that is peanuts, about .3% of the US defense budget. It sounds like a great deal but when you really think about it, has 0.3% of a yearly budget really held back a base for almost 20 years? The US has already an entire infrastructure set up one country over.
The first thing to note is Poland isn't offering up $2 billion in cash. It has said it will invest $2 billion in facilities and services to support the base. It will build the roads and buildings etc. I know you point out the US has a base just one country over, and while that's true being one country closer to Russia is a big deal for presenting a strong NATO front against Russia. But that's really just symbolism, as to whether US operations would be advantaged by having a base in Poland I don't know.
The other part is Poland also has a pretty good claim as one of the better members of NATO - they are among a rare few NATO members who reliably meet their 2% obligation.
All of which gives a pretty sound case for this base, but honestly none of that matters. The US elected a corrupt man child to the presidency. So whether this happens will come down to whether Poland flatters Trump enough or offers to build Trump Warsaw. All the talk about what the deal is and whether it will do anything is kind of meaningless during the Trump age.
As to the NK issue - I think what is most telling is that we haven't even reached the part where these kinds of talks fall apart and it's already a high drama production. That doesn't mean that a deal won't happen but at this point we haven't even started on the hard stuff yet. Normally by the time heads of state meet the general boundaries of the negotiation have been established, and more often than not an agreement in principal has been reached, and it is now just about the final details. Here we don't even know what the goals of each side are.
Is NK willing to give up its nukes? It's hard to believe they'd give up the weapons that just got them a sit down with a US president, but if they're not on the table why are they even bothering to go through with the meeting? All the prestige could have been won just by rejecting Trump's agreement to meet. Are they just trying to sound out Trump, see if he's actually willing to invade?
And on the flip side, what is the US position here? Are the US willing to entertain any deal where NK keeps some of its weapons?
I get the impression that what's left of the State Department have some ideas about what they want to do, but Trump is only interested making himself look like a big-shot international statesman and he's just dicking around because he thinks that will work for him. Which it will because he will spin it anyway.
Frankly, in the age of the Trump lout it looks like the USA won't be able to get to a coherent agreement because Trump, and if they did make a deal NK would probably renege because that's what they always do. And if NK didn't renege, the US would probably renege like they did over Iran.
But none of it matters anyway because Trump will just lie about it and move swiftly to the next bit of international feth-wittery, the world will look in horror and disbelief and Trump will go to a rally and see lots of MAGA hats thrown in the air and he will feel GOOD.
Disciple of Fate wrote: On Poland offering 2 billion, that is peanuts, about .3% of the US defense budget. It sounds like a great deal but when you really think about it, has 0.3% of a yearly budget really held back a base for almost 20 years? The US has already an entire infrastructure set up one country over.
The first thing to note is Poland isn't offering up $2 billion in cash. It has said it will invest $2 billion in facilities and services to support the base. It will build the roads and buildings etc. I know you point out the US has a base just one country over, and while that's true being one country closer to Russia is a big deal for presenting a strong NATO front against Russia. But that's really just symbolism, as to whether US operations would be advantaged by having a base in Poland I don't know.
The other part is Poland also has a pretty good claim as one of the better members of NATO - they are among a rare few NATO members who reliably meet their 2% obligation.
All of which gives a pretty sound case for this base, but honestly none of that matters. The US elected a corrupt man child to the presidency. So whether this happens will come down to whether Poland flatters Trump enough or offers to build Trump Warsaw. All the talk about what the deal is and whether it will do anything is kind of meaningless during the Trump age.
As to the NK issue - I think what is most telling is that we haven't even reached the part where these kinds of talks fall apart and it's already a high drama production. That doesn't mean that a deal won't happen but at this point we haven't even started on the hard stuff yet. Normally by the time heads of state meet the general boundaries of the negotiation have been established, and more often than not an agreement in principal has been reached, and it is now just about the final details. Here we don't even know what the goals of each side are.
Is NK willing to give up its nukes? It's hard to believe they'd give up the weapons that just got them a sit down with a US president, but if they're not on the table why are they even bothering to go through with the meeting? All the prestige could have been won just by rejecting Trump's agreement to meet. Are they just trying to sound out Trump, see if he's actually willing to invade?
And on the flip side, what is the US position here? Are the US willing to entertain any deal where NK keeps some of its weapons?
Yes it isn't cash of course, but facilities. But that is just the beginning, operating costs might not be worth it in the long run and there might not be a sound strategic reasoning beyond symbolism. From a realistic point of view it is questionable to what extent an extra base in Poland would benefit NATO.
The 2% norm is true, but its hard to argue military strategy from a budget percentage point of view in another country. And its again symbolism, the difference between 1.8 or 2% might be minimal at best. Not exactly something the US might want to make decades long commitments over.
It depends on the size, but in the long run that 2 billion might be a small investment to the amount of money the US would spend maintaining and operating it. Its a flashy number with a much bigger price tag attached, larger bases run in the hundreds of millions a year. But that is hard to know when the size is not clear. A smart deal would be to try and share costs like the US does with Korea or Japan, instead if just putting the buildings down. But yeah, no point at looking at this rationally with Trump in charge I guess.
Yes, its amazing how much drama Trump can insert in just keeping to an appointment for a talk he wanted to have in the first place. The amount of times he has publically gone back and forth is seriously amateurish. It clearly shows a man that makes his decisions based on which leg he used to get out of bed in the morning. And that's just being flakey to the build up to the talks. Any serious attempt at talks (which I doubt NK is interested in given the Trump demands of bending over) would have been undermined at this point.
Kim might want to present the US with a fait accompli regarding the nukes. Try to moderate its stance towards South Korea and the region in exchange for concessions. Questionable, NK knows a deal with Trump is likely worthless. At the same time the US has already publically shown its cards and these talks seem pretty pointless unless NK wants to give up its nukes. Trump does it for his ego and possibly because he actually believes he can convince Kim in person. I honestly can't believe that anyone rational expects the US to get anything serious out of these talks if the US has only one sided demands, but so far I haven't really heard the few rational people in the admin giving any indication of what the idea is.
Pretty crazy, a US President is going to meet the 'Supreme Leader' of North Korea and 2 weeks beforehand they still don't seem to know what they are going to do. This is what people do in highschool when they have to give a presentation, not a top level meeting in one of the most volatile regions in the world
Its been 1.5 years and its still hard to believe that this is reality.
tneva82 wrote: It's pretty weird when NK leader appears as more rational and professional than US president...
Honestly I think that's all this is about in the end. PRNK is milking this situation for everything they can, figuring that embarrassing the US internationally helps them in the long run which it probably does in a few subtle ways.
LordofHats wrote: PRNK is milking this situation for everything they can, figuring that embarrassing the US internationally helps them in the long run which it probably does in a few subtle ways.
Not to mention the massive propaganda win they get if the US President actually meets Kim. North Korea is finally so important and powerful that their arch-nemesis has to negotiate directly with them! We're big players on the international scene!
LordofHats wrote: PRNK is milking this situation for everything they can, figuring that embarrassing the US internationally helps them in the long run which it probably does in a few subtle ways.
Not to mention the massive propaganda win they get if the US President actually meets Kim. North Korea is finally so important and powerful that their arch-nemesis has to negotiate directly with them! We're big players on the international scene!
Aside from the PR, my read on the NK situation is that it’s all about stalling; I think that they believe that the Trump administration is unstable and unpredictable enough to actually start a conflict, which, despite all of their posturing, the North Koreans’ know would be massively damaging to their own country. So offer an olive branch, blow up a now useless test facility, make some vague, unverifiable, commitments at this conference and keep spinning it along. Even if one side or other (or both) reneges on whatever deal comes out of this summer, it’s not going to happen immediately and wouldn’t immediately be followed by military action, it would take time for both. They’ve already got through 1.5 years, only 2.5 to go.
whembly wrote: Da Boss... ya don't have to worry about the US going the fascism route.
Way too many armed citizens here.
Fascism doesn't happen because there aren't enough citizens with guns to stop it. Fascism happens because the citizens with guns want it to happen.
Note I'm not saying the US is becoming fascist, or that gun owners in the US are fascist or anything like that. I'm saying the idea that guns keep democracy safe from fascist takeover is wildly wrong.
Nope... fascism happens when citizens are powerless to do anything about it. The ability to revolt would always be a trump card (heh) in case a Mussolini-wannabe get any bright ideas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I ain't rich... just barely able to maintain my Warhammer hobby. And the tax cut gave me an immediate benefit.
The cost of the tax cut is now out to $1.8 trillion.
It's like some guy walked up to whembly, and said the two of them should co-sign on a loan for $100, the other guy will keep $90 and whembly will get $10. whembly, smile beaming across his face, runs all the way home shouting 'I got me $10!'
Hey look everyone... seb is making gak up.
If anything it's my kids and grandkinds paying the bill.
Nope... fascism happens when citizens are powerless to do anything about it. The ability to revolt would always be a trump card (heh) in case a Mussolini-wannabe get any bright ideas.
JFC. . . did you sleep through every year of school history???? Literally every course that discusses how the Fascists in Germany and Italy came into power, and they all generally say the exact fething opposite of what you just did.
Nope... fascism happens when citizens are powerless to do anything about it. The ability to revolt would always be a trump card (heh) in case a Mussolini-wannabe get any bright ideas.
JFC. . . did you sleep through every year of school history???? Literally every course that discusses how the Fascists in Germany and Italy came into power, and they all generally say the exact fething opposite of what you just did.
They were voted into power homie.... and they restricted gun ownership.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Meanwhile, Rosanne calls someone a Monkey and goes on a Trump-style twitter rant and gets her show cancelled.
I’m sure Trump will have an opinion about that soon.
She's also a fan of recently incarcerated British racist gobshite Tommy "The Gammon" Robinson too. It's funny how more right wing you become as you get older.
Spinner wrote: Holy crap, we're back to 'the Nazis banned guns'? Already? I thought we'd just talked about this.
No. Just arguing that the rise of facism is aided in part by gun regulations... I mean, if you don't think there's a link, why did Germany pass the 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons?
Spinner wrote: Holy crap, we're back to 'the Nazis banned guns'? Already? I thought we'd just talked about this.
No. Just arguing that the rise of facism is aided in part by gun regulations... I mean, if you don't think there's a link, why did Germany pass the 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons?
Because Germany wanted to strip all rights from Jews?
Posted again because some people don't pay attention:
Basically, it didn't matter one jot whether or not the jews had guns, there was never any instance where they could use them to any effect.
Even when they did get guns and tried to use them (Warsaw Ghetto uprising, for example), they still all died.
Enjoy your Twitter culture and blog education. I tried to honestly engage despite the childish replies and constant repetition of the same gak over and over again after it gets explained over and over again.
d-usa wrote: “Bro”, “homie”, “buddy”, I’m done with that crap.
Enjoy your Twitter culture and blog education. I tried to honestly engage despite the childish replies and constant repetition of the same gak over and over again after it gets explained over and over again.
Good riddance.
...and your flippant "Go read a book" is any better?
Basically, it didn't matter one jot whether or not the jews had guns, there was never any instance where they could use them to any effect.
Even when they did get guns and tried to use them (Warsaw Ghetto uprising, for example), they still all died.
We've had this argument before... and yeah, it wouldn't change the result.
But, an armed populace *does* factor in whether or not one side wishes to conquer another side...and that's my point.
The USA has over 300 million private guns (that we know of). You don't think so Mussolini-wanna be would factor in that calculus whether or not he'd be successful?
...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?
d-usa wrote: “Bro”, “homie”, “buddy”, I’m done with that crap.
Enjoy your Twitter culture and blog education. I tried to honestly engage despite the childish replies and constant repetition of the same gak over and over again after it gets explained over and over again.
Good riddance.
Right there with you. Once upon a time he used to make an effort, but not anymore. We'll see how long Sebster can continue to hold out.
Mussolini wasn't voted into power and Hitler would barely qualify as voted in, they both got into real power through a ridiculous amount of scheming and help from the 'establishment'.
Spinner wrote: Holy crap, we're back to 'the Nazis banned guns'? Already? I thought we'd just talked about this.
No. Just arguing that the rise of facism is aided in part by gun regulations... I mean, if you don't think there's a link, why did Germany pass the 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons?
Hrm, while I'm normally one to advocate against a state monopoly on the means of force, looking at the historical aspects of this particular issue is something i did in recent years. There was a broad package of weapons laws in 1938, this was after their rise and well into establishment, almost halfway through the Nazi's tenure in government. At the time, Jews were less than one percent of the population that few cared to stick their necks out for, and for everyone else that wasnt Jewish, the '38 laws lowered the purchase age limit on firearms from 20 to 18, completely deregulated long guns, and extended permits for handguns from one to three years.
The USA has over 300 million private guns (that we know of). You don't think so Mussolini-wanna be would factor in that calculus whether or not he'd be successful?
Yes of course, they would ensure the majority of the private gun owners make up their base.
Hitler was definitely voted in as chancellor by his party. ( think he actually lost the presidency years before that)
Hindenburg made Hitler chancellor in '33 by suggestion by Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg. He most definitely wasn't voted in as chancellor of his party.
I think the advice to "read a book" might not be that bad.
Spinner wrote: Holy crap, we're back to 'the Nazis banned guns'? Already? I thought we'd just talked about this.
No. Just arguing that the rise of facism is aided in part by gun regulations... I mean, if you don't think there's a link, why did Germany pass the 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons?
Hrm, while I'm normally one to advocate against a state monopoly on the means of force, looking at the historical aspects of this particular issue is something i did in recent years. There was a broad package of weapons laws in 1938, this was after their rise and well into establishment, almost halfway through the Nazi's tenure in government. At the time, Jews were less than one percent of the population that few cared to stick their necks out for, and for everyone else that wasnt Jewish, the '38 laws lowered the purchase age limit on firearms from 20 to 18, completely deregulated long guns, and extended permits for handguns from one to three years.
I guess the current argument is the idea that private guns would or would not prevent a fascist government from arising in the US.
