motyak wrote: Feel free to start a new thread, this one is going to remain locked. There is too much rude behaviour to think that it can remotely pick up on the right side of dakka dakka's rules.
When creating a new thread, keep in mind my above post. In this new thread we're not discussing the Nazi punch. At all. You had a chance to discuss it and you have blown it. Make sure the new thread has a sensible title so we don't have to edit it first thing again, and try and keep the thread sensible for at least a while or else we'll have to reconsider having US Politics discussions in the OT.
Let's stay on target folks.
...
So... in a weird 6:30am vote, the Senate pushed a cloture vote for DeVos' nomination... final vote is Monday.
The House repeal of the Social Security gun restrictions just makes we wonder if the GOP is trying to get Democrats elected in 2018.
The White House now is pushing back, ever so slightly, against settlement building by Israel. That's an interesting development coming from this administration, but who knows what their reasoning actually is.
d-usa wrote: The House repeal of the Social Security gun restrictions just makes we wonder if the GOP is trying to get Democrats elected in 2018.
The White House now is pushing back, ever so slightly, against settlement building by Israel. That's an interesting development coming from this administration, but who knows what their reasoning actually is.
motyak wrote: Feel free to start a new thread, this one is going to remain locked. There is too much rude behaviour to think that it can remotely pick up on the right side of dakka dakka's rules.
When creating a new thread, keep in mind my above post. In this new thread we're not discussing the Nazi punch. At all. You had a chance to discuss it and you have blown it. Make sure the new thread has a sensible title so we don't have to edit it first thing again, and try and keep the thread sensible for at least a while or else we'll have to reconsider having US Politics discussions in the OT.
Let's stay on target folks.
...
So... in a weird 6:30am vote, the Senate pushed a cloture vote for DeVos' nomination... final vote is Monday.
The fact the DeVos is going to actually receive a single vote, much less almost certainly sure to be confirmed, says a lot about the sad state of affairs of US politics. She flailed like a fish out of water on live TV, showing a complete inability to answer questions critical to the role of the Department of Education, and family ties to Erik Prince, should concern everyone from all walks of life.
It's one thing if she just had a different plan for the DoE than the previous administration, but this nominee looks to be actively hostile to the organization she's being nominated to lead and completely uninformed on critical roles of the department.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Kellyanne Conway blames refugees for 'Bowling Green massacre' that never happened
The level of either dishonesty, rank ignorance, or both, from the spokespeople of this administration is, well, it would be amusing if it wasn't so 1984-esque.
In "oh look, more potential conflict of interest" news, Donald Trump as POTUS went on a rant about The Apprentice ratings during the Prayer Breakfast, talking about the show and telling people to "pray for ratings". Arnold responded on Twitter and Apprentice is back int he news.
Of course Trump is still the Executive Producer of the show, and Trump the Executive Producer will gain if The Apprentice is in the news because Trump the POTUS talks about the show he is also producing during an official appearance..
It's one thing if she just had a different plan for the DoE than the previous administration, but this nominee looks to be actively hostile to the organization she's being nominated to lead and completely uninformed on critical roles of the department.
Nominees who are hostile to the departments they are heading seems to be the theme for quite a few of the picks this time around.
Long story short: They are claiming that the GOP and NRA shot down a gun control measure aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. In reality, the provision that was axed deals with veterans and social security beneficiaries who have their finances managed by another party.
Long story short: They are claiming that the GOP and NRA shot down a gun control measure aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. In reality, the provision that was axed deals with veterans and social security beneficiaries who have their finances managed by another party.
Was anyone really expecting any of Trump's inital slate of cabinet nominees to not be confirmed?
Not really.
It's actually rare for a cabinet member to not get confirmed. Most people figure, either way, "If that's the donkey-cave he wants running that department, then this gak is on him. Next!"
But first, make him/her give a televised/recorded testimony of the bull gak they believe. For posterity.
Since 1834, it's happened 9 times. [Insert Ferris Buhler's Principal saying "9 times"]
Long story short: They are claiming that the GOP and NRA shot down a gun control measure aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. In reality, the provision that was axed deals with veterans and social security beneficiaries who have their finances managed by another party.
Perhaps we can all agree...CNN has become pure clickbait.
All they need is some reporters on the sideboob beat, and they'll become the spitting image of the Huffington Post.
d-usa wrote: The House repeal of the Social Security gun restrictions just makes we wonder if the GOP is trying to get Democrats elected in 2018.
Nope... gun control is a losing issue for Democrats.
Furthermore, that Obama EO?
It simply allows bureaucrats to deny Constitutional rights based on a 'list' without due process... 'tis why not only NRA is against, but the ACLU, mental health charities and psychiatrists opposed it as well.
The White House now is pushing back, ever so slightly, against settlement building by Israel. That's an interesting development coming from this administration, but who knows what their reasoning actually is.
Heh... notice how they say "stop announcing" the settlements... and not, "stop building" the settlements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Kellyanne Conway blames refugees for 'Bowling Green massacre' that never happened
She obviously got Chattanooga (where lone wolf muslim shot up Military recruitment center) to Bowling Green (where 2 person were charged in a foiled planned attack).
d-usa wrote: The House repeal of the Social Security gun restrictions just makes we wonder if the GOP is trying to get Democrats elected in 2018.
The White House now is pushing back, ever so slightly, against settlement building by Israel. That's an interesting development coming from this administration, but who knows what their reasoning actually is.
"Mr Trump will also sign a presidential memorandum instructing the Labor Department to delay bringing in an Obama-era rule requiring financial professionals to put their clients' interests first when giving advice on retirement investments."
d-usa wrote: In "oh look, more potential conflict of interest" news, Donald Trump as POTUS went on a rant about The Apprentice ratings during the Prayer Breakfast, talking about the show and telling people to "pray for ratings". Arnold responded on Twitter and Apprentice is back int he news.
Of course Trump is still the Executive Producer of the show, and Trump the Executive Producer will gain if The Apprentice is in the news because Trump the POTUS talks about the show he is also producing during an official appearance..
Not sure this qualifies as 'conflict of interests'... ????
It's one thing if she just had a different plan for the DoE than the previous administration, but this nominee looks to be actively hostile to the organization she's being nominated to lead and completely uninformed on critical roles of the department.