I'm not trying to rehash the old "did the Nazi have gun control or liberal gun ownership" debate.
How 'bout this. What is it that you think the US is sliding to a more fascist governance?
Hitler was definitely voted in as chancellor by his party. ( think he actually lost the presidency years before that)
Hindenburg made Hitler chancellor in '33 by suggestion by Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg. He most definitely wasn't voted in as chancellor of his party.
I think the advice to "read a book" might not be that bad.
I stand corrected.
I had it in my head that he lost the presidency and the voted in chancellor by the political elite.
I should've clarified that as it presumed the people voted them both... but that's not how the system worked anyways.
As for mussolini wasn't he voted in by his political party? (too lazy to check)
No, he did his famous March on Rome, the establishment panicked and just handed over control of the country. Everyone just rolled over, even though the Italian army at the time easily outnumbered Mussolini's supporters.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Hitler would barely qualify as voted in, they both got into real power through a ridiculous amount of scheming and help from the 'establishment'.
Hitler was definitely voted in as chancellor by his party. ( think he actually lost the presidency years before that)
Definitely not. Hitler didn't have the support to become chancellor until the previous chancellor, the president and Hitler made a backroom deal in 1933 because the German elite were terrified of the socialists. Hitler didn't lose the presidency, he tried to become president in 1932 but lost. Then he usurped it once Hindenburg croaked.
What makes me think that is how happy all the neonazis are with Trump, and how he called them "very fine people". Among a whole bunch of other stuff. Worship of the military is another one. Demoniizing those who disagree. Overly aggressive and militarised police. Rise of armed militias. Overweening state surveillance. Lying about objectively true things and then pretending objective reality doesn't exist. I could go on. The US has taken some dangerous steps towards fascism. Like others, I do not believe yet that it will fall all the way, but wake up and smell the bs.
Spinner wrote: Holy crap, we're back to 'the Nazis banned guns'? Already? I thought we'd just talked about this.
No. Just arguing that the rise of facism is aided in part by gun regulations... I mean, if you don't think there's a link, why did Germany pass the 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons?
Hrm, while I'm normally one to advocate against a state monopoly on the means of force, looking at the historical aspects of this particular issue is something i did in recent years. There was a broad package of weapons laws in 1938, this was after their rise and well into establishment, almost halfway through the Nazi's tenure in government. At the time, Jews were less than one percent of the population that few cared to stick their necks out for, and for everyone else that wasnt Jewish, the '38 laws lowered the purchase age limit on firearms from 20 to 18, completely deregulated long guns, and extended permits for handguns from one to three years.
I guess the current argument is the idea that private guns would or would not prevent a fascist government from arising in the US.
I'm not trying to rehash the old "did the Nazi have gun control or liberal gun ownership" debate.
How 'bout this. What is it that you think the US is sliding to a more fascist governance?
The risk is assuming that guns make a fascist government more unlikely, when the political stances of (some )gun owners might make them more likely to support the right/fascist adjacent parties due to social conservatism. Weimar Germany tried to restrict acces to guns, because a lot of the people with guns were members of the Freikorps, which wasn't exactly overly friendly to the Weimar state. The political corner Hitler was in was the same one as the Freikorps was in. This is why Hitler wasn't really against guns, his side of politics was much more likely to be the ones with the guns. Historically speaking the military tends to also pull towards a more traditional side of society, just look at the Spanish Civil War.
Da Boss wrote: Worship of the military is another one. Demoniizing those who disagree. Overly aggressive and militarised police. Rise of armed militias. Overweening state surveillance.
All of these things have been prevalent and prominent in US culture for as long as I can remember. It was like that under Reagan, Bush41, Clinton, Bush43, Obama and now Trump. Sure Trump has added an extra layer of incompetence and compulsive reality denying lying to the mix but for the most part all of the our Fascist tendencies are commonplace social norms.
...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?
Attacking the press, ultra-nationalism, scapegoating, demanding total obedience, cult of personality, it's pretty textbook stuff.
None of that means that a fascist dictatorship is around the corner. I don't think that is at all likely.
But if it does happen, future historians will point to this as the first signs.
Now we're getting into the crux of the current debate I think...
I almost think the attributes you attributed is based on your dislike of who's controlling Congress and the WH.
I mean, I can say the same thing (albeit minus the ultra-nationalism) during the last administration.
Unfortunately, I think these things wax and wane generationally... we freaking relocated and put American-Japanese in camps ~75 years ago (still living memory!).
The risk is assuming that guns make a fascist government more unlikely, when the political stances of (some )gun owners might make them more likely to support the right/fascist adjacent parties due to social conservatism. Weimar Germany tried to restrict acces to guns, because a lot of the people with guns were members of the Freikorps, which wasn't exactly overly friendly to the Weimar state. The political corner Hitler was in was the same one as the Freikorps was in. This is why Hitler wasn't really against guns, his side of politics was much more likely to be the ones with the guns. Historically speaking the military tends to also pull towards a more traditional side of society, just look at the Spanish Civil War.
This. Prominent members of the Nazi party who were also members of units in the Freikorps:
Ernst Rohm (founder of the SA)
Heinrich Himmler (head of SS)
Rudolf Hoss (kommandant of Auschwitz)
The USA has over 300 million private guns (that we know of). You don't think so Mussolini-wanna be would factor in that calculus whether or not he'd be successful?
Yes of course, they would ensure the majority of the private gun owners make up their base.
Please would people keep their US Guns comments in the US Guns thread? You know the one...
...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?
Attacking the press, ultra-nationalism, scapegoating, demanding total obedience, cult of personality, it's pretty textbook stuff.
None of that means that a fascist dictatorship is around the corner. I don't think that is at all likely.
But if it does happen, future historians will point to this as the first signs.
Now we're getting into the crux of the current debate I think...
I almost think the attributes you attributed is based on your dislike of who's controlling Congress and the WH.
I mean, I can say the same thing (albeit minus the ultra-nationalism) during the last administration.
Unfortunately, I think these things wax and wane generationally... we freaking relocated and put American-Japanese in camps ~75 years ago (still living memory!).
You really can't without generalising the terms so much they become meaningless.
Obama did not build a cult of personality, neither did he build scapegoats out of minority members of society, he was not an ultra-nationalist and nor did he court ultra-nationalists such as the alt-right, he also never claimed that he would order the military to commit war crimes and that they would follow his orders.
You really can't without generalising the terms so much they become meaningless.
Obama did not build a cult of personality, neither did he build scapegoats out of minority members of society, he was not an ultra-nationalist and nor did he court ultra-nationalists such as the alt-right, he also never claimed that he would order the military to commit war crimes and that they would follow his orders.
I honestly think if you can't see the parallels between the current administration and other fascist groups, it is at best a tribal blind spot and quite wilful.
Luckily, I do believe that the battered institutions of the US are very strong and the whole thing was designed in many ways to prevent this.
You really can't without generalising the terms so much they become meaningless.
Obama did not build a cult of personality, neither did he build scapegoats out of minority members of society, he was not an ultra-nationalist and nor did he court ultra-nationalists such as the alt-right, he also never claimed that he would order the military to commit war crimes and that they would follow his orders.
Also the fake news thing is pretty Third Reichy
What, Lügenpresse? Nah, that's Austrian, see. Nothing fascist ever came out of Austria!
...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?
Attacking the press, ultra-nationalism, scapegoating, demanding total obedience, cult of personality, it's pretty textbook stuff.
None of that means that a fascist dictatorship is around the corner. I don't think that is at all likely.
But if it does happen, future historians will point to this as the first signs.
Now we're getting into the crux of the current debate I think...
I almost think the attributes you attributed is based on your dislike of who's controlling Congress and the WH.
I mean, I can say the same thing (albeit minus the ultra-nationalism) during the last administration.
Unfortunately, I think these things wax and wane generationally... we freaking relocated and put American-Japanese in camps ~75 years ago (still living memory!).
You really can't without generalising the terms so much they become meaningless.
Obama did not build a cult of personality, neither did he build scapegoats out of minority members of society, he was not an ultra-nationalist and nor did he court ultra-nationalists such as the alt-right, he also never claimed that he would order the military to commit war crimes and that they would follow his orders.
I said minus the nationalism bit...
And yeah, there's a cult where precious Obama need to be protected at all cost.
Were you asleep during the last administration?
To paraphrase, Obama would calm the rising sea and lower the temperature...
Who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... what?
Who has had an extremely favorable mainstream media covering him...
I said minus the nationalism bit...
And yeah, there's a cult where precious Obama need to be protected at all cost.
Were you asleep during the last administration?
To paraphrase, Obama would calm the rising sea and lower the temperature...
Who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... what?
Who has had an extremely favorable mainstream media covering him...
Do I need to go on?
You kinda have to go on, as the 'mainstream media' and the Nobel committee are independent and from an entirely different country respectively. Their is a vast difference between the media interaction of Obama and that of Trump.
The USA has over 300 million private guns (that we know of). You don't think so Mussolini-wanna be would factor in that calculus whether or not he'd be successful?
Yes of course, they would ensure the majority of the private gun owners make up their base.
Please would people keep their US Guns comments in the US Guns thread? You know the one...
...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?
Attacking the press, ultra-nationalism, scapegoating, demanding total obedience, cult of personality, it's pretty textbook stuff.
None of that means that a fascist dictatorship is around the corner. I don't think that is at all likely.
But if it does happen, future historians will point to this as the first signs.
It cannot be overstated how damaging President Trump and the Republican Party is to the entire fabric of the United States.
Forget tax breaks. Forget the economy and immigration. Forget the jobs and the environment.
President Trump and the Republican Party is willing to tear down the very foundations of the nation.
Claims of rampant voter fraud leading to a distrust in the democratic system of the elections.
Labelling the free press as "Fake News" the second they criticise the people in power.
Cries of "Deep State" and "Shadow Government" leading to a lack of trust in the idea of government elected by the People.
Allegations of bias along party lines in the judicial system - undermining the idea of justice.
Attacking the departments tasked with investigating criminal activities.
Promoting the idea that evidence for a given statement is secondary to who makes the statement, when it comes to determining the truth of said statement.
That one MOD shut down the gun thread because it’s politics, and another one is now arguing that guns should stay out the politics thread.
I thought it was fairly self explanatory based on your post and Manchu’s posts.
Manchu wrote:Gun politics in the US is US politics. If you don't want to talk about gun politics in the US Politics thread, that's fine. But we are not having multiple US Politics threads much less a series of "monthly" threads of splinter topics.
The corollary is that the US Politics thread covers everything that could reasonably be considered US politics. Gun politics is not a corner case. To the contrary, no topic could possibly fall more squarely within the ambit of US politics generally..
...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?
Attacking the press, ultra-nationalism, scapegoating, demanding total obedience, cult of personality, it's pretty textbook stuff.
None of that means that a fascist dictatorship is around the corner. I don't think that is at all likely.
But if it does happen, future historians will point to this as the first signs.
It cannot be overstated how damaging President Trump and the Republican Party is to the entire fabric of the United States.
Forget tax breaks. Forget the economy and immigration. Forget the jobs and the environment.
President Trump and the Republican Party is willing to tear down the very foundations of the nation.
Claims of rampant voter fraud leading to a distrust in the democratic system of the elections.
Labelling the free press as "Fake News" the second they criticise the people in power.
Cries of "Deep State" and "Shadow Government" leading to a lack of trust in the idea of government elected by the People.
Allegations of bias along party lines in the judicial system - undermining the idea of justice.
Attacking the departments tasked with investigating criminal activities.
Promoting the idea that evidence for a given statement is secondary to who makes the statement, when it comes to determining the truth of said statement.
EDIT: more and more I am coming to believe that major Twitter usage is a sign of a mental disorder. Nothing positive seems to flow from the platform, no matter what ones politics and tendencies are, and increasingly it appears its sole function is to either sling gak or to commit professional/social suicide.
...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?
Attacking the press, ultra-nationalism, scapegoating, demanding total obedience, cult of personality, it's pretty textbook stuff.
None of that means that a fascist dictatorship is around the corner. I don't think that is at all likely.
But if it does happen, future historians will point to this as the first signs.
Now we're getting into the crux of the current debate I think...
I almost think the attributes you attributed is based on your dislike of who's controlling Congress and the WH.
I mean, I can say the same thing (albeit minus the ultra-nationalism) during the last administration.
'Bama definitely benefitted from a cult of personality. His admin didn't attack the press or scapegoat or demand total obedience though.
Unfortunately, I think these things wax and wane generationally... we freaking relocated and put American-Japanese in camps ~75 years ago (still living memory!).
Yeah, my country engaged in that evil fethery too. I'd like to think we learn from our mistakes though.
No, I think it was more pronounced than that. It wasn't constructed by state run media, but there was definitely "an idealized, heroic, and worshipful image of a leader, often through unquestioning flattery and praise." He rode a wave of "Hope" and "Change" and "Feth Bush" to the presidency, for sure.
I mean, yeah it's not a textbook Cult of Personality, like with Mao, but I remember an atmosphere of overwhelming adulation.
EDIT: more and more I am coming to believe that major Twitter usage is a sign of a mental disorder. Nothing positive seems to flow from the platform, no matter what ones politics and tendencies are, and increasingly it appears its sole function is to either sling gak or to commit professional/social suicide.
Twitter is really becoming a cesspool of all the worst attributes of the human id...
Unfortunately, I think these things wax and wane generationally... we freaking relocated and put American-Japanese in camps ~75 years ago (still living memory!).
Yeah, my country engaged in that evil fethery too. I'd like to think we learn from our mistakes though.
Huh? I thought Canadians were always nice (except ya'll burnt down the WhiteHouse at one time ).
But, seriously... every country has some history that we're all ashamed of... what matters is that we don't repeat it.
Unfortunately, I think these things wax and wane generationally... we freaking relocated and put American-Japanese in camps ~75 years ago (still living memory!).
Yeah, my country engaged in that evil fethery too. I'd like to think we learn from our mistakes though.
Huh? I thought Canadians were always nice (except ya'll burnt down the WhiteHouse at one time ).