Nominees who are hostile to the departments they are heading seems to be the theme for quite a few of the picks this time around.
For good reasons... I *want* the department peeps to work hard at justifying what they do and justify the tax dollars.
I agree with whembley, gun control is a loser for Democrats. People who really want gun control shouldn't back down from itheir convictions, I suppose, but the Democrats need to make sure their tent is big enough for proponents and opponents if they want to broaden their support.
Long story short: They are claiming that the GOP and NRA shot down a gun control measure aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. In reality, the provision that was axed deals with veterans and social security beneficiaries who have their finances managed by another party.
"Mr Trump will also sign a presidential memorandum instructing the Labor Department to delay bringing in an Obama-era rule requiring financial professionals to put their clients' interests first when giving advice on retirement investments."
Hrm...
Dodd-Frank is a mess that further perpetuates the incestuous relationship between Wallstreet and Washingon...
However, breaking up Dodd-Frank is just as messy... this is truly one of those things that it's going to be fugly no matter which way it goes...
On the Guns note, Guns are losing for Democrats like Abortion is losing for Republicans, we see the same tactics, false rhetoric, and absurd laws from both sides on both issues in much the same ways, usually to rile up the base, but that ultimately harms them in general elections.
d-usa wrote: In "oh look, more potential conflict of interest" news, Donald Trump as POTUS went on a rant about The Apprentice ratings during the Prayer Breakfast, talking about the show and telling people to "pray for ratings". Arnold responded on Twitter and Apprentice is back int he news.
Of course Trump is still the Executive Producer of the show, and Trump the Executive Producer will gain if The Apprentice is in the news because Trump the POTUS talks about the show he is also producing during an official appearance..
Not sure this qualifies as 'conflict of interests'... ????
It's one thing if she just had a different plan for the DoE than the previous administration, but this nominee looks to be actively hostile to the organization she's being nominated to lead and completely uninformed on critical roles of the department.
Nominees who are hostile to the departments they are heading seems to be the theme for quite a few of the picks this time around.
For good reasons... I *want* the department peeps to work hard at justifying what they do and justify the tax dollars.
There's a difference between " justifying what they do and justify the tax dollars" and being actively hostile or completely clueless to the fundamental role and/or existence of the department, as with DeVos. One would hope anyone appointed to head these departments would work hard at justifying what they do and seeing their resources used effectively, that's like role #1 of an effective leader, being actively hostile to such things usually leads to the exact opposite.
"Mr Trump will also sign a presidential memorandum instructing the Labor Department to delay bringing in an Obama-era rule requiring financial professionals to put their clients' interests first when giving advice on retirement investments."
Hrm...
Dodd-Frank is a mess that further perpetuates the incestuous relationship between Wallstreet and Washingon...
However, breaking up Dodd-Frank is just as messy... this is truly one of those things that it's going to be fugly no matter which way it goes...
While true, there are lots of good parts, particularly for the great mass of small investors/consumers, and that's what looks to be threatened.
She obviously got Chattanooga (where lone wolf muslim shot up Military recruitment center) to Bowling Green (where 2 person were charged in a foiled planned attack).
By a naturalized US citizen, born in Kuwait, to Palestinian-Jordanian parents, who had strong pro-Palestine leanings, and which doesn't have anything to do with the 7 countries that the "massacre" was supposed to be associated with?
Long story short: They are claiming that the GOP and NRA shot down a gun control measure aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. In reality, the provision that was axed deals with veterans and social security beneficiaries who have their finances managed by another party.
Exactly.
Wrong.
But feth it, not going to bother with it.
It's a clumsy statist way to fix a problem that ignores due process.
Don't get me wrong, the law needs a fethton of work to empower family/mental health officials to go in front of a judge to remove certain rights from the mentally ill...
jasper76 wrote: I agree with whembley, gun control is a loser for Democrats. People who really want gun control shouldn't back down from itheir convictions, I suppose, but the Democrats need to make sure their tent is big enough for proponents and opponents if they want to broaden their support.
The people on this board, in the House, in the Senate, and in the USA keep on saying "guns aren't the issue, mental health is the issue".
Now it turns out that mental health is also not the issue, because being unable to keep a job due to your mental illness and being unable to manage your own finances due to your mental illness doesn't mean that you are unable to own a firearm because "it doesn't mean that you are violent".
She obviously got Chattanooga (where lone wolf muslim shot up Military recruitment center) to Bowling Green (where 2 person were charged in a foiled planned attack).
Wrong. The two people from Bowling Green were arrested for attempting to send money and weapons to Al-Qaeda. They were not planning an attack on US soil.
jasper76 wrote: I agree with whembley, gun control is a loser for Democrats. People who really want gun control shouldn't back down from itheir convictions, I suppose, but the Democrats need to make sure their tent is big enough for proponents and opponents if they want to broaden their support.
There is no room in the Democratic Party for pro gunners, just as there is no room for antigunners in the Republican Party. Its like one of the few material things that are different between them now that Big Gov Trump is head of the Republican Party.
Long story short: They are claiming that the GOP and NRA shot down a gun control measure aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. In reality, the provision that was axed deals with veterans and social security beneficiaries who have their finances managed by another party.
Exactly.
Wrong.
But feth it, not going to bother with it.
It's a clumsy statist way to fix a problem that ignores due process.
Don't get me wrong, the law needs a fethton of work to empower family/mental health officials to go in front of a judge to remove certain rights from the mentally ill...
It takes a lot of "due process" to get on disability. And it has to be one of these mental health issues to qualify:
And it's not just "I have some anxiety, so I get a free government paycheck", it's "I have such severe anxiety that I cannot function enough in society to go out and maintain gainful employment" and "I have such severe anxiety that I cannot function enough to manage my own finances".
But eat up the NRA propaganda. They long ago stopped caring about the people on either end of the gun, they only care about keeping the gun manufacturers busy. And more customers = more business.
jasper76 wrote: I agree with whembley, gun control is a loser for Democrats. People who really want gun control shouldn't back down from itheir convictions, I suppose, but the Democrats need to make sure their tent is big enough for proponents and opponents if they want to broaden their support.