Canada ain't nuthin ta feth wit
But, seriously... every country has some history that we're all ashamed of... what matters is that we don't repeat it.
Iceland? They seem pretty cool. Well there was that one time Bjork punched a dude.
Nope... fascism happens when citizens are powerless to do anything about it. The ability to revolt would always be a trump card (heh) in case a Mussolini-wannabe get any bright ideas.
JFC. . . did you sleep through every year of school history???? Literally every course that discusses how the Fascists in Germany and Italy came into power, and they all generally say the exact fething opposite of what you just did.
Sorry but that just doesn't vibe with the American Conservative myth that undercurrents of violent action make everything more free so obviously it can't possibly be true.
No, I think it was more pronounced than that. It wasn't constructed by state run media, but there was definitely "an idealized, heroic, and worshipful image of a leader, often through unquestioning flattery and praise." He rode a wave of "Hope" and "Change" and "Feth Bush" to the presidency, for sure.
I mean, yeah it's not a textbook Cult of Personality, like with Mao, but I remember an atmosphere of overwhelming adulation.
I see what you mean but I think that is just Cult of Personality. The term has taken on a highly negative connotation, but the reality is every world leader who succeeds at all succeeds because they manage to project an image of themselves that their respective societies buy into. That we direct the term mostly at despots and dictators doesn't change that elected and benevolent leaders do the exact same thing in regards to how they present themselves to an audience. It might be subtler in a democratic state but it's still there.
I think the big difference is in how said leaders manage to do so without looking ridiculous. Putin's overt, and often comical, attempts to display and brag about how manliness are humorous. About as humorous as Trumps whole "deal maker" persona. They broach the uncanny valley in a way where they try to present a personality so much larger than life that it calls attention to its own absurdity. Obama might not have been the great hope of change his PR presented, but he managed to carry himself in a way that was professional and lighthearted a lot of the time without become bizarre. He fit into a traditional presentation of American Presidents going back to Washington in that way, so you could say that the Office of the Presidency in general has a sort of Cult built around it, with the various holders of that office generally presenting themselves as fitting into that role.
That one MOD shut down the gun thread because it’s politics, and another one is now arguing that guns should stay out the politics thread.
I thought it was fairly self explanatory based on your post and Manchu’s posts.
Manchu wrote:Gun politics in the US is US politics. If you don't want to talk about gun politics in the US Politics thread, that's fine. But we are not having multiple US Politics threads much less a series of "monthly" threads of splinter topics.
The corollary is that the US Politics thread covers everything that could reasonably be considered US politics. Gun politics is not a corner case. To the contrary, no topic could possibly fall more squarely within the ambit of US politics generally..
The moderators will be happy to shut down all US politics threads if people are unable to conduct themselves appropriately.
Were you asleep during the last administration?
To paraphrase, Obama would calm the rising sea and lower the temperature...
Who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... what?
I know this has been explained to you many, many times, and this won't be the time it takes, but for anyone else reading this:
Obama didn't nominate himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. He surely didn't think he deserved it, and no one has really made a seriously argument that he should have been awarded it. However, once it was announced, his options were to spit in the eye of the Nobel Committee and no other gain whatsoever, or to accept the prize and the increased stature that it would give the President of the US with the international community; stature which is enormously helpful when projecting soft power. .
Were you asleep during the last administration?
To paraphrase, Obama would calm the rising sea and lower the temperature...
Who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... what?
I know this has been explained to you many, many times, and this won't be the time it takes, but for anyone else reading this:
Obama didn't nominate himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. He surely didn't think he deserved it, and no one has really made a seriously argument that he should have been awarded it. However, once it was announced, his options were to spit in the eye of the Nobel Committee and no other gain whatsoever, or to accept the prize and the increased stature that it would give the President of the US with the international community; stature which is enormously helpful when projecting soft power. .
Meanwhile Trump can't help himself trying to get the crowd chanting Nobel, a Nobel Prize for doing... what?
That one MOD shut down the gun thread because it’s politics, and another one is now arguing that guns should stay out the politics thread.
I thought it was fairly self explanatory based on your post and Manchu’s posts.
Manchu wrote:Gun politics in the US is US politics. If you don't want to talk about gun politics in the US Politics thread, that's fine. But we are not having multiple US Politics threads much less a series of "monthly" threads of splinter topics.
The corollary is that the US Politics thread covers everything that could reasonably be considered US politics. Gun politics is not a corner case. To the contrary, no topic could possibly fall more squarely within the ambit of US politics generally..
The moderators will be happy to shut down all US politics threads if people are unable to conduct themselves appropriately.
While that may be true and totally reasonable, it's also really not got anything to do with the question that was asked.
There is a serious disconnect apparent between moderators at this point. You have one moderator saying that all gun threads belong in US politics, and another moderator saying to keep gun discussion out of the US politic thread.
This is perhaps better suited in Nuts and Bolts; but as it lays currently, it's hard for users to follow the rules when they are explained in two diametrically opposed ways.
That one MOD shut down the gun thread because it’s politics, and another one is now arguing that guns should stay out the politics thread.
I thought it was fairly self explanatory based on your post and Manchu’s posts.
Manchu wrote:Gun politics in the US is US politics. If you don't want to talk about gun politics in the US Politics thread, that's fine. But we are not having multiple US Politics threads much less a series of "monthly" threads of splinter topics.
The corollary is that the US Politics thread covers everything that could reasonably be considered US politics. Gun politics is not a corner case. To the contrary, no topic could possibly fall more squarely within the ambit of US politics generally..
The moderators will be happy to shut down all US politics threads if people are unable to conduct themselves appropriately.
Will the moderators be happy to answer the actual question?
Let’s try it as simple as possible:
MOD #1 shut down a gun thread because guns are politics and should be in the politics thread.
MOD #2 says guns should not be in the politics thread and should be in the gun thread.
Can we get some sort of agreement between the MODs who can then let us know which way they actually want this issue to be handled?
I’m really not trying to be a dick here. But less than a month ago I did exactly the thing you did: try to keep guns out of this thread. I made multiple mod alerts, which were ignored. I made a gun thread, which was locked because “guns are politics”. I made a thread in N&B to clarify, and it was made clear that yes, guns = politics.
And now it’s a 180 and “keep the guns out of here” is the message. I have no problem following the rules, but it helps to know what the rules are.
Will the moderators be happy to answer the actual question?
Let’s try it as simple as possible:
MOD #1 shut down a gun thread because guns are politics and should be in the politics thread.
MOD #2 says guns should not be in the politics thread and should be in the gun thread.
Can we get some sort of agreement between the MODs who can then let us know which way they actually want this issue to be handled?
I'm guessing the Mods had a discussion behind the scenes in the time between your 'offending' thread and the Santa Fe thread and we are going with #2.
Were you asleep during the last administration?
To paraphrase, Obama would calm the rising sea and lower the temperature...
Who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... what?
I know this has been explained to you many, many times, and this won't be the time it takes, but for anyone else reading this:
Obama didn't nominate himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. He surely didn't think he deserved it, and no one has really made a seriously argument that he should have been awarded it. However, once it was announced, his options were to spit in the eye of the Nobel Committee and no other gain whatsoever, or to accept the prize and the increased stature that it would give the President of the US with the international community; stature which is enormously helpful when projecting soft power. .
...uh... did I write somewhere that he nominated himself? Or insinuated?? I agree, he kinda has to accept it.
All I'm saying is that this is numero uno case example of how much adulation Obama received. I don't think this is controversial.
Were you asleep during the last administration?
To paraphrase, Obama would calm the rising sea and lower the temperature...
Who won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing... what?
I know this has been explained to you many, many times, and this won't be the time it takes, but for anyone else reading this:
Obama didn't nominate himself for a Nobel Peace Prize. He surely didn't think he deserved it, and no one has really made a seriously argument that he should have been awarded it. However, once it was announced, his options were to spit in the eye of the Nobel Committee and no other gain whatsoever, or to accept the prize and the increased stature that it would give the President of the US with the international community; stature which is enormously helpful when projecting soft power. .
Meanwhile Trump can't help himself trying to get the crowd chanting Nobel, a Nobel Prize for doing... what?
Definitely a head scratcher... but, his ego demands it!
d-usa wrote: “Bro”, “homie”, “buddy”, I’m done with that crap.
Enjoy your Twitter culture and blog education. I tried to honestly engage despite the childish replies and constant repetition of the same gak over and over again after it gets explained over and over again.
Good riddance.
For those of you new to internet arguments, if your opponents throw up their hands like this, it means you just won.
The vast majority of discussions I have are not for the sake of changing the person I’m talking to. I do like the exchange of ideas, if both parties are participating honestly. And I do like to debate the viewpoints for the sake of others who may be reading.
But there is no point engaging people who, after three years, have refused to drop the stupid “brah” crap.
My opinions on guns has evolved due to some posters on here. Now I just think the people that feel the need to have them are largely idiots rather than them being something that needs to be heavily restricted.
The vast majority of discussions I have are not for the sake of changing the person I’m talking to. I do like the exchange of ideas, if both parties are participating honestly. And I do like to debate the viewpoints for the sake of others who may be reading.
But there is no point engaging people who, after three years, have refused to drop the stupid “brah” crap.
There's no point in engaging people who have a demonstrated inability to argue in good faith or based on fact. Further, there isn't even an argument to be won when it gets down to things, because insisting that a fiction is true isn't an argument. If someone throws up their hands and quits in face of that no one 'wins' because it wasn't an argument in the first place; that requires taking facts, logic, and counterarguments into account.
thekingofkings wrote: Its not like any of us are actually expecting to change each others minds or opinions of things.
It's uncommon but it does happen here sometimes.
I have, in fact, changed my mind and my opinions on many things over time. However, it takes actual, verifiable facts and reasoned, intelligent arguments to do so.
The vast majority of discussions I have are not for the sake of changing the person I’m talking to. I do like the exchange of ideas, if both parties are participating honestly. And I do like to debate the viewpoints for the sake of others who may be reading.
But there is no point engaging people who, after three years, have refused to drop the stupid “brah” crap.
Come on broseph lord of the brocean, why aren't you down with the brahzen language
skyth wrote: My opinions on guns has evolved due to some posters on here. Now I just think the people that feel the need to have them are largely idiots rather than them being something that needs to be heavily restricted.
I've found I enjoy reading this thread more than commenting as some of the posters seem very knowledgeable and i enjoy seeing many points of view on topics. Having said that I have to say you're painting with a very broad brush.
We've had this argument before... and yeah, it wouldn't change the result.
But, an armed populace *does* factor in whether or not one side wishes to conquer another side...and that's my point.
The USA has over 300 million private guns (that we know of). You don't think so Mussolini-wanna be would factor in that calculus whether or not he'd be successful?
That depends on whether Mr. Mussilini-wannabe thinks the guns will be used against him... or to back him up.
whembly wrote: Nope... fascism happens when citizens are powerless to do anything about it. The ability to revolt would always be a trump card (heh) in case a Mussolini-wannabe get any bright ideas.
whembly, all you did was repeat your previous assertion. That isn't discussion. It isn't even argument. It's just shouting words in to the void.
You claimed fascism wouldn't happen because too many US citizens are armed. I pointed out that is a false defence, because where fascism has occurred it has happened with the willing support of armed citizens - that people with the power to have arms are the people with the power to make fascism happen.
In response, you have to do something other than just blindly repeat that armed citizens can stop it.
If anything it's my kids and grandkinds paying the bill.
Cute dodge, but also not true. Republicans are already beating the drum for social security and healthcare cuts to pay for it.
Happens everytime some major bill get passed.
Hey look everyone, whembly is making gak up. PPACA's two decade deficit impact, after the 2015 revision to account for how the law was actually implemented, is a saving of $0.9tn to $1.1tn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: They were voted into power homie.... and they restricted gun ownership.
And here's this same piece of junk history, again. No, the Nazis didn't vote to restrict gun rights. They actually removed registration requirements on long arms, lowered the legal age for owning a gun, and dropped the requirement to register sales and purchases. They did stop Jews from owning guns, but that was just a formalisation of a process police were already undertaking.
So there's the actual facts of Nazis and firearms. I look forward to typing them out again in 6 to 12 months when you make that same false claim all over again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: No. Just arguing that the rise of facism is aided in part by gun regulations... I mean, if you don't think there's a link, why did Germany pass the 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons?
If you think that guns will stop a country from sliding in to fascism, why didn't the majority of Germans with their expanded gun rights do anything to stop Nazism?
Or is it exactly what I've already explained to you - the people with the power to make fascism happen are the people with the power to own all the guns. As such, if fascism starts happening then gun owners will not be part of the solution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Right there with you. Once upon a time he used to make an effort, but not anymore. We'll see how long Sebster can continue to hold out.
Don't know how long I can go this time. Let's find out
whembly wrote: Nope... fascism happens when citizens are powerless to do anything about it. The ability to revolt would always be a trump card (heh) in case a Mussolini-wannabe get any bright ideas.
whembly, all you did was repeat your previous assertion. That isn't discussion. It isn't even argument. It's just shouting words in to the void.
You claimed fascism wouldn't happen because too many US citizens are armed. I pointed out that is a false defence, because where fascism has occurred it has happened with the willing support of armed citizens - that people with the power to have arms are the people with the power to make fascism happen.
In response, you have to do something other than just blindly repeat that armed citizens can stop it.
It is my firm belief that that the fascism we've seen in Europe is untennable to the US... partly because there's enough contrarian who would *try* to stop it.
That's my opinion...
Just like it's your opinion that if the US *could* go fascist some of the armed citizenry wouldn't oppose.
If anything it's my kids and grandkinds paying the bill.
Cute dodge, but also not true. Republicans are already beating the drum for social security and healthcare cuts to pay for it.
Happens everytime some major bill get passed.
Hey look everyone, whembly is making gak up. PPACA's two decade deficit impact, after the 2015 revision to account for how the law was actually implemented, is a saving of $0.9tn to $1.1tn.
Funny... the consumers don't see any of these savings...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: They were voted into power homie.... and they restricted gun ownership.
And here's this same piece of junk history, again. No, the Nazis didn't vote to restrict gun rights. They actually removed registration requirements on long arms, lowered the legal age for owning a gun, and dropped the requirement to register sales and purchases. They did stop Jews from owning guns, but that was just a formalisation of a process police were already undertaking.
So there's the actual facts of Nazis and firearms. I look forward to typing them out again in 6 to 12 months when you make that same false claim all over again.
I didn't make any point about Nazis, firearms and guncontrol.
Jesus, it's like ya'll don't read what I wrote and automatically assumes the worst. It's my own damn fault for being pithy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: No. Just arguing that the rise of facism is aided in part by gun regulations... I mean, if you don't think there's a link, why did Germany pass the 1938 Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons?
If you think that guns will stop a country from sliding in to fascism, why didn't the majority of Germans with their expanded gun rights do anything to stop Nazism?
So you're dodging too?
Or is it exactly what I've already explained to you - the people with the power to make fascism happen are the people with the power to own all the guns. As such, if fascism starts happening then gun owners will not be part of the solution.
Good luck getting the majority gun owners in the US to be part of the fascism movement.
whembly wrote: ...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?
Before I answer, note I don't think the US is on the road to fascism. I'm just explaining why people are seeing that path.
Fascism places a single, unifying figure at the core of the movement. This person is assigned the voice of the real people, the one who is able to declare what is true, and what the people want and believe. All voices in opposition to that, whether they're government institutions, other political parties or the media are deemed liars, traitors and conspirators.
All of that matches Trump perfectly.
However, I don't think that makes Trump a fascist, and it doesn't mean the US is on the road to fascism. Trump is more like the corporate remake of fascism two decades after the first movie. He hits all the beats but without the purpose or meaning, he's just mimicking what worked last time, without any understanding why. Trump lacks the context and purpose that made the original so powerful. If Mussolini was the original Wicker Man, then Trump is the Nicholas Cage remake.
whembly wrote: ...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?
Before I answer, note I don't think the US is on the road to fascism. I'm just explaining why people are seeing that path.
Fascism places a single, unifying figure at the core of the movement. This person is assigned the voice of the real people, the one who is able to declare what is true, and what the people want and believe. All voices in opposition to that, whether they're government institutions, other political parties or the media are deemed liars, traitors and conspirators.
All of that matches Trump perfectly.
However, I don't think that makes Trump a fascist, and it doesn't mean the US is on the road to fascism. Trump is more like the corporate remake of fascism two decades after the first movie. He hits all the beats but without the purpose or meaning, he's just mimicking what worked last time, without any understanding why. Trump lacks the context and purpose that made the original so powerful. If Mussolini was the original Wicker Man, then Trump is the Nicholas Cage remake.
whembly wrote: ...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?
Before I answer, note I don't think the US is on the road to fascism. I'm just explaining why people are seeing that path.
Fascism places a single, unifying figure at the core of the movement. This person is assigned the voice of the real people, the one who is able to declare what is true, and what the people want and believe. All voices in opposition to that, whether they're government institutions, other political parties or the media are deemed liars, traitors and conspirators.
All of that matches Trump perfectly.
However, I don't think that makes Trump a fascist, and it doesn't mean the US is on the road to fascism. Trump is more like the corporate remake of fascism two decades after the first movie. He hits all the beats but without the purpose or meaning, he's just mimicking what worked last time, without any understanding why. Trump lacks the context and purpose that made the original so powerful. If Mussolini was the original Wicker Man, then Trump is the Nicholas Cage remake.
whembly wrote: ...and furthermore, what's this US "on the road" to facism bs?
Before I answer, note I don't think the US is on the road to fascism. I'm just explaining why people are seeing that path.
Fascism places a single, unifying figure at the core of the movement. This person is assigned the voice of the real people, the one who is able to declare what is true, and what the people want and believe. All voices in opposition to that, whether they're government institutions, other political parties or the media are deemed liars, traitors and conspirators.
All of that matches Trump perfectly.
However, I don't think that makes Trump a fascist, and it doesn't mean the US is on the road to fascism. Trump is more like the corporate remake of fascism two decades after the first movie. He hits all the beats but without the purpose or meaning, he's just mimicking what worked last time, without any understanding why. Trump lacks the context and purpose that made the original so powerful. If Mussolini was the original Wicker Man, then Trump is the Nicholas Cage remake.
Okay... that's pretty damn spot on.
Even the Nick Cage reference.
Dear Gawd stop with that horrid movie!
It fits man! :waves hand: Trump Presidency - An American Horror Story!
feeder wrote: No, I think it was more pronounced than that. It wasn't constructed by state run media, but there was definitely "an idealized, heroic, and worshipful image of a leader, often through unquestioning flattery and praise." He rode a wave of "Hope" and "Change" and "Feth Bush" to the presidency, for sure.
I mean, yeah it's not a textbook Cult of Personality, like with Mao, but I remember an atmosphere of overwhelming adulation.
Americans in general have a fawning attitude to their president. The stuff about 'respecting the office' is generally pretty unhealthy. However putting that only on Obama is false, and it is even more false to claim that by itself it is a fascist thing.
That fawning attitude can potentially be used by a fascist to dismantle democracy, but that is not the same thing as saying that attitude itself is fascist.
I think the US system, maybe more than other system, is setup in a way that requires a certain level of narcicism to become POTUS. “I think I’m the best person to become the leader of the biggest economy and military in the world!”
And the many “God wants me to run” folks out there.
skyth wrote: My opinions on guns has evolved due to some posters on here. Now I just think the people that feel the need to have them are largely idiots rather than them being something that needs to be heavily restricted.
My opinion on gun control has changed dramatically partly due the users on this forum. I went from just taking my parents hard anti-gun opinions to moving far more moderate to even supportive of certain loosening of control (such as streamlining the NFA process, and making Supressors/Silencers not restricted).
whembly wrote: It is my firm belief that that the fascism we've seen in Europe is untennable to the US... partly because there's enough contrarian who would *try* to stop it.
That's my opinion...
Just like it's your opinion that if the US *could* go fascist some of the armed citizenry wouldn't oppose.
Arguing that the US wouldn't become fascist because of a 'contrarian' culture among US citizens is an opinion as you say, but importantly it is a totally different opinion than the one you were giving previous to this. You tried to argue that US firearms would prevent fascism, and now you're claiming US culture would stop it. These are different arguments.
And sure, it is just my opinion that US firearms wouldn't stop a move to fascism. But it is important to note the argument that they're all just opinions is bunk. Not all opinions are equal. Some opinions are coherently formed and backed by the historical record, and others are not. Countries that fell to fascism were not disarmed, in fact they were full of guns. The fascists won the Spanish Civil War - they won it with guns. Mussolini's capture of the valley and the March on Rome was undertaken by men with guns. The Freikorps and SA were essential to Hitler's rise - they were armed paramilitaries.
The idea that democracy is safe because the people have arms is farcical. This doesn't mean guns are bad, it simply means they are not the safeguard some people wish they were.
Funny... the consumers don't see any of these savings...
Look at this ridiculous two card trick. whembly claims it is okay to get cents in immediate benefit for dollars in new national debt, because that's what every bit of major legislation does. I point out the last major legislation before this was ACA, which is set to save about a trillion over 20 years.
whembly completely ignores his previous claim about the deficit, and complains about consumers not getting that saving.
I didn't make any point about Nazis, firearms and guncontrol.
Jesus, it's like ya'll don't read what I wrote and automatically assumes the worst. It's my own damn fault for being pithy.
You weren't pithy, you were talking around the point. The vast majority of Germans had more gun rights under Nazism than they had previously. They didn't take up arms to stop Nazism. Trying to talk around this by talking only about the Jews is trying to actively ignore the point - the people with the power to back fascism in to power are also thee people with the power to own the guns, as such if the people with power want fascism, the people with guns won't stop them because it is the same group of people.
So you're dodging too?
I'm not dodging a thing. I'm asking you why if citizens with guns can stop Nazism, why didn't the citizens with guns in Germany stop Nazism?
Good luck getting the majority gun owners in the US to be part of the fascism movement.
Well done missing the point. I am not saying the US is moving to fascism. I have been explicit in stating I do not believe that is happening, nor do I think it likely to happen.
What I am explaining to you is that fascism is not stopped by people with guns. This isn't because gun owners are fascist or any stupid nonsense like that. It is because for fascism to be viable, it must be backed by the classes with economic and cultural power. If the people with economic and cultural power decide fascism is the way to go, they are also the people who own the majority of guns.
On Roseanne Barr's firing - I have 7quite liked the new episodes of her show. To me it felt like it was making a pretty genuine look at modern American life from the view of a working class family.
It wasn't perfect, Roseanne's timing was way off, and the new episodes seemed a little self-consciously topical - 'this week we're doing islamaphobia', but despite those faults what came through was the empathy the show felt for its working poor family. These were people dealing with life on the bottom rung of society, and in this new series they added the additional kick in the guts that for all the work put in to raising their kids and hoping they would go on to something better, if anything they were worse off than their parents. How many shows do you know where a woman in her 60s is working for uber to make ends meet? In terms of the real issues facing Americans, isn't Roseanne closer to the reality of life in America than, say, Modern Family?
Roseanne Barr might be a giant dumpster fire of racism and conspiracy nonsense in her own life, but that voice didn't come through in the show. This is why I was pretty disappointed when a lot of left aligned media starting attacking the tv show, not because of its own politics, but because of Roseanne Barr's politics (Trump attaching himself to it didn't help). The Roseanne reboot could have even been seen as something of a Trojan Horse, Roseanne drew in a conservative audience, who then watched the family come to support the grandson as he chose to wear girl's clothes.
None of which really has that much to do with Roseanne getting fired, to be honest. She's a walking PR nightmare, and ABC is an enormous company owned by an even more enormous company, Disney. A hit sitcom is nice, but this is 2017 and Disney has billions upon billions tied up in movie franchises and affiliated TV spread across the planet, they're not going to risk any harm to those assets for the sake of a free to air sitcom.
As to whether Roseanne should be fired... I don't know to be honest. One thing this should tell everyone is that there are consequences for having unpopular opinions. In the case of Roseanne they were ugly, racist, crazy opinions, but what happened to her is what happens to lots of people who upset the apple cart. Colin Kaepernick doesn't have a contract while his record showed he was more than deserving on a slot on an NFL list.
To me the issue is whether free speech should be seen as something more than just the absence of government penalty. Should we as a society should let people speak their mind without fear of losing their job? Even when we really don't like what they have to say? Obviously it would be near impossible and a generally bad idea for government to regulate that, what would be needed instead is a cultural value - a person who simply speaks their mind should be able to do so without being economically penalised. This wouldn't mean giving people platforms for those ideas, but that's why I started by talking about how the show Roseanne was quite different to the actual person Roseanne Barr. The show wasn't a platform for her hatred and craziness, it wasn't giving a platform to her nastier ideas.
I mean, imagine a world where ABC came out and said 'Roseanne's opinions are not shared by ABC, and we will not support such ideas being put in the show, but in her personal life she is free to speak her mind', while the NFL came out and said 'Players are free citizens and are able to act as they please during the anthem because we don't seek to control the lives of our players outside of the actual game'... and the public at large accepted and respected organisations that didn't try to control their employee's private lives... wouldn't that be a better world?
d-usa wrote: I think the US system, maybe more than other system, is setup in a way that requires a certain level of narcicism to become POTUS. “I think I’m the best person to become the leader of the biggest economy and military in the world!”
And the many “God wants me to run” folks out there.
The 'God wants to me to run' stuff is pretty messed up, that's true. But outside of that I think there's a certain level of narcissism involved in wanting to be in charge of any country.
What's really different about the US system is that you have combined a popular election with control of most of government and the formal head of state. To compare to the Australian system, for instance, our Prime Minister isn't popularly elected, but is actually chosen by the majority party in parliament, he is not 'of the people', and can't claim some kind of authority outside of normal political practice. On top of that, he isn't actually the formal head of state, that position goes to the Governor General and the Queen, even though all actual power rests with the Prime Minister.
As a result, neither the Prime Minister nor his office is given any particular level of respect. A few years ago one PM was walking through a school, and one of the kids chucked a piece of fruit at her. He didn't do it out of any political conviction, the target might have been any government official or celebrity that might take a tour through a school, the kid just thought it was funny to throw a piece of fruit at a famous person. The general response was somewhere between people thinking it was pretty funny, and people saying it was wrong to throw fruit not because it was the PM, but because you really shouldn't throw fruit at anyone.
I think that kind of thing would play out extremely differently in the US, where the President is viewed very differently.
sebster wrote: To me the issue is whether free speech should be seen as something more than just the absence of government penalty. Should we as a society should let people speak their mind without fear of losing their job? Even when we really don't like what they have to say? Obviously it would be near impossible and a generally bad idea for government to regulate that, what would be needed instead is a cultural value - a person who simply speaks their mind should be able to do so without being economically penalised. This wouldn't mean giving people platforms for those ideas, but that's why I started by talking about how the show Roseanne was quite different to the actual person Roseanne Barr. The show wasn't a platform for her hatred and craziness, it wasn't giving a platform to her nastier ideas.
The problem is that some ideas just cross the line and make a person too toxic to deal with. Imagine if you're a black coworker of hers, could you honestly work with someone who has appalling racist opinions about you? It would be a massive workplace disruption even if she only expressed those opinions on twitter. You'd still know all about the whole mess, and know that she's just staying quiet at work to keep her job. Or, to give an even clearer example, imagine your coworker was a literal nazi. Nazi flag waving, Hitler saluting, "kill them all" nazi. Could you set aside that knowledge and work with them? I doubt it. I'd share your point of view if it was about things like punishing someone for being a fan of your favorite football team's rival, but some beliefs are not acceptable in society and the people who hold them are not entitled to economic success.
It's especially a problem in the case of a high-profile employee. This isn't an anonymous janitor or factory worker or whatever, it's someone with a major role as the face of a company. No matter how many PR press releases you put out saying "I don't endorse this" people are still going to believe otherwise, those awful opinions are going to be all over the news, and your other employees are going to know all about it. At that level you just don't have a private life that you can wall off and keep isolated from having any effect on your job performance.