There is no room in the Democratic Party for pro gunners, just as there is no room for antigunners in the Republican Party. Its like one of the few material things that are different between them now that Big Gov Trump is head of the Republican Party.
That's a real shame. Democrats will have great difficulty with rural voters so long as gun control is some kind of a litmus test.
The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.
jasper76 wrote: I agree with whembley, gun control is a loser for Democrats. People who really want gun control shouldn't back down from itheir convictions, I suppose, but the Democrats need to make sure their tent is big enough for proponents and opponents if they want to broaden their support.
The people on this board, in the House, in the Senate, and in the USA keep on saying "guns aren't the issue, mental health is the issue".
Now it turns out that mental health is also not the issue, because being unable to keep a job due to your mental illness and being unable to manage your own finances due to your mental illness doesn't mean that you are unable to own a firearm because "it doesn't mean that you are violent".
A few things dude.
A) this list isn't just those who are 'mentally unstable'... it also includes people whom are bulimic, handicapped, physical disabilties, etc...
B) mental health officials oppose this move as it's adding the stigma preventing people to voluntarily get help.
C) ACLU opposes this because... it's a list.
You don't summarily remove someone's Constitutional right... that person still deserves due process.
To take away someone's right, it should be adjudicated in front of a judge.
Not taken away first, then the person has to 'fight' for it in court to get it back. Due Process First. Not Last.
She obviously got Chattanooga (where lone wolf muslim shot up Military recruitment center) to Bowling Green (where 2 person were charged in a foiled planned attack).
Wrong. The two people from Bowling Green were arrested for attempting to send money and weapons to Al-Qaeda. They were not planning an attack on US soil.
A Hawaii lawmaker says she’s been bullied and attacked by her own party.
Now Rep. Beth Fukumoto says she’s thinking of leaving the Republicans and joining the Democratic Party.
Fukumoto, who represents District 36 (Mililani, Mililani Mauka, Waipio Acres), was first elected in 2012. She sent a letter to her constituents informing them of her desire to leave the party and asked for their input.
“The Republican Party is getting increasingly hostile to different opinions. If you followed what happened at the state convention (in May 2016), I got booed for about 10 minutes straight for raising concerns about President Trump, then nominee Trump, and the way he treated women and minorities in many of his remarks. I, at the time, had said this is not, this should not reflect our party,” she told KHON2.
“I repeated those sentiments at the women’s march last week, and since then, there have been many calls for my resignation, and my caucus members have raised concerns about whether or not that means I’m a Republican, whether or not that means I’m fit for leadership, whether or not that means I should even be an elected official. My caucus has asked me to stop speaking out about Trump and to make a commitment. They’ve said they’ll keep me as minority leader if I make a commitment not to speak out against Trump for the remainder of his term.
“I don’t think that’s our job as elected officials, even more so, I don’t think that’s our job as citizens,” Fukumoto said.
It’s a decision that cost Fukumoto her role as House minority leader Wednesday. She was replaced by Rep. Andria Tupola, R, Ewa Villages, Kalaeloa, Honokai Hale, Nanakai Gardens, Ko Olina, Kahe Point, Nanakuli, Lualualei, Maili. Rep. Gene Ward, R, Hawaii Kai, Kalama Valley, was named Minority Floor Leader.
The motion prompted an emotional debate on the House floor.
“Now she’s being punished by three-and-a-half of our members for participating in the democratic process,” said Rep. Cynthia Thielen, R, Kailua, Kaneohe Bay, before she was interrupted and a recess was called.
Thielen was also at the women’s march.
“Let me just tell you a couple of reasons we were marching and speaking at the women’s march, and I believe the majority leader does this once a year,” Thielen said.
“This has nothing to do with the women’s march. This is a motion on leadership. I don’t see women’s march anywhere in here (on the agenda), and I don’t want to waste my time listening to this,” said Rep. Bob McDermott, R, Ewa, Ewa Beach, Ewa Gentry, Iroquois Point.
“I’m going to allow that because she, Rep. Thielen, relates her speech to the merits of the resolution, so I will allow it,” said Vice Speaker John Mizuno, D, Kalihi Valley, Kamehameha Heights, Lower Kalihi.
“Despite what was said earlier, she’s not being punished for speaking out for women’s rights. It’s a pattern of self-loathing comments directed at Republicans,” McDermott said.
“I appreciate his comments. It’s all about the women’s march. It’s all about Rep. Fukumoto standing up for women and human rights,” Thielen said.
Fritz Rohlfing, chair of the Hawaii Republican Party, says if Fukumoto does become a Democrat, she should let Gov. Ige fill her seat.
“I’m hopeful that she will remain in the party, I’m urging her to remain and stay,” he said, however, “if somebody wants to switch parties soon after an election, it’s really, I think, a matter of integrity and she should just resign.
“The caucus has a right to determine who its leaders are, and rights to make a decision to switch leaders, including facts on public statements and how they feel about their leader,” he added.
While Fukumoto has not officially made a decision to switch parties, she told KHON2 she does not intend on resigning from office.
“At this point, until I hear from my constituents, I don’t want to make any speculation as I’ve committed to them. It’s about them and what they want, so I want to make sure I hear from them before I start speculating or even digging into what staying will look like,” she said.
“What I’m hoping my constituents and I can have a dialogue about, what’s been happening is that my party’s getting increasingly insistent that I stop working across party lines, and that I start becoming more partisan in my approach,” Fukumoto explained to KHON2. “They would prefer me to be a representative of the Republican Party in Hawaii, and I’m a representative of Mililani. If those things are mutually exclusive, then I’m going to choose Mililani.”
Fukumoto was the youngest person to ever serve as the House minority leader in Hawaii, and the youngest woman to hold a caucus leader position in the United States.
Prior to our conversation, Fukumoto issued the following statement:
In the last couple years, I’ve watched leaders in the Republican Party become less and less tolerant of diverse opinions and dissenting voices. I am under constant scrutiny for working across the aisle to pass common sense legislation that will benefit my district and the people of Hawaii. Today, I’m facing demands for my resignation from leadership and possible censure because I raised concerns about our President’s treatment of women and minorities. I’ve been asked by both my party and my caucus to commit to not criticizing the President for the remainder of his term and to take a more partisan approach to working in the Legislature. That is not a commitment I can make. As a representative of my community, it is my job to hold leaders accountable and to work with anyone, regardless of party, to make Hawaii a better place for our families.