I think that kind of thing would play out extremely differently in the US, where the President is viewed very differently.
To be fair, in this era the kid would probably be gunned down by the president's security before the fruit landed and their family would be shipped off to a secret prison as "enemy combatants".
Ouze wrote: Yeah I don't care which way we're doing it, but I don't currently understand how it's supposed to be done.
Schrodinger's topic. It both is and isn't on topic until a mod sees it.
That is true to a degree.
We don't have precise rules because that leads to people working out how to evade them.
Since there is a functional gun thread in the form of the Santa Fe school massacre discussion, I suggest it's best to concentrate your gun points there.
Good luck getting the majority gun owners in the US to be part of the fascism movement.
Well, it won't be called "The Fascism Movement". It will have a catchy name that stirs up nationalistic sentiment and can be shortened to a couple of letters that fit on a baseball hat #MAGA
Good luck getting the majority gun owners in the US to be part of the fascism movement.
Well, it won't be called "The Fascism Movement". It will have a catchy name that stirs up nationalistic sentiment and can be shortened to a couple of letters that fit on a baseball hat #MAGA
“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
Very few people start out as genocidal sociopaths, there’s a whole process of radicalisation, dehumanisation and peer pressure that happens. I’ve even heard theories that Hitler actually didn’t have much personal belief in antisemitism; the Jews were just a convenient target that allowed him to exploit people’s anger about the social and economic conditions in Germany and thus consolidate power.
And that’s the problem with Trump, Brexit, etc. The people currently involved may not be fascists, but they are normalising the ideas that all of the problems in society can be blamed on “others” and those “others” are defined solely by their religion and/or ethnicity. That is a very very slippery slope.
I wouldn't put much trust in those theories. Antisemitism wasn't huge in Germany, to the extent that Hitler had to downplay the antisemitic element of the Nazi party in elections because it went too far. If you asked anyone at the turn if the 20th century where the Nazi Germany type of antisemitism would show up people would have guessed France before Germany. Hitler was as true a believer as they come when it comes to antisemitism.
The same is true for Trump, he isn't just doing it for the crowd to have a scapegoat, he is a genuine hardcore racist.
whembly wrote:
It is my firm belief that that the fascism we've seen in Europe is untennable to the US... partly because there's enough contrarian who would *try* to stop it.
That's my opinion...
Just like it's your opinion that if the US *could* go fascist some of the armed citizenry wouldn't oppose.
*snip*
Good luck getting the majority gun owners in the US to be part of the fascism movement.
I do agree that US fascism wouldn't be a carbon copy of that which was done in the past, but I very much disagree with your last statement. . . Just look at the NFL flag "issue" and all the other issues which the Right wants to bleat about on social media. . . A simple click on the profiles of pretty much any random sample of pro "forced patriotism" profiles show eerily similar things: pro-NRA, pro- "blue lives matter", pro troop, anti- librul, anti-1A (by virtue of the "you WILL stand for the flag/song" rhetoric), pro-birth, anti-immigration, WASP/evangelical leaning. . . yeah, they may factually be in the minority, but they are a VERY vocal one at that, and currently hold most of the power while simultaneously proclaiming that they've lost ALL their power.
sebster wrote:
Americans in general have a fawning attitude to their president. The stuff about 'respecting the office' is generally pretty unhealthy. However putting that only on Obama is false, and it is even more false to claim that by itself it is a fascist thing.
That fawning attitude can potentially be used by a fascist to dismantle democracy, but that is not the same thing as saying that attitude itself is fascist.
During my second tour in Iraq, I had an interesting conversation with one of the embedded journalists with my unit. Now, he was NOT Hunter S. Thompson, but he was the spitting image of the guy. . . I was sent to the public affairs office for a quick fix, and ended up spending about three hours with "Mr. Thompson"
One main point, really it was a tirade on his part, was when some news show came onto the television in the office about an SNL skit or some other comedic show basically making fun of W. His tirade essentially boiled down to: you can make fun of the president, but only in certain ways that remain respectful of the Office of President. He took great offense at the humor being displayed by whichever skit show this was, because he perceived that they were making fun of W in a "taboo" way (I dont remember if it was the personal mannerisms that were off limits, or the policy that was, at this point. . . it was literally 10 years ago)
To a certain extent I can see the logic. I mean, this was a journalist who, after I asked him about this view he had, informed me that he hasn't liked a single president since Ford (and even then, he was quick to point out, this was a personality thing, not a policy thing) He had a clear understanding, in covering politics since Nixon, that there were stresses within the Office that most of us will never understand, and as such "should" respect the Presidential Office, even if we don't respect the personage holding said office.
I don't generally contribute to this thread, but reading it is always informative, but I will say one thing on this whole fascism debate: how many times in history have people been like "it can't possibly happen here because of x, y, and z" and then it proceeds to happen?
My own grandparents described similar feelings regarding the partition of India, up until it actually got partitioned and they ended up on the wrong side of the border. Sure we can argue "looking back, there was evidence for x, y, and z if we see it" but really, that's all in hindsight from better perspectives. How much do you bet that should this turn into some sort of authoritarian nationalist rule that people will look back on it and say "well obviously the whole MAGA thing was a sign, how did they not see it then?"
This isn't to say that fascism will happen in the US: it's just to say that we shouldn't ignore signs and the start of the process as others have said.
I haven't pulled this one out for a while here. Here is the summary of the 1935 novel by Sinclair Lewis called It Can't Happen Here who pretty much hits the nail on the head....
"In 1936 Senator Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip, a charismatic and power-hungry politician, wins the election as President of the United States on a populist platform, promising to restore the country to prosperity and greatness, and promising each citizen $5,000 a year. Portraying himself as a champion of traditional U.S. values, Windrip easily defeats his opponents, Senator Walt Trowbridge and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Though having previously foreshadowed some authoritarian measures in order to reorganize the United States government, Windrip rapidly outlaws dissent, incarcerates political enemies in concentration camps, and trains and arms a paramilitary force called the Minute Men, who terrorize citizens and enforce the policies of Windrip and his "corporatist" regime. One of his first acts as president is to eliminate the influence of the United States Congress, which draws the ire of many citizens as well as the legislators themselves. The Minute Men respond to protests against Windrip's decisions harshly, attacking demonstrators with bayonets. In addition to these actions, Windrip's administration, known as the "Corpo" government, curtails women's and minority rights, and eliminates individual states by subdividing the country into administrative sectors. The government of these sectors is managed by "Corpo" authorities, usually prominent businessmen or Minute Men officers. Those accused of crimes against the government appear before kangaroo courts presided over by "military judges". Despite these dictatorial (and "quasi-draconian") measures, a majority of Americans approve of them, seeing them as necessary but painful steps to restore U.S. power. Others, those less enthusiastic about the prospect of corporatism, reassure themselves that fascism cannot "happen here", hence the novel's title.
Open opponents of Windrip, led by Senator Trowbridge, form an organization called the New Underground, helping dissidents escape to Canada in manners reminiscent of the Underground Railroad and distributing anti-Windrip propaganda. One recruit to the New Underground is Doremus Jessup, the novel's protagonist, a traditional liberal and an opponent of both Corpoism and communist theories, which Windrip's administration suppresses. Jessup's participation in the organization results in the publication of a periodical called The Vermont Vigilance, in which he writes editorials decrying Windrip's abuses of power. Shad Ledue, the local district commissioner and Jessup's former hired man, resents his old employer and eventually discovers his actions and has Jessup sent to a concentration camp. Ledue subsequently terrorizes Jessup's family and particularly his daughter Sissy, whom he unsuccessfully attempts to seduce. Sissy does, however, discover evidence of corrupt dealings on the part of Ledue, which she exposes to Francis Tasbrough, a one-time friend of Jessup and Ledue's superior in the administrative hierarchy. Tasbrough has Ledue imprisoned in the same camp as Jessup, where inmates he had sent there organize his murder. Jessup escapes, after a relatively brief incarceration, when his friends bribe one of the camp guards. He flees to Canada, where he rejoins the New Underground. He later serves the organization as a spy in the Northeastern United States, passing along information and urging locals to resist Windrip.
In time, Windrip's hold on power weakens as the economic prosperity he promised does not materialize and increased numbers of disillusioned Americans, including Vice President Perley Beecroft, flee to both Canada and Mexico. He also angers his Secretary of State, Lee Sarason, who had served earlier as his chief political operative and adviser. Sarason and Windrip's other lieutenants, including General Dewey Haik, seize power and exile the president to France. Sarason succeeds Windrip, but his extravagant and relatively weak rule creates a power vacuum in which Haik and others vie for power. In a bloody putsch, Haik leads a party of military supporters into the White House, kills Sarason and his associates, and proclaims himself president. The two coups cause a slow erosion of Corpo power, and Haik's government desperately tries to arouse patriotism by launching an unjustified invasion of Mexico. After slandering Mexico in state-run newspapers, Haik orders a mass conscription of young U.S. men for the invasion of that country, infuriating many who had until then been staunch Corpo loyalists. Riots and rebellions break out across the country, with many realizing that the Corpos have misled them.
General Emmanuel [see forum posting rules], among Haik's senior officers, defects to the opposition with a large portion of his army, giving strength to the resistance movement. Though Haik remains in control of much of the country, civil war soon breaks out as the resistance tries to consolidate its grasp on the Midwest. The novel ends after the beginning of the conflict, with Jessup working as an agent for the New Underground in Corpo-occupied portions of southern Minnesota."
deltaKshatriya wrote: I don't generally contribute to this thread, but reading it is always informative, but I will say one thing on this whole fascism debate: how many times in history have people been like "it can't possibly happen here because of x, y, and z" and then it proceeds to happen?
My own grandparents described similar feelings regarding the partition of India, up until it actually got partitioned and they ended up on the wrong side of the border. Sure we can argue "looking back, there was evidence for x, y, and z if we see it" but really, that's all in hindsight from better perspectives. How much do you bet that should this turn into some sort of authoritarian nationalist rule that people will look back on it and say "well obviously the whole MAGA thing was a sign, how did they not see it then?"
This isn't to say that fascism will happen in the US: it's just to say that we shouldn't ignore signs and the start of the process as others have said.
The moment people say something can't happen is the moment from which it can happen.
deltaKshatriya wrote: I don't generally contribute to this thread, but reading it is always informative, but I will say one thing on this whole fascism debate: how many times in history have people been like "it can't possibly happen here because of x, y, and z" and then it proceeds to happen?
My own grandparents described similar feelings regarding the partition of India, up until it actually got partitioned and they ended up on the wrong side of the border. Sure we can argue "looking back, there was evidence for x, y, and z if we see it" but really, that's all in hindsight from better perspectives. How much do you bet that should this turn into some sort of authoritarian nationalist rule that people will look back on it and say "well obviously the whole MAGA thing was a sign, how did they not see it then?"
This isn't to say that fascism will happen in the US: it's just to say that we shouldn't ignore signs and the start of the process as others have said.
The moment people say something can't happen is the moment from which it can happen.
Yea, Imo it just shows that people are very willing to take a lot of institutions, rules, etc. for granted and assume them to be infallible/unbreakable. Like I said, it's not that I think that we as a nation are absolutely headed that way, but I do believe that we shouldn't be complacent by telling ourselves "it can't happen here".
Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.
When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.
Vaktathi wrote: Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.
When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.
These people legitimately terrify me.
At what point do these people become fake Americans? I feel like they are starting to skate pretty close to that point
Vaktathi wrote: Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.
When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.
These people legitimately terrify me.
At what point do these people become fake Americans? I feel like they are starting to skate pretty close to that point
Fake American?
Isn't that how we go the fascism route? Otherizings disfavored groups?
Vaktathi wrote: Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.
When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.
These people legitimately terrify me.
We've been seeing this pattern of behavior for a while. Basically since he started campaigning. I'm absolutely terrified by the hardcore supporters, more now than I have been since day one since we've seen pretty irrefutable proof that Trump is incompetent and corrupt.
Vaktathi wrote: Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.
When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.
These people legitimately terrify me.
At what point do these people become fake Americans? I feel like they are starting to skate pretty close to that point
Fake American?
Isn't that how we go the fascism route? Otherizings disfavored groups?
Trump has already been doing this for almost 2 years with disfavored groups on the basis of race and religion. As I understand Ustrello's point, though maybe not the best word choice, is that many of those screaming for "Making America Great Again" are very much disavowing some of the core values of America that make it 'great'. Just my take though, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Ustrello.
Vaktathi wrote: Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.
When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.
These people legitimately terrify me.
At what point do these people become fake Americans? I feel like they are starting to skate pretty close to that point
Fake isnt the right word, these views and groups exist in every nation, and use common national and cultural trappings/history/regalia to drape their authoritarianism in.
The issue is that in functioning societies, they arent cultivated and encouraged, theyre left to the fringes and are acknowledged for the extremism they represent, not encouraged and supported.
We should know better, and it's not hard to see through, but the fact that so many do not, or are actively on board, is what is worrying.
Vaktathi wrote: Watching Trump's nashville speech yesterday, and much more ominously, the crowd's reaction, it should leave no doubt that Fascism in America is possible.
When theyre openly booing John McCain, *still* chanting "lock her up", as Trump bounced between unrelated topics and counterfactual boasts literally every 30 seconds to rapturous applause, it was not an inspiring picture of the American civil process.
These people legitimately terrify me.
At what point do these people become fake Americans? I feel like they are starting to skate pretty close to that point
They aren't fake Americans, they are very much Americans. Americans who are very much in favor of an authoritarian/fascist government.
When Roseanne was cancelled, I was wondering if this would be a pushback on the newly-found boldness bigots have. I thought to myself, well, they feel empowered by Trump as POTUS, maybe.
But then I thought that's really not true at all. Trump really isn't the catalyst for any of the gakky stuff you see now. White nationalists haven't been empowered by Trump; he's a symptom, not a disease.
Thinking he's an aberration and this isn't how America really is, is probably ducking an unpleasant truth.
They are real Americans, because this is how America really is.
Ouze wrote: When Roseanne was cancelled, I was wondering if this would be a pushback on the newly-found boldness bigots have. I thought to myself, well, they feel empowered by Trump as POTUS, maybe.
But then I thought that's really not true at all. Trump really isn't the catalyst for any of the gakky stuff you see now. White nationalists haven't been empowered by Trump; he's a symptom, not a disease.
Thinking he's an aberration and this isn't how America really is, is probably ducking an unpleasant truth.
They are real Americans, because this is how America really is.
It's how SOME of the US really is. 40% is some combination of racist, sexist, delusional, and severely lacking integrity. We can guesstimate that this is a reasonable approximation of the percentage of Americans who are donkey-caves (assuming that some Republicans are not, some non-Republicans are, and these two roughly balance out).
Is it really that surprising that 40% of a given society are donkey-caves?
EDIT: Having had some time to come back to this (see mod post down the page) I apologise for my post here. I took what I wanted to say and framed it in a overgeneralized, abrasive fashion that didn't communicate the idea I intended.
Ouze wrote: When Roseanne was cancelled, I was wondering if this would be a pushback on the newly-found boldness bigots have. I thought to myself, well, they feel empowered by Trump as POTUS, maybe.
But then I thought that's really not true at all. Trump really isn't the catalyst for any of the gakky stuff you see now. White nationalists haven't been empowered by Trump; he's a symptom, not a disease.
Thinking he's an aberration and this isn't how America really is, is probably ducking an unpleasant truth.
They are real Americans, because this is how America really is.
It's how SOME of the US really is. 40% is some combination of racist, sexist, delusional, and severely lacking integrity. We can guesstimate that this is a reasonable approximation of the percentage of Americans who are donkey-caves (assuming that some Republicans are not, some non-Republicans are, and these two roughly balance out).
Is it really that surprising that 40% of a given society are donkey-caves?
No, it really isn't. If you're going to make statements like that, it's time for some introspection and evaluation of your own position.
Ouze wrote: When Roseanne was cancelled, I was wondering if this would be a pushback on the newly-found boldness bigots have. I thought to myself, well, they feel empowered by Trump as POTUS, maybe.
But then I thought that's really not true at all. Trump really isn't the catalyst for any of the gakky stuff you see now. White nationalists haven't been empowered by Trump; he's a symptom, not a disease.
Thinking he's an aberration and this isn't how America really is, is probably ducking an unpleasant truth.
They are real Americans, because this is how America really is.
It's how SOME of the US really is. 40% is some combination of racist, sexist, delusional, and severely lacking integrity. We can guesstimate that this is a reasonable approximation of the percentage of Americans who are donkey-caves (assuming that some Republicans are not, some non-Republicans are, and these two roughly balance out).
Is it really that surprising that 40% of a given society are donkey-caves?
No, it really isn't. If you're going to make statements like that, it's time for some introspection and evaluation of your own position.
Trump got (roughly) 63 million votes and enjoys 85% support from his party. That's 54 million adults who are demonstrably some combo of "racist, sexist, delusional, and severely lacking integrity."
So 40% is an exaggeration. The provable figure is more like 17%. A lot better than 40%, but still a disappointing number.
Ouze wrote: When Roseanne was cancelled, I was wondering if this would be a pushback on the newly-found boldness bigots have. I thought to myself, well, they feel empowered by Trump as POTUS, maybe.
But then I thought that's really not true at all. Trump really isn't the catalyst for any of the gakky stuff you see now. White nationalists haven't been empowered by Trump; he's a symptom, not a disease.
Thinking he's an aberration and this isn't how America really is, is probably ducking an unpleasant truth.
They are real Americans, because this is how America really is.
It's how SOME of the US really is. 40% is some combination of racist, sexist, delusional, and severely lacking integrity. We can guesstimate that this is a reasonable approximation of the percentage of Americans who are donkey-caves (assuming that some Republicans are not, some non-Republicans are, and these two roughly balance out).
Is it really that surprising that 40% of a given society are donkey-caves?
No, it really isn't. If you're going to make statements like that, it's time for some introspection and evaluation of your own position.
So you are saying it isn't surprising that 40% are donkey-caves? I agree, that's what I was saying.
Ouze wrote: When Roseanne was cancelled, I was wondering if this would be a pushback on the newly-found boldness bigots have. I thought to myself, well, they feel empowered by Trump as POTUS, maybe.
But then I thought that's really not true at all. Trump really isn't the catalyst for any of the gakky stuff you see now. White nationalists haven't been empowered by Trump; he's a symptom, not a disease.
Thinking he's an aberration and this isn't how America really is, is probably ducking an unpleasant truth.
They are real Americans, because this is how America really is.
I would agree with this and add that in a lot of ways bigots seem encouraged to voice bigotry not because someone is telling them it's okay but because everyone else is saying it's not okay. They're like angsty rebellious teenagers shoving the middle finger at the man, except the middle finger is disgusting commentary and the man is common decency.
They are real Americans, because this is how America really is.
It was this realization that left me in a post-election stupor of shock for about 6 months.
Same. My entire viewpoint on where most Americans stand regarding our social struggles completely shifted after watching a blatant racist/sexist/elitist maroon win a national election.
Ouze wrote: When Roseanne was cancelled, I was wondering if this would be a pushback on the newly-found boldness bigots have. I thought to myself, well, they feel empowered by Trump as POTUS, maybe.
But then I thought that's really not true at all. Trump really isn't the catalyst for any of the gakky stuff you see now. White nationalists haven't been empowered by Trump; he's a symptom, not a disease.
Thinking he's an aberration and this isn't how America really is, is probably ducking an unpleasant truth.
They are real Americans, because this is how America really is.
It's how SOME of the US really is. 40% is some combination of racist, sexist, delusional, and severely lacking integrity. We can guesstimate that this is a reasonable approximation of the percentage of Americans who are donkey-caves (assuming that some Republicans are not, some non-Republicans are, and these two roughly balance out).
Is it really that surprising that 40% of a given society are donkey-caves?
No, it really isn't. If you're going to make statements like that, it's time for some introspection and evaluation of your own position.
Trump got (roughly) 63 million votes and enjoys 85% support from his party. That's 54 million adults who are demonstrably some combo of "racist, sexist, delusional, and severely lacking integrity."
So 40% is an exaggeration. The provable figure is more like 17%. A lot better than 40%, but still a disappointing number.
That seems like a more reasonable conclusion, but the methodology by which you got there is terrible.
Self-interest drives many of the choices we make, and there were plenty of people who voted for Trump because they thought he'd do better than Hillary at lowering taxes, creating jobs, helping small businesses, keeping the military strong, etc. And they continue to back him because they still think he's better than the alternative. There's nothing inherently racist, sexist, delusional, or integrity-challenged about those old-school GOP positions and interests. Trump may or may not actually be about those things and/or an effective executive, but the point remains that people think he's more likely to achieve those objectives that will benefit them.
I submit that what Trump's election showed is how Americans really view their representatives. That for all his moral and ethical failings, Trump wasn't an outlier compared to other DC politicians in many voters' eyes.
Self-interest drives many of the choices we make, and there were plenty of people who voted for Trump because they thought he'd do better than Hillary at lowering taxes, creating jobs, helping small businesses, keeping the military strong, etc. And they continue to back him because they still think he's better than the alternative. There's nothing inherently racist, sexist, delusional, or integrity-challenged about those old-school GOP positions and interests. Trump may or may not actually be about those things and/or an effective executive, but the point remains that people think he's more likely to achieve those objectives that will benefit them.
I submit that what Trump's election showed is how Americans really view their representatives. That for all his moral and ethical failings, Trump wasn't an outlier compared to other DC politicians in many voters' eyes.
Those people are delusional. Trump's corruption and incompetence is not "politics as usual".
Okay, now that I’ve had time to look through the thread and all the alerts it has generated… The discussion stemming from this:
It's how SOME of the US really is. 40% is some combination of racist, sexist, delusional, and severely lacking integrity. We can guesstimate that this is a reasonable approximation of the percentage of Americans who are donkey-caves (assuming that some Republicans are not, some non-Republicans are, and these two roughly balance out).
Is not what we have an off-topic forum for on Dakka. Even limited to a single thread, taking guesses at generalizing large swaths of people groups as “ists / isms” is not what we’re here for, on a forum devoted to discussing toy soldiers.
We’re not going to always (or even ever!) all agree, and there are some very valid concerns that could be posted about both the current situation of politics in the US, and about tolerance in the world in general. But that tolerance also extends to discussing those who disagree with you, and not generalizing / stereotyping them.
So, I’m going to give this thread a chance to cool off, and unlock it in a day or two. Please think about how you could post your views / disagreements without resorting to "ists/isms" in the meantime. Thanks all...
So. Seems trump kim meeting is on for a now at least. And trump managed to say letter he got from kim was nice and interesting before even reading it. Trump trying to claim he has paranormal abilities?
Also trump putin meeting seems to be coming. Yup yup
RiTides wrote: Okay, now that I’ve had time to look through the thread and all the alerts it has generated… The discussion stemming from this:
It's how SOME of the US really is. 40% is some combination of racist, sexist, delusional, and severely lacking integrity. We can guesstimate that this is a reasonable approximation of the percentage of Americans who are donkey-caves (assuming that some Republicans are not, some non-Republicans are, and these two roughly balance out).
Is not what we have an off-topic forum for on Dakka. Even limited to a single thread, taking guesses at generalizing large swaths of people groups as “ists / isms” is not what we’re here for. Examples could be: “30% of Christians are bigoted” “45% of Muslims are intolerant” “50% of Democrats hate babies” “65% of Republicans hate the poor”. Do you see how unhelpful this kind of discussion is?
As posted above:
If you're going to make statements like that, it's time for some introspection and evaluation of your own position.
We’re not going to always (or even ever!) all agree, and there are some very valid concerns that could be posted about both the current US administration, the tone of discussion of minority groups in the US, and just tolerance in general. But that tolerance also extends to discussing those who disagree with you and not generalizing / stereotyping them. In this case, that would be someone who voted for the current president, which has to be an awful lot of Dakka posters (even though I am not one).
So, I’m going to give this thread a chance to cool off, and unlock it in a day or two. Please think about how you could post your views / disagreements without huge generalizations, stereotypes, and “ists / isms” about those who disagree with your view in the meantime. Thanks all!
ok, I want to have it here and now: Is the Gun control discussion here, or elsewhere, because that discussion got ping ponged by mods between no less that three different threads, with some mods telling us to bring it back here, while others asked that it go elsewhere.
Has there been a mod consensus on this finally, or should there be a separate thread for it?
tneva82 wrote: So. Seems trump kim meeting is on for a now at least. And trump managed to say letter he got from kim was nice and interesting before even reading it. Trump trying to claim he has paranormal abilities?
Also trump putin meeting seems to be coming. Yup yup
we'll see what happens, we're playing with two actors known to be extremely unreliable and curiously fickle and who keep vaccilating between great respect and admiration and utter disdain almost weekly now depending on which one needs a nappy change.
RiTides wrote: Okay, now that I’ve had time to look through the thread and all the alerts it has generated… The discussion stemming from this:
It's how SOME of the US really is. 40% is some combination of racist, sexist, delusional, and severely lacking integrity. We can guesstimate that this is a reasonable approximation of the percentage of Americans who are donkey-caves (assuming that some Republicans are not, some non-Republicans are, and these two roughly balance out).
Is not what we have an off-topic forum for on Dakka. Even limited to a single thread, taking guesses at generalizing large swaths of people groups as “ists / isms” is not what we’re here for. Examples could be: “30% of Christians are bigoted” “45% of Muslims are intolerant” “50% of Democrats hate babies” “65% of Republicans hate the poor”. Do you see how unhelpful this kind of discussion is?
As posted above:
If you're going to make statements like that, it's time for some introspection and evaluation of your own position.
We’re not going to always (or even ever!) all agree, and there are some very valid concerns that could be posted about both the current US administration, the tone of discussion of minority groups in the US, and just tolerance in general. But that tolerance also extends to discussing those who disagree with you and not generalizing / stereotyping them. In this case, that would be someone who voted for the current president, which has to be an awful lot of Dakka posters (even though I am not one).
So, I’m going to give this thread a chance to cool off, and unlock it in a day or two. Please think about how you could post your views / disagreements without huge generalizations, stereotypes, and “ists / isms” about those who disagree with your view in the meantime. Thanks all!
ok, I want to have it here and now: Is the Gun control discussion here, or elsewhere, because that discussion got ping ponged by mods between no less that three different threads, with some mods telling us to bring it back here, while others asked that it go elsewhere.
Has there been a mod consensus on this finally, or should there be a separate thread for it?
They answered that in the Nuts & Bolts thread. US gun politics goes in the US Politics thread.
I would, however, argue that gun control and such is best left out, anyway. It never ends well.
Here. It will no doubt come up in any threads about speciifc public shootings but as a general matter discussion of gun politics in the United States goes in the US Politics thread. Here is a link to an extensive conversation about the rationale if you are interested in discussing it further:
So while the thread was closed the terrible being in human skin D'Souza got pardoned by Trump for obvious reasons. Why fire Mueller when you can just undermine the entire legal system right?
Disciple of Fate wrote: So while the thread was closed the terrible being in human skin D'Souza got pardoned by Trump for obvious reasons. Why fire Mueller when you can just undermine the entire legal system right?
Yeah, he's been getting pretty... well, 'liberal' with his pardons. I expect him to pardon himself shortly before the impeachment just to try and muddle things more.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So while the thread was closed the terrible being in human skin D'Souza got pardoned by Trump for obvious reasons. Why fire Mueller when you can just undermine the entire legal system right?
Yeah, he's been getting pretty... well, 'liberal' with his pardons. I expect him to pardon himself shortly before the impeachment just to try and muddle things more.
If this doesn't work well enough he might have to resort to pardoning murderers to see if someone gets that hint
Impeached ? Why would anyone want to impeach Him ?