This morning, I sent a letter to my district explaining that I would like to leave the Republican Party and seek membership in the Democratic Party. When I was re-elected in November, I was elected as a Republican, and I want to honor my community’s choice by consulting them before any decision is made. As I articulated in my letter, I encourage my constituents to contact me with input and provide feedback. I was elected by the people of Mililani, and I am here to represent them.
Women’s March on Washington – Hawaii released the following statement:
The Women’s March is a movement founded for women and everyone that supports them, no matter their religious beliefs, race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, ability or party affiliation. As Americans we have the right to come together, march and demand equal treatment under the law. That is why we here at the Women’s March Hawai‘i are so dismayed that the Republican members of the Hawai‘i State House would choose to punish Representative Beth Fukumoto Chang for participating in the Women’s March on O‘ahu on January 21, 2017.
Their decision to remove Rep. Fukumoto as House Minority Leader just for showing up and speaking hopefully about the future of our country is un-American in our view and a slap in the face for the women of Hawai‘i.
Since its inception the Women’s March has been and continues to be a non-partisan Movement because we believe that women’s rights are not be a party issue; they are a human rights issue. We were grateful for Beth having the courage to be a part of the march, to speak her mind so eloquently, on the future of this country and this planet. From all of us here at Women’s March Hawai‘i we are proud to say “Mahalo nui loa” to Rep. Fukumoto for standing with her fellow citizens and for being part of this global movement.
This seems to be the new norm. Better ride that party line!
Vaktathi wrote: The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.
Then we, as a society, need to take a stand together after the next school shooting and say "we are sorry these kids are dead, but we accept that as a consequence of our right to own firearms, the needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and an armed society will have dead children from time to time."
The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school. As a society, we bitch and moan when it happens and talk about "we need to do something about guns" and 'we need to do something to keep mentally ill people from owning guns" and "we need to do something about mental illness". But the truth is, we are okay with the risk of all of these things happening because that is just the reality of living in a society where the 2nd Amendment exists.
Just like we are sad when a friend or family member dies in a car accident and we accept the risk and are okay with the fact that it can happen anytime they are inside of a vehicle, we need to accept the risk and are okay with the fact that anybody can kill a friend or family member in an attack involving weapons.
I'm just sick and tired of politicians now having the guts to speak what they are actually thinking, to acknowledge what the country as a whole is thinking.
Edit: Making this my last post on this subject, because it's pissing me off.
A Hawaii lawmaker says she’s been bullied and attacked by her own party.
Now Rep. Beth Fukumoto says she’s thinking of leaving the Republicans and joining the Democratic Party.
Fukumoto, who represents District 36 (Mililani, Mililani Mauka, Waipio Acres), was first elected in 2012. She sent a letter to her constituents informing them of her desire to leave the party and asked for their input.
“The Republican Party is getting increasingly hostile to different opinions. If you followed what happened at the state convention (in May 2016), I got booed for about 10 minutes straight for raising concerns about President Trump, then nominee Trump, and the way he treated women and minorities in many of his remarks. I, at the time, had said this is not, this should not reflect our party,” she told KHON2.
“I repeated those sentiments at the women’s march last week, and since then, there have been many calls for my resignation, and my caucus members have raised concerns about whether or not that means I’m a Republican, whether or not that means I’m fit for leadership, whether or not that means I should even be an elected official. My caucus has asked me to stop speaking out about Trump and to make a commitment. They’ve said they’ll keep me as minority leader if I make a commitment not to speak out against Trump for the remainder of his term.
“I don’t think that’s our job as elected officials, even more so, I don’t think that’s our job as citizens,” Fukumoto said.
It’s a decision that cost Fukumoto her role as House minority leader Wednesday. She was replaced by Rep. Andria Tupola, R, Ewa Villages, Kalaeloa, Honokai Hale, Nanakai Gardens, Ko Olina, Kahe Point, Nanakuli, Lualualei, Maili. Rep. Gene Ward, R, Hawaii Kai, Kalama Valley, was named Minority Floor Leader.
The motion prompted an emotional debate on the House floor.
“Now she’s being punished by three-and-a-half of our members for participating in the democratic process,” said Rep. Cynthia Thielen, R, Kailua, Kaneohe Bay, before she was interrupted and a recess was called.
Thielen was also at the women’s march.
“Let me just tell you a couple of reasons we were marching and speaking at the women’s march, and I believe the majority leader does this once a year,” Thielen said.
“This has nothing to do with the women’s march. This is a motion on leadership. I don’t see women’s march anywhere in here (on the agenda), and I don’t want to waste my time listening to this,” said Rep. Bob McDermott, R, Ewa, Ewa Beach, Ewa Gentry, Iroquois Point.
“I’m going to allow that because she, Rep. Thielen, relates her speech to the merits of the resolution, so I will allow it,” said Vice Speaker John Mizuno, D, Kalihi Valley, Kamehameha Heights, Lower Kalihi.
“Despite what was said earlier, she’s not being punished for speaking out for women’s rights. It’s a pattern of self-loathing comments directed at Republicans,” McDermott said.
“I appreciate his comments. It’s all about the women’s march. It’s all about Rep. Fukumoto standing up for women and human rights,” Thielen said.
Fritz Rohlfing, chair of the Hawaii Republican Party, says if Fukumoto does become a Democrat, she should let Gov. Ige fill her seat.
“I’m hopeful that she will remain in the party, I’m urging her to remain and stay,” he said, however, “if somebody wants to switch parties soon after an election, it’s really, I think, a matter of integrity and she should just resign.
“The caucus has a right to determine who its leaders are, and rights to make a decision to switch leaders, including facts on public statements and how they feel about their leader,” he added.
While Fukumoto has not officially made a decision to switch parties, she told KHON2 she does not intend on resigning from office.
“At this point, until I hear from my constituents, I don’t want to make any speculation as I’ve committed to them. It’s about them and what they want, so I want to make sure I hear from them before I start speculating or even digging into what staying will look like,” she said.