He is gonna be president for the next 7 years, at least ! And I can't wait to see him being Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Korean War ! 2017 was sooo cool but 2018 is gonna be interesting too (get ready for the Red winning in November folks) !
At least? Its not at least, that's how the Constitution works, you only get 8 at most. And unless the Democrats pick a really bad choice, its going to be very rough for Trump in 2020.
As for him ending the Korean War, its a funny thing to joke about, as the man has no idea what he is dealing with. Its already clear that US terms as they stand now would be unacceptable to Kim.
Disciple of Fate wrote: At least? Its not at least, that's how the Constitution works, you only get 8 at most. And unless the Democrats pick a really bad choice, its going to be very rough for Trump in 2020.
As for him ending the Korean War, its a funny thing to joke about, as the man has no idea what he is dealing with. Its already clear that US terms as they stand now would be unacceptable to Kim.
Yes I am aware of the Constitution, but we never know ! Yeah, I remember when He had 1% and it would be very rough for Him to win, do you ?
In fact, I don't think him to be a good man, to be honest I find him funny but I truly think he is a bad man, a man I wouldn't enjoy being near. But if he has one quality to my mind, it would be to know how men works, and how to get them to agree with him. I truly believe he can end the war.
Disciple of Fate wrote: At least? Its not at least, that's how the Constitution works, you only get 8 at most. And unless the Democrats pick a really bad choice, its going to be very rough for Trump in 2020.
As for him ending the Korean War, its a funny thing to joke about, as the man has no idea what he is dealing with. Its already clear that US terms as they stand now would be unacceptable to Kim.
Yes I am aware of the Constitution, but we never know ! Yeah, I remember when He had 1% and it would be very rough for Him to win, do you ?
In fact, I don't think him to be a good man, to be honest I find him funny but I truly think he is a bad man, a man I wouldn't enjoy being near. But if he has one quality to my mind, it would be to know how men works, and how to get them to agree with him. I truly believe he can end the war.
He never had 1%, it was always relatively close when taking the margin of error into account. It was basically correct in the predictions though, Clinton did get more votes, Trump just got lucky his votes happened in the right places to win. But you're ignoring that Trump had his best opponent in someone that was absolutly vilified over 20 years so people could go they're equally bad! If Democrats pick a run of the mill candidate that alone might already put Trump in danger and Trump is motivating his opponent's base.
He doesn't really know how men work though. This is why he gets so easily misled by people such as Xi. Trump has been used to yes-men and smaller people he can push out of his way in business. So far internationally he has not gotten anyone to agree with him, in fact he actually started a trade conflict with his closest allies two days ago. He can't make deals because he doesn't want to compromise. And to be fair its useless to compromise with North Korea, as NK has always been dishonest. But NK isn't going to just give Trump everything so that Kim potentially gets something in return. Look at what Trump has offered NK, its nothing, so what will they talk about if Kim says no?
tneva82 wrote: Seeing he's demanding nk to accept us invasion no he don't.
Also he's idiot with zero trustworthiness. Nobody trusts him enough to even ask what time it is
Wow, amazing case here
Well, no, Trump isn't even trusted by his supporters. Many of them, my own brother included, are convinced that he will at last end the world, and begin the apocalypse so that Christ can return.
I've read the bible. I believe that many of these people will be surprised by Christ's most likely reaction to this. It may involve Last Judgment and a Lake of Fire.
Nathan Larson, a 37-year-old accountant from Charlottesville, Virginia, is running for Congress as an independent candidate in his native state. He is also a pedophile, as he admitted to HuffPost on Thursday, who has bragged in website posts about raping his late ex-wife.
In a phone call, Larson confirmed that he created the now-defunct websites suiped.org and incelocalypse.today ― chat rooms that served as gathering places for pedophiles and violence-minded misogynists like himself. HuffPost contacted Larson after confirming that his campaign website shared an IP address with these forums, among others. His sites were terminated by their domain host on Tuesday.
On the phone, he was open about his pedophilia and seemingly unfazed about his long odds of attaining government office.
“A lot of people are tired of political correctness and being constrained by it,” he said. “People prefer when there’s an outsider who doesn’t have anything to lose and is willing to say what’s on a lot of people’s minds.”
When asked whether he’s a pedophile or just writes about pedophilia, he said, “It’s a mix of both. When people go over the top there’s a grain of truth to what they say.”
Asked whether there was a “grain of truth” in his essay about father-daughter incest and another about raping his ex-wife repeatedly, he said yes, offering that plenty of women have rape fantasies.
According to Larson’s campaign manifesto, his platform as a “quasi-neoreactionary libertarian” candidate includes protecting gun ownership rights, establishing free trade and protecting “benevolent white supremacy,” as well as legalizing incestuous marriage and child pornography.
In the manifesto, Larson called Nazi leader Adolf Hitler a “white supremacist hero.” He urged Congress to repeal the Violence Against Women Act, adding, “We need to switch to a system that classifies women as property, initially of their fathers and later of their husbands.” He also showed sympathy for men who identify as involuntary celibates, or incels, suggesting it is unfair that they “are forced to pay taxes for schools, welfare, and other support for other men’s children.”
Using the pseudonyms Leucosticte and Lysander, Larson frequently participated in conversations on his own message boards, he confirmed to HuffPost.
.......
Until it was pulled down, Larson’s site Nathania.org, a wiki page with details about his latest candidacy, featured posts titled “A Man Should Be Allowed to Choke His Wife to Death as Punishment for Cutting Her Hair Short Without Permission, or Other Acts of Gross Insubordination,” “Advantages of Father-Daughter Incest” and “The Justifiability of an Incel’s Kidnapping a Girl and Keeping Her as His Rape-Slave for Sex and Babymaking.” Wiki pages can be edited by other people, but Larson confirmed he wrote these posts as well as several other disturbing entries.
In “Let’s Define What Rape Is,” a 3,000-word essay posted on Nathania.org as well as other incel sites, Larson wrote: “Women are objects, to be taken care of by men like any other property, and for powerful men to insert themselves into as it pleases them, and as they believe will be in women’s own interests. In most cases, their interests are aligned, as long as the man is strong. Female sex-slaves actually get a much better deal than animals, because in most cases, they are allowed to reproduce, unlike animals raised for meat or companionship.
there's a whole load of equally jaw dropping stuff through the link, especially the pro incest stuff.
Larson’s political ambitions span more than a decade. He first ran for Congress in Virginia’s 1st District in 2008 on what he described as an “anarcho-capitalist” platform. That same year, he sent a letter to the Secret Service threatening to kill the president, which landed him in federal prison for 14 months and barred him from seeking public office.
But in 2016, then-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) restored voting and other civil rights to thousands of felons, allowing Larson to campaign yet again. In 2017 he ran in Virginia’s House of Delegates District 31 and secured less than 2 percent of the vote. Now he is gunning for a seat in Virginia’s 10th Congressional District
..it's that thin line between political correctness and .. and.. raping your kids and marrying your cousin ..?
In a 3,300-word essay on incelocalypse.today, titled “Here’s How to Psyche Yourself Up to Feel Entitled to Rape,” Larson tells other members: “Don’t forget: feminism is the problem, and rape is the solution.” On the platform, he also advocated for father-daughter marriage, killing women and raping virgins.
Larson is less worried about his run for Congress than about his sites coming down. He told HuffPost that the termination of his websites is an affront to his freedom of speech and that he’s going to try to get them hosted elsewhere
It's reported by the NY TImes that Trump's lawyers have sent a letter to the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, claiming in effect that Trump can do what he likes because he is President. (The full details are in the article.)
"The louder he spoke of his honour, the faster we counted the spoons." Ralph Waldo Emerson
reds8n wrote: ..it's that thin line between political correctness and .. and.. raping your kids and marrying your cousin ..?
In a 3,300-word essay on incelocalypse.today, titled “Here’s How to Psyche Yourself Up to Feel Entitled to Rape,” Larson tells other members: “Don’t forget: feminism is the problem, and rape is the solution.” On the platform, he also advocated for father-daughter marriage, killing women and raping virgins.
Larson is less worried about his run for Congress than about his sites coming down. He told HuffPost that the termination of his websites is an affront to his freedom of speech and that he’s going to try to get them hosted elsewhere
*dodgeball bold strategy gif*
I... what... he...
Holy gak. Just call down the Exterminatus, this world cant be saved.
As a resident of the Charlottesville area, I actually take a small degree of satisfaction know that even around here people aren't quite crazy enough to follow that kind of crazy. I mean people around here are totally insane when it comes to politics but they're not that insane!
LordofHats wrote: As a resident of the Charlottesville area, I actually take a small degree of satisfaction know that even around here people aren't quite crazy enough to follow that kind of crazy. I mean people around here are totally insane when it comes to politics but they're not that insane!
People will still vote for him. Whether they're doing it just for a lark, to troll/protest the other side, or because they actually believe in him, the reason doesn't really matter, because those votes will still, to an extent, legitimize him. Remember, throw enough protest or troll votes in someone's direction, and they can actually win.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's reported by the NY TImes that Trump's lawyers have sent a letter to the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, claiming in effect that Trump can do what he likes because he is President. (The full details are in the article.)
"It's not illegal when the president does it" didn't shake out so hot for Nixon.
Nathan Larson, a 37-year-old accountant from Charlottesville, Virginia, is running for Congress as an independent candidate in his native state. He is also a pedophile, as he admitted to HuffPost on Thursday, who has bragged in website posts about raping his late ex-wife.
In a phone call, Larson confirmed that he created the now-defunct websites suiped.org and incelocalypse.today ― chat rooms that served as gathering places for pedophiles and violence-minded misogynists like himself. HuffPost contacted Larson after confirming that his campaign website shared an IP address with these forums, among others. His sites were terminated by their domain host on Tuesday.
On the phone, he was open about his pedophilia and seemingly unfazed about his long odds of attaining government office.
Campanello had spent seven years as a plainclothes narcotics detective in Boston’s suburbs. But watching his officers respond to more and more overdoses—some they had reversed with the newly available naloxone, some they couldn’t—had left the chief disillusioned with the drug war’s criminalization of addicts. “It was pretty evident that we weren’t arresting our way out of anything,” Campanello recalls. “The punishment of a disease wasn’t working.”
Two days after a packed community forum, Campanello, with permission from the city’s mayor, went on the department’s Facebook page and announced the new policy: detox and recovery on demand for the addicted—“not in hours or days, but on the spot,” he promised. “I’ve never arrested a tobacco addict,” Campanello wrote, “nor have I ever seen one turned down for help when they develop lung cancer.” His post went viral: two million people viewed it.
That is a good response. I wish I wasn't so horrible that I immediately thought "Oh, they found out about harm prevention as soon as a drug epidemic hit white people!"
Da Boss wrote: I wish I wasn't so horrible that I immediately thought "Oh, they found out about harm prevention as soon as a drug epidemic hit white people!"
Yeah, it is hard for us who lived through the crack epidemic of the 90s to see this and not be bitter.
Honestly, while race may be a factor, it feels like class has been the main motivator (it can be two things). Meth has been hitting poor whites for awhile. But soon as the middle class gets hit (and got addicted to overly prescribed opioids), now they find compassion.
Campanello had spent seven years as a plainclothes narcotics detective in Boston’s suburbs. But watching his officers respond to more and more overdoses—some they had reversed with the newly available naloxone, some they couldn’t—had left the chief disillusioned with the drug war’s criminalization of addicts. “It was pretty evident that we weren’t arresting our way out of anything,” Campanello recalls. “The punishment of a disease wasn’t working.”
Two days after a packed community forum, Campanello, with permission from the city’s mayor, went on the department’s Facebook page and announced the new policy: detox and recovery on demand for the addicted—“not in hours or days, but on the spot,” he promised. “I’ve never arrested a tobacco addict,” Campanello wrote, “nor have I ever seen one turned down for help when they develop lung cancer.” His post went viral: two million people viewed it.
The Auld Grump
A sensible proposal from a law enforcement officer? But the liberal media is always telling me that all cops are evil and stupid!
Campanello had spent seven years as a plainclothes narcotics detective in Boston’s suburbs. But watching his officers respond to more and more overdoses—some they had reversed with the newly available naloxone, some they couldn’t—had left the chief disillusioned with the drug war’s criminalization of addicts. “It was pretty evident that we weren’t arresting our way out of anything,” Campanello recalls. “The punishment of a disease wasn’t working.”
Two days after a packed community forum, Campanello, with permission from the city’s mayor, went on the department’s Facebook page and announced the new policy: detox and recovery on demand for the addicted—“not in hours or days, but on the spot,” he promised. “I’ve never arrested a tobacco addict,” Campanello wrote, “nor have I ever seen one turned down for help when they develop lung cancer.” His post went viral: two million people viewed it.
The Auld Grump
A sensible proposal from a law enforcement officer? But the liberal media is always telling me that all cops are evil and stupid!
I am a bit sad that the Police gave up enforcing the Law as it should do. Just because you didn't succeed before don't mean you won't in the future and that you have to treat an obvious crime like a disease. These people chosed to buy drugs, others to sell it, and others to produce it. Just catch them all (probably from Mexico anyway, the Glorious Wall gonna put an end to this).
I just picture actual Orson Krennic hunched over his keyboard, angrily posting while trying to forget about Tarkin taking his lunch from the employee break room.
The only good thing to come out of the pedophile rape-supporter who's running for office is that Ouze's petition is filed under 'Transportation and Infrastructure'.
So the new US ambassador to Germany has turned out to be a creep. Paraphrasing, he said looking at the German political landscape he has a lot of work to do. Did he just offhandedly let slip he is going to work on regime change in Germany in favor of Trump style populism?
For those interested, it was in a Breitbart interview, which I'm not going to give clicks to by linking it.
Da Boss wrote: That is a good response. I wish I wasn't so horrible that I immediately thought "Oh, they found out about harm prevention as soon as a drug epidemic hit white people!"
Or that the War on Drugs was declared with the intent of arresting the addicts, rather than treatment?
Ah, the eighties, such fun times, remembering the likes of Operation: Swamp 81.... (The US not being the only nation to take discriminatory stances....)
My wife, before she was my wife, had heard the song, but had no idea what it was in response to.
Seems Trump can officially pardon himself, supposedly. But won't. Honest.
It's still untested AND that's Giuliani, the guy who previously said Bill Clinton would have to appear if he was subpoenaed, but trump wouldn't have to.
However, I think basic common sense would be "no one is above the law."
The level of argument is basically a Trumped up version of “I can shoot someone in the street and people would vote for me”, just replaced with “I could shoot someone in the street and tell people not to investigate me because I’m the boss”.
Of course his entire business experience and role as head of the Trump business has been “I’m the boss, so what I say goes”. He has never been challenged on anything, so why should he think this is different?
d-usa wrote: The level of argument is basically a Trumped up version of “I can shoot someone in the street and people would vote for me”, just replaced with “I could shoot someone in the street and tell people not to investigate me because I’m the boss”.
These arguments make perfect sense if you realize that Rudy's current role isn't as a legal professional opining on theory and strategy, but rather a partisan throwing out crazy gak to confuse people and edge stuff out of the news cycle.
Larson’s political ambitions span more than a decade. He first ran for Congress in Virginia’s 1st District in 2008 on what he described as an “anarcho-capitalist” platform. That same year, he sent a letter to the Secret Service threatening to kill the president, which landed him in federal prison for 14 months and barred him from seeking public office.
Ouze wrote: These arguments make perfect sense if you realize that Rudy's current role isn't as a legal professional opining on theory and strategy, but rather a partisan throwing out crazy gak to confuse people and edge stuff out of the news cycle.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So the new US ambassador to Germany has turned out to be a creep. Paraphrasing, he said looking at the German political landscape he has a lot of work to do. Did he just offhandedly let slip he is going to work on regime change in Germany in favor of Trump style populism?
For those interested, it was in a Breitbart interview, which I'm not going to give clicks to by linking it.
They have really picked some amazing diplomats for this admin. Christ. I hope no one in Berlin gives this goober the time of day after this comment. How dare he.
If anybody cares to remember, I've spoken before of my love of American history, and there's this scene from the American Revolution.
It's during the New York campaign, and the Americans have just been routed by the British. Morale is rock bottom. Desertions are sky high, and Washington barely has 1000 men to call on...
Everybody thinks the revolution is fethed and making peace is the smart move... And Washington is sitting in his tent, and even he's pretty low, but he snaps out of it, and he keeps believing...
And the rest is history...
But if he's up there in that great battlefield in the sky, he must be wondering why he fething bothered when you have people coming out with concentrated horsegak about the President being able to pardon himself...
As if the Founding Fathers were stupid enough to design a system like that after getting rid of one king across the water.
I would say to American dakka members that the best thing you can do is tear up the Declaration of Independence and start again.
Because if that is the quality of leadership you're getting, then your country is going to be ran into the ground, if it's not happening already.
When the British Empire went up in smoke, you can say that at least they helped to defeat the Nazis before they collapsed.
But America? This is beating yourself to death with a tiny hammer...
The EU and Mexico are targetting specific things in Trump voting states. I think this is quite a just way to go about it. You voted for a trade war? You got it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: But if he's up there in that great battlefield in the sky, he must be wondering why he fething bothered when you have people coming out with concentrated horsegak about the President being able to pardon himself...
To be fair, it's not an issue that is any meaningful threat to the US system. A president can pardon himself, but will almost certainly be impeached for such a blatant abuse of power. It would be a final act of desperation by a president who is already on their way out, avoiding prison time in exchange for ensuring that their removal from office becomes guaranteed. And the system will go on even if an ex-president is not in prison like they should be.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So the new US ambassador to Germany has turned out to be a creep. Paraphrasing, he said looking at the German political landscape he has a lot of work to do. Did he just offhandedly let slip he is going to work on regime change in Germany in favor of Trump style populism?
For those interested, it was in a Breitbart interview, which I'm not going to give clicks to by linking it.
They have really picked some amazing diplomats for this admin. Christ. I hope no one in Berlin gives this goober the time of day after this comment. How dare he.
That's because Trump's method for filling the necessary posts apparently based on a Venn diagram in which he looks for the overlap between "one of us," "jobs for the boys," and "warm bodies". Relevant xperience" and "Training" aren't included. To back this up, Trump has gutted the State Department which might have been able to support candidates of such quality and reduce some of the worst harm they might do.
The best that can be said for this situation is that Trump's strategy for filling federal judge positions is actually even more limited.
However none of it matters because the Republican "non-swamp" currently will vote through a brain-dead axe-murderer who raped, killed and ate a choirboy (but not in that precise order) as long as he wears a red tie.
Peregrine wrote: A president can pardon himself, but will almost certainly be impeached for such a blatant abuse of power.
I wouldn't be so sure of that in the current climate.
Mmmm, I'd imagine that if he were to do so, we'd have many posts in the thread about how it's fine for him to do that as he isn't specifically disallowed from doing it and only the legally defined, written rules matter when it comes to successful governance of a country.
Peregrine wrote: A president can pardon himself, but will almost certainly be impeached for such a blatant abuse of power.
I wouldn't be so sure of that in the current climate.
Mmmm, I'd imagine that if he were to do so, we'd have many posts in the thread about how it's fine for him to do that as he isn't specifically disallowed from doing it and only the legally defined, written rules matter when it comes to successful governance of a country.
It's only Trump and Giuliani saying he can pardon himself. They're both notorious self-serving liars so it almost certainly isn't true and merely adds more strength to the suspision that Trump is guilty.
However I do think it's another piece of news chaff and people would be well advised not to spend a lot of time opposing it and instead keep asking Trump a lot of hard questions.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So the new US ambassador to Germany has turned out to be a creep. Paraphrasing, he said looking at the German political landscape he has a lot of work to do. Did he just offhandedly let slip he is going to work on regime change in Germany in favor of Trump style populism?
For those interested, it was in a Breitbart interview, which I'm not going to give clicks to by linking it.
They have really picked some amazing diplomats for this admin. Christ. I hope no one in Berlin gives this goober the time of day after this comment. How dare he.
That's because Trump's method for filling the necessary posts apparently based on a Venn diagram in which he looks for the overlap between "one of us," "jobs for the boys," and "warm bodies". Relevant xperience" and "Training" aren't included. To back this up, Trump has gutted the State Department which might have been able to support candidates of such quality and reduce some of the worst harm they might do.
The best that can be said for this situation is that Trump's strategy for filling federal judge positions is actually even more limited.
However none of it matters because the Republican "non-swamp" currently will vote through a brain-dead axe-murderer who raped, killed and ate a choirboy (but not in that precise order) as long as he wears a red tie.
The man used to be a Fox News pundit/commentator I believe, so that tells you something. Trump might have even got him off TV. And yes, the Germans have already been offended by the guy. At least he is a step below the ambassador Trump send to my country, who is just as mental if not worse.
The US is the place where we used to dump our crazy people, you're not allowed to send them back to us America! No takesies backsies!
Peregrine wrote: A president can pardon himself, but will almost certainly be impeached for such a blatant abuse of power.
I wouldn't be so sure of that in the current climate.
Mmmm, I'd imagine that if he were to do so, we'd have many posts in the thread about how it's fine for him to do that as he isn't specifically disallowed from doing it and only the legally defined, written rules matter when it comes to successful governance of a country.
Basically this:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Meanwhile: refusing service to gays is now legal and constitutional
Because you can legally separate yourself from your business to protect yourself from everybody else, but that doesn’t mean that everybody else is protected from you.
Its a pretty bizarre outcome for the wedding cake case. They seemed to have weaseled their way out of making a bigger statement, but so far it implies that you can discriminate against gay people, so how long will it take before a case about buying or renting a house is going to pop up using this as a defense.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its a pretty bizarre outcome for the wedding cake case. They seemed to have weaseled their way out of making a bigger statement, but so far it implies that you can discriminate against gay people, so how long will it take before a case about buying or renting a house is going to pop up using this as a defense.
Surprised there wasn't any comment about them outing the couple's personal information and encouraging people to go after them...
Identity politics are always a risky bet, but it could fire up the democratic base and erode GOP support from moderates in the midterms.
Trump isn’t entitled to any SCOTUS picks after the midterms if the Democrats take the Senate (as unlikely as that is). Mitch has made it clear that the voters get to pick for vacancies with a new POTUS. So there is an urgency with liberal judges getting up there in age.
We could also see a push for a new civil rights bill or amendment, which would likely be vetoed anyway, but could be a driver to bring out votes for democrats.
Well, some might say that even Trump will eventually run out of incompetent though loyal yes-men to put into important situations in government service.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, some might say that even Trump will eventually run out of incompetent though loyal yes-men to put into important situations in government service.
You say that, but wach Trump channel his inner Oprah at his next rally going "you get a job and you get a job and you get a job!"
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, some might say that even Trump will eventually run out of incompetent though loyal yes-men to put into important situations in government service.
Even if trump ran for max time and assigned person a day time would probably run out first alas :/
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, some might say that even Trump will eventually run out of incompetent though loyal yes-men to put into important situations in government service.
You say that, but wach Trump channel his inner Oprah at his next rally going "you get a job and you get a job and you get a job!"
He did promise to create jobs. At 4.9% unemployment (2016 figure), he would have to boot out and then hire 6 people per hour. At this rate, that is looking more and more like reality...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Forgot to add, that was for a 4 year term.
Kilkrazy wrote: Well, some might say that even Trump will eventually run out of incompetent though loyal yes-men to put into important situations in government service.
You say that, but wach Trump channel his inner Oprah at his next rally going "you get a job and you get a job and you get a job!"
He did promise to create jobs. At 4.9% unemployment (2016 figure), he would have to boot out and then hire 6 people per hour. At this rate, that is looking more and more like reality...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Forgot to add, that was for a 4 year term.
Hell, he might accidently end up with someone with a sliver of competence.
d-usa wrote: Identity politics are always a risky bet, but it could fire up the democratic base and erode GOP support from moderates in the midterms.
Trump isn’t entitled to any SCOTUS picks after the midterms if the Democrats take the Senate (as unlikely as that is). Mitch has made it clear that the voters get to pick for vacancies with a new POTUS. So there is an urgency with liberal judges getting up there in age.
We could also see a push for a new civil rights bill or amendment, which would likely be vetoed anyway, but could be a driver to bring out votes for democrats.
Clinton nominated Breyer and Obama nominated Kagan and they both sided with the majority in this case. Kennedy sided with the majority as well and he wrote the opinion in pretty much every important SCOTUS gay rights decision. I think this case had more to do with setting limits as to what states can do in the name of anti discrimination than with the idea that the GOP stacked SCOTUS with homophobic justices.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Its a pretty bizarre outcome for the wedding cake case. They seemed to have weaseled their way out of making a bigger statement, but so far it implies that you can discriminate against gay people, so how long will it take before a case about buying or renting a house is going to pop up using this as a defense.
I am not surprised. The issue was so nuclear hot in the culture wars I am surprised the Supreme Court even took it on.
That being said, I am a bit disappointed but now state-by-state each legislature will need to either add or not add sexual orientation into their protected classes laws. This will clearly delineate where there is discrimintation based on sexual orientation and where there is not. I think you all know where that leads.
Here is a highlight of what the court has said....
Kennedy was also perturbed by the fact that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission allowed bakers to refuse to bake cakes with anti-gay images and text. This “disparate consideration,” he wrote, further illustrates the commission’s “hostility to religion.”
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg notes in her dissent—joined only by Justice Sonia Sotomayor—this comparison is quite odd, since Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins did not request any text on their cake. Ginsburg thoroughly debunks this strange line of reasoning, highlighting the fact that Phillips turned away Craig and Mullins because of their identity, not any particular message. Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer make a similar point in their concurrence. On the other end of the ideological spectrum, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch signaled their belief that Phillips probably does have a free-speech right to reject gay customers. This sharp split will have to simmer until the court takes a similar case.
The hostility was from the Colorado Human Rights commission, not the plaintiffs. And the result was due to that. Thus this is a narrow ruling and not applicable to other things.
Orientation was already among the protected classes in Colorado from what I understand so what states have as protected classes is null and void.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is a quote I found explaining the situation:
“For those either horrified by or celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision overruling the Colorado findings that a Christian baker could not refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple....”I don’t think it means what you think it means.” It’s actually a very narrow decision. One of the frustrating things about law for non-lawyers is that appellate courts only review the process and the grounds relied upon for the lower court decision, not ‘what would be a right and fair outcome overall.’
In this case, the Supreme Court’s decision is essentially that the Baker’s claim didn’t get a fair HEARING (not to be confused with a fair OUTCOME). The issue everyone wants to know about is essentially left for some future case to decide. So take a breath everyone.”
Still doesn't mean certain people think that this court case means that they have the right to make you follow their religious beliefs.
d-usa wrote: Identity politics are always a risky bet, but it could fire up the democratic base and erode GOP support from moderates in the midterms.
Trump isn’t entitled to any SCOTUS picks after the midterms if the Democrats take the Senate (as unlikely as that is). Mitch has made it clear that the voters get to pick for vacancies with a new POTUS. So there is an urgency with liberal judges getting up there in age.
We could also see a push for a new civil rights bill or amendment, which would likely be vetoed anyway, but could be a driver to bring out votes for democrats.
Clinton nominated Breyer and Obama nominated Kagan and they both sided with the majority in this case. Kennedy sided with the majority as well and he wrote the opinion in pretty much every important SCOTUS gay rights decision. I think this case had more to do with setting limits as to what states can do in the name of anti discrimination than with the idea that the GOP stacked SCOTUS with homophobic justices.
It was a very narrow ruling, and could have been more broad. It could add more weight to the need to maintain the current balances rather than tilt it 6-3 or more of Trump gets confirmed nominations after the midterms.
Question for our resident legal eagles. Could one of the other submariners sue Saucier for possibly endangering there lives because of him taking those pictures?
).