“What I’m hoping my constituents and I can have a dialogue about, what’s been happening is that my party’s getting increasingly insistent that I stop working across party lines, and that I start becoming more partisan in my approach,” Fukumoto explained to KHON2. “They would prefer me to be a representative of the Republican Party in Hawaii, and I’m a representative of Mililani. If those things are mutually exclusive, then I’m going to choose Mililani.”
Fukumoto was the youngest person to ever serve as the House minority leader in Hawaii, and the youngest woman to hold a caucus leader position in the United States.
Prior to our conversation, Fukumoto issued the following statement:
In the last couple years, I’ve watched leaders in the Republican Party become less and less tolerant of diverse opinions and dissenting voices. I am under constant scrutiny for working across the aisle to pass common sense legislation that will benefit my district and the people of Hawaii. Today, I’m facing demands for my resignation from leadership and possible censure because I raised concerns about our President’s treatment of women and minorities. I’ve been asked by both my party and my caucus to commit to not criticizing the President for the remainder of his term and to take a more partisan approach to working in the Legislature. That is not a commitment I can make. As a representative of my community, it is my job to hold leaders accountable and to work with anyone, regardless of party, to make Hawaii a better place for our families.
This morning, I sent a letter to my district explaining that I would like to leave the Republican Party and seek membership in the Democratic Party. When I was re-elected in November, I was elected as a Republican, and I want to honor my community’s choice by consulting them before any decision is made. As I articulated in my letter, I encourage my constituents to contact me with input and provide feedback. I was elected by the people of Mililani, and I am here to represent them.
Women’s March on Washington – Hawaii released the following statement:
The Women’s March is a movement founded for women and everyone that supports them, no matter their religious beliefs, race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, ability or party affiliation. As Americans we have the right to come together, march and demand equal treatment under the law. That is why we here at the Women’s March Hawai‘i are so dismayed that the Republican members of the Hawai‘i State House would choose to punish Representative Beth Fukumoto Chang for participating in the Women’s March on O‘ahu on January 21, 2017.
Their decision to remove Rep. Fukumoto as House Minority Leader just for showing up and speaking hopefully about the future of our country is un-American in our view and a slap in the face for the women of Hawai‘i.
Since its inception the Women’s March has been and continues to be a non-partisan Movement because we believe that women’s rights are not be a party issue; they are a human rights issue. We were grateful for Beth having the courage to be a part of the march, to speak her mind so eloquently, on the future of this country and this planet. From all of us here at Women’s March Hawai‘i we are proud to say “Mahalo nui loa” to Rep. Fukumoto for standing with her fellow citizens and for being part of this global movement.
This seems to be the new norm. Better ride that party line!
That's why I think we should just ditch the whole "representative democracy" thing and switch to a system of awarding party seats by percentage of total vote rather than by "person wins a district". More and more it doesn't matter what the district wants, it doesn't even matter what the representative wants. It's all about what the party wants. The very existence of majority and minority whips goes against the principle of representing your districts or your state.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.
Then we, as a society, need to take a stand together after the next school shooting and say "we are sorry these kids are dead, but we accept that as a consequence of our right to own firearms, the needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and an armed society will have dead children from time to time."
The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school. As a society, we bitch and moan when it happens and talk about "we need to do something about guns" and 'we need to do something to keep mentally ill people from owning guns" and "we need to do something about mental illness". But the truth is, we are okay with the risk of all of these things happening because that is just the reality of living in a society where the 2nd Amendment exists.
Just like we are sad when a friend or family member dies in a car accident and we accept the risk and are okay with the fact that it can happen anytime they are inside of a vehicle, we need to accept the risk and are okay with the fact that anybody can kill a friend or family member in an attack involving weapons.
I'm just sick and tired of politicians now having the guts to speak what they are actually thinking, to acknowledge what the country as a whole is thinking.
Edit: Making this my last post on this subject, because it's pissing me off.
The terrorists who shot up a holiday party did not get their guns legally. The scum bag who shot up SandyHook may have used a 'legally owned firearm', but it was legally owned by his mother, who he murdered to take the guns...
The truth is, until folks like you quit blurring actual facts there is no reason to discuss giving in to a lessening of our rights.
She obviously got Chattanooga (where lone wolf muslim shot up Military recruitment center) to Bowling Green (where 2 person were charged in a foiled planned attack).
AFAIK, there wasn't even a planned attack, the people arrested in Bowling Green helped terrorists when they were in the middle east (one of their fingerprints was found on IEDs.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.
Then we, as a society, need to take a stand together after the next school shooting and say "we are sorry these kids are dead, but we accept that as a consequence of our right to own firearms, the needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and an armed society will have dead children from time to time."
I think, perhaps in different words, that's been the general concensus. The US has always been willing to accept more discomfort, more risk, for greater exercise of personal freedom, than most other nations. Same way you can say things on Facebook or TV that would get you arrested in most of Europe.
The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party
Are we referring to San Bernadino here? In this instance, the guns were acquired through a straw-purchase (illegal) and modified in a manner illegal under state law.
we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub
In the case of Omar Mateen, the dude had been investigated and cleared by the FBI, certified and licensed by the state of Florida to be a security guard with a background check, and passed a background check to buy a gun. Short of simply banning guns, not sure what else more could be done.
, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school.
If we're referring to Sandy Hook here, the legal owner (Lanza's mother) was murdered and her weapons stolen.
As a society, we bitch and moan when it happens and talk about "we need to do something about guns" and 'we need to do something to keep mentally ill people from owning guns" and "we need to do something about mental illness". But the truth is, we are okay with the risk of all of these things happening because that is just the reality of living in a society where the 2nd Amendment exists.
On some level, yes. Same way we are ok with it not being illegal for people to say "all (insert demographic of choice here) should die!" or advocate for denial of the Holocaust.
Just like we are sad when a friend or family member dies in a car accident and we accept the risk and are okay with the fact that it can happen anytime they are inside of a vehicle, we need to accept the risk and are okay with the fact that anybody can kill a friend or family member in an attack involving weapons.
Sure, but that's always been true, and is true in nations where civilian ownership of firearms is illegal or far more controlled as well. Again, we're also ok with people saying things and advocating for things that would see them jailed or imprisoned for years even in relatively developed and free nations like the UK or France or Germany. The US trend in these regards has been towards greater personal freedom with greater potential risk.
The US also just has an issue with violence in general, even removing every single gun crime would leave the US with a far higher incidence of murder and assault than most other developed nations, which is an issue unto itself.
That's why I think we should just ditch the whole "representative democracy" thing and switch to a system of awarding party seats by percentage of total vote rather than by "person wins a district". More and more it doesn't matter what the district wants, it doesn't even matter what the representative wants. It's all about what the party wants. The very existence of majority and minority whips goes against the principle of representing your districts or your state.
It also doesn't help that the districts themselves all too often only make sense in the light of party politics.
I mean, a district like this in Chicago only has a purpose to existing for creating a safe seat for a certain party or cramming everyone from one party into a single district and allowing the other party to take the rest of the districts.
She obviously got Chattanooga (where lone wolf muslim shot up Military recruitment center) to Bowling Green (where 2 person were charged in a foiled planned attack).
AFAIK, there wasn't even a planned attack, the people arrested in Bowling Green helped terrorists when they were in the middle east (one of their fingerprints was found on IEDs.
Yup... I was mistaken...
Just like Conway's obvious mistake.
If I remember correct, Bowling green was the even that precipitated Obama's program of labeling those 7 countries.
I mean, a district like this in Chicago only has a purpose to existing for creating a safe seat for a certain party or cramming everyone from one party into a single district and allowing the other party to take the rest of the districts.
I mean, a district like this in Chicago only has a purpose to existing for creating a safe seat for a certain party or cramming everyone from one party into a single district and allowing the other party to take the rest of the districts.
Man... Luis Gutiérre's (D) seat is hella gerrymandered....
I mean, a district like this in Chicago only has a purpose to existing for creating a safe seat for a certain party or cramming everyone from one party into a single district and allowing the other party to take the rest of the districts.
Man... Luis Gutiérre's (D) seat is hella gerrymandered....
Vaktathi wrote: The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.
Then we, as a society, need to take a stand together after the next school shooting and say "we are sorry these kids are dead, but we accept that as a consequence of our right to own firearms, the needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and an armed society will have dead children from time to time."
The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school. As a society, we bitch and moan when it happens and talk about "we need to do something about guns" and 'we need to do something to keep mentally ill people from owning guns" and "we need to do something about mental illness". But the truth is, we are okay with the risk of all of these things happening because that is just the reality of living in a society where the 2nd Amendment exists.
Just like we are sad when a friend or family member dies in a car accident and we accept the risk and are okay with the fact that it can happen anytime they are inside of a vehicle, we need to accept the risk and are okay with the fact that anybody can kill a friend or family member in an attack involving weapons.
I'm just sick and tired of politicians now having the guts to speak what they are actually thinking, to acknowledge what the country as a whole is thinking.
Edit: Making this my last post on this subject, because it's pissing me off.
We already accept adults and in many cases, teenagers and younger children having access to alcohol, even though over 80, 000 people a year die from alcohol related causes and 2 out of 3 domestic abuse cases are alcohol related, not to mention numerous health issues, broken marriages, lost jobs, etc.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.
Then we, as a society, need to take a stand together after the next school shooting and say "we are sorry these kids are dead, but we accept that as a consequence of our right to own firearms, the needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and an armed society will have dead children from time to time."
The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school. As a society, we bitch and moan when it happens and talk about "we need to do something about guns" and 'we need to do something to keep mentally ill people from owning guns" and "we need to do something about mental illness". But the truth is, we are okay with the risk of all of these things happening because that is just the reality of living in a society where the 2nd Amendment exists.
Just like we are sad when a friend or family member dies in a car accident and we accept the risk and are okay with the fact that it can happen anytime they are inside of a vehicle, we need to accept the risk and are okay with the fact that anybody can kill a friend or family member in an attack involving weapons.
I'm just sick and tired of politicians now having the guts to speak what they are actually thinking, to acknowledge what the country as a whole is thinking.
Edit: Making this my last post on this subject, because it's pissing me off.
We already accept adults and in many cases, teenagers and younger children having access to alcohol, even though over 80, 000 people a year die from alcohol related causes and 2 out of 3 domestic abuse cases are alcohol related, not to mention numerous health issues, broken marriages, lost jobs, etc.
Guns and alcohol are not analogous, nor are they topical in the US Politics thread.
So, the Bowling Green "Massacre" gaffe from Ms Conway. A simple mistake or yet another example of the new administration flailing about with no regard for the facts?
Long story short: They are claiming that the GOP and NRA shot down a gun control measure aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. In reality, the provision that was axed deals with veterans and social security beneficiaries who have their finances managed by another party.
Exactly.
Wrong.
But feth it, not going to bother with it.
It's a clumsy statist way to fix a problem that ignores due process.
Don't get me wrong, the law needs a fethton of work to empower family/mental health officials to go in front of a judge to remove certain rights from the mentally ill...
It takes a lot of "due process" to get on disability. And it has to be one of these mental health issues to qualify:
And it's not just "I have some anxiety, so I get a free government paycheck", it's "I have such severe anxiety that I cannot function enough in society to go out and maintain gainful employment" and "I have such severe anxiety that I cannot function enough to manage my own finances".
But eat up the NRA propaganda. They long ago stopped caring about the people on either end of the gun, they only care about keeping the gun manufacturers busy. And more customers = more business.
This was terrible legislation that needed to be overturned by Congress and it has nothing to do with NRA propaganda.
This was typical terrible one size fits all lawmaking that the govt loves to pass because expending the time and effort to treat people as individuals is too much of a bother. Mental health is different for each individual. Just because you have a diagnosis like the ones mentioned doesn't guarantee that you are unable to be a safe and responsible gun owner and it certainly doesn't mean that your constitutional rights should be forfeited. You can't take away Bob's right to own a gun just because he has the same mental health condition as Jimmy over there. Bob and Jimmy are different people the govt has to make a case against each individual not just lump people together for the sake of convenience.
My nephew is autistic and he is going to struggle mightily to work a job when he grows up. That doesn't mean that he can't safely and responsibly operate a Ruger 10/22 alongside my kids, it doesn't mean that he should have fewer constitutional rights than my kids.
There is a huge legal difference between a person being adjudicated as mentally ill by a court and a person filling Social Security disability paperwork. Neither the PotUS or Congress can magically empower the Social Security administration with the same legal authority of a court nor does filing disability paperwork qualify as judicial due process.
This is like telling the Social Security Disability administration to revoke the drivers licenses from these people because they menta health makes them too dangerous to drive. Of course that can't happen because the SS Disability admins don't have jurisdiction to strip people of their state issues DLs just like they don't have the authority to take away constitutional rights.
Are the all of people on Social Security Disability for mental health even a danger? Is there any evidence of these people buying guns? They can't hold a job or manage their finances so how would they accomplish walking into a gun store and filling out the Form 4473b paperwork and completing the transaction by themselves? Nobody can do that for them, that would constitute a straw luchase which is a federal felony. It looks like this law wasn't based on real evidence it was just easy to find a govt list of crazy people and strip their rights away to score some political points which is the worst kind of tyrannical governance.
CptJake wrote: The terrorists who shot up a holiday party did not get their guns legally. The scum bag who shot up SandyHook may have used a 'legally owned firearm', but it was legally owned by his mother, who he murdered to take the guns...
The truth is, until folks like you quit blurring actual facts there is no reason to discuss giving in to a lessening of our rights.
I hear this argument a lot from pro-gun Americans, but the way I see gun control is it's an all or nothing thing. You have to control guns tightly to the point that it's hard for mentally unstable people to get guns ILLEGALLY as well otherwise, yes, people will just illegally get them. If your crazy person just has to go over to the next state or in to their parent's sock drawer to illegally obtain a gun, it doesn't help. If your crazy person has to go down to the docks and negotiate with organised crime mobsters who are just as likely to kill them and throw them in bay as they are to sell them a gun then your crazy person has to be much more organised, focused and possessing sufficient money to get the guns.
Like, you can absolutely get a gun illegally in Australia, but it's not easy which makes it a deterrent for your average mentally unstable person going to shoot up a school or commit suicide.
Personally I'm neither for or against guns, I see pros and cons both ways, but the "bad people will just disobey the law anyway" argument often comes from a warped perspective.
Feeder, I'm going with blatant lie as it took just a minute on google to prove it false. Like all the other gak they try to peddle as alternative facts.
Vaktathi wrote: The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.
Then we, as a society, need to take a stand together after the next school shooting and say "we are sorry these kids are dead, but we accept that as a consequence of our right to own firearms, the needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and an armed society will have dead children from time to time."
The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school. As a society, we bitch and moan when it happens and talk about "we need to do something about guns" and 'we need to do something to keep mentally ill people from owning guns" and "we need to do something about mental illness". But the truth is, we are okay with the risk of all of these things happening because that is just the reality of living in a society where the 2nd Amendment exists.
Just like we are sad when a friend or family member dies in a car accident and we accept the risk and are okay with the fact that it can happen anytime they are inside of a vehicle, we need to accept the risk and are okay with the fact that anybody can kill a friend or family member in an attack involving weapons.
I'm just sick and tired of politicians now having the guts to speak what they are actually thinking, to acknowledge what the country as a whole is thinking.
Edit: Making this my last post on this subject, because it's pissing me off.
We already accept adults and in many cases, teenagers and younger children having access to alcohol, even though over 80, 000 people a year die from alcohol related causes and 2 out of 3 domestic abuse cases are alcohol related, not to mention numerous health issues, broken marriages, lost jobs, etc.
Guns and alcohol are not analogous, nor are they topical in the US Politics thread.
So, the Bowling Green "Massacre" gaffe from Ms Conway. A simple mistake or yet another example of the new administration flailing about with no regard for the facts?
Con job is just trying to keep the gaslighting going
Vaktathi wrote: The issue with guns is that, fundamentally, they are a civil right, an individual one, affirmed by the supreme court and incorporated to the states. Putting tests and restrictions on guns therefore runs into many of the same issues that putting restrictions on speech or self incrimination does, and attempting to undercut that leaves those other rights open to attack in much the same way.
Then we, as a society, need to take a stand together after the next school shooting and say "we are sorry these kids are dead, but we accept that as a consequence of our right to own firearms, the needs of the many outweigh the lives of the few, and an armed society will have dead children from time to time."
The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school. As a society, we bitch and moan when it happens and talk about "we need to do something about guns" and 'we need to do something to keep mentally ill people from owning guns" and "we need to do something about mental illness". But the truth is, we are okay with the risk of all of these things happening because that is just the reality of living in a society where the 2nd Amendment exists.
Just like we are sad when a friend or family member dies in a car accident and we accept the risk and are okay with the fact that it can happen anytime they are inside of a vehicle, we need to accept the risk and are okay with the fact that anybody can kill a friend or family member in an attack involving weapons.
I'm just sick and tired of politicians now having the guts to speak what they are actually thinking, to acknowledge what the country as a whole is thinking.
Edit: Making this my last post on this subject, because it's pissing me off.
We already accept adults and in many cases, teenagers and younger children having access to alcohol, even though over 80, 000 people a year die from alcohol related causes and 2 out of 3 domestic abuse cases are alcohol related, not to mention numerous health issues, broken marriages, lost jobs, etc.
Guns and alcohol are not analogous, nor are they topical in the US Politics thread.
So, the Bowling Green "Massacre" gaffe from Ms Conway. A simple mistake or yet another example of the new administration flailing about with no regard for the facts?
Actually in the context they were brought up, they seem to belong in the thread, and they both can kill people. Alcohol, however, creates a lot more carnage than guns among citizens in the U.S.
Lord of Deeds wrote: On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?
Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.
Lord of Deeds wrote: On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?
Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.
Iran has a large potential of starting a nuclear war than the US (or so I would of thought before cheeto jesus and President Bannon were elected), still I do not want them with any nuclear capabilities.
Lord of Deeds wrote: On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?
Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.
Whatever one might think of the US administration, Iran having a nuclear weapon is probably not a good thing. In general, more nations having nuclear weapons is probably not a good thing. Nuclear weapons are issues unto themselves in ways that we have luckily avoided major problems up until now, and Iran has engaged in morally dubious actions regarding weapons proliferation (though so has the US)
That said, I think the deal worked out under the previous administration was largely a good one, the Iranians have a right to peaceful power generation purposes of atomic energy, and there are some very good reasons on the part of the Iranians to deeply distrust the United States that often is overlooked or ignored in the US, particularly on the right, in ways that, had they occurred to the US, we certainly would not be ignoring.
Lord of Deeds wrote: On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?
Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.
It's an interesting point you put across, but I still would come down on the side of Iran not getting nukes based on their constant death to the U.S. and Israel drum they beat.
The only reason Iran makes constant death threats to the U.S. and Israel is because we made them an enemy through our own foolishness. Iran was supportive of Israel until the 80s (conveniently when much of the world started becoming less supportive), and a major US ally.
At some point the wagon needs to stop being put in front of the horse, and people need to accept that US policy on Iran has resulted in the hostility of people who live there, and it's not just "Iran hates us how dare they."
Ustrello wrote: Iran has a large potential of starting a nuclear war than the US
You got this the wrong way. The US has a large potential to start a nuclear war with Iran.
None of the Iranian leaders are suicidal. What they care for is the continuation of the Islamic Republic, and turning it into a regional power. Not, you know, killing all the Christians or whatever Trump believes…
As for the US leaders, we are talking about a bunch of lunatics with no experience and the recent ban show how out of touch with reality they are.
Again, it should be pointed out that the "death to" thing in Farsi is a colloquialism that isn't generally meant to be literal, it's used in the same way we might use "down with" or "against", hence why when there was a scandal of potatoes being used as bribes to get poor votes, people chanted "death to potatoes" in protests.
That statement towards Israel was very ...measured.
"Let's not outright bad mouth the Israelis", hell if you read it the right way they're not condemning the settlements at all - "keep building them, just keep quiet about them". However, the flip side ...appealing to the same base which saw the lack of mention of the Jews during Holocaust Memorial Day, it can be interpreted the other way.
I'd hope, which is extremely, that the current administration errs away from the later here. Sure, try moderation all you like, but a US which is hostile to the Israelis, whilst also crapping all over the rest of the region, seems like a very bad idea.
Relapse wrote: It's an interesting point you put across, but I still would come down on the side of Iran not getting nukes based on their constant death to the U.S. and Israel drum they beat.
If Iranians leaders decide to go down in a blaze of glory, it won't be the US or Israel that they nuke. Saudi should be worried a nuclear Iran.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyrmalla wrote: Sure, try moderation all you like, but a US which is hostile to the Israelis, whilst also crapping all over the rest of the region, seems like a very bad idea.
Don't worry, Trump will stay best buddy with Saudi Arabia. See the ban. Some things just don't change .
LordofHats wrote: The only reason Iran makes constant death threats to the U.S. and Israel is because we made them an enemy through our own foolishness. Iran was supportive of Israel until the 80s (conveniently when much of the world started becoming less supportive), and a major US ally.
At some point the wagon needs to stop being put in front of the horse, and people need to accept that US policy on Iran has resulted in the hostility of people who live there, and it's not just "Iran hates us how dare they."
Yes, Iran was an ally until the 80s, quite a progressive one in fact...
And then, well there was that whole revolution thing which put a guy who hated Israel and the US in charge, who then went onto purge the moderates. That may have also had something to do with it. I mean the US' involvement in that whole affair didn't help things, but saying that the Iranian regime didn't begin with a hostile stance is understating things
Lord of Deeds wrote: On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?
Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.
Once Iran declares they have a nuclear weapon every Gulf State will have multiple nuclear weapons within 18 months. They will have to. Egypt as well. Turkey will want them too.
Lord of Deeds wrote: On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?
Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.
Whatever one might think of the US administration, Iran having a nuclear weapon is probably not a good thing. In general, more nations having nuclear weapons is probably not a good thing. Nuclear weapons are issues unto themselves in ways that we have luckily avoided major problems up until now, and Iran has engaged in morally dubious actions regarding weapons proliferation (though so has the US)
That said, I think the deal worked out under the previous administration was largely a good one, the Iranians have a right to peaceful power generation purposes of atomic energy, and there are some very good reasons on the part of the Iranians to deeply distrust the United States that often is overlooked or ignored in the US, particularly on the right, in ways that, had they occurred to the US, we certainly would not be ignoring.
The deal is only as good as you can trust the Iranians. Building nuclear power stations is a good thing, but developing missiles is quite different. Now I know I have no authority to presume what a country should spend its money on, but I think Iran has more important things to focus on than building missiles to help its people. With or without any sanctions, down the line Iran will be trying to make a nuclear weapon, like all other nuclear age developing countries, to assert its status and power as a counterbalance to its neighbours. As for current US foreign policy, I think we are seeing more of the White Houses advisors opinions taking place than Trumps own to keep steady relations in volatile areas.
LordofHats wrote: The only reason Iran makes constant death threats to the U.S. and Israel is because we made them an enemy through our own foolishness. Iran was supportive of Israel until the 80s (conveniently when much of the world started becoming less supportive), and a major US ally.
At some point the wagon needs to stop being put in front of the horse, and people need to accept that US policy on Iran has resulted in the hostility of people who live there, and it's not just "Iran hates us how dare they."
Whilst it's been a while might be an idea not to have your Presidential candidates stand on stage and sing "Bomb Iran " to a Beach Boy tune.
Easy E wrote: I am surprised Trump is against a Nuclear armed Iran considering his views on nuclear proliferation on the campaign trail.
Maybe because he realized by keeping his usual Bully Strategy on the rest of the world, that would mean proliferation of nuclear warheads pointed at his house.
Or just the simpler answer he already forgot what he said. This president has certainly a short attention span.
Actually in the context they were brought up, they seem to belong in the thread, and they both can kill people.
So do cows, skateboards, trees, lightning, peanuts and snowstorms. Just because two things have a similar effect does not mean they are analogous.
Alcohol, however, creates a lot more carnage than guns among citizens in the U.S.
You seem to be saying the existence of alcohol-related death justifies the existence of gun-related death. Is this your contention?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.
Nuclear proliferation is always a bad idea. Eventually, a nuclear state will become a failed state, then the world is fethed. More nukes in more countries accelerates this inevitability.
Over 100,000 visas have been revoked as a result of President Trump’s ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, an attorney for the government revealed in Alexandria federal court Friday.
..that seems to be quite a few more than was mentioned before ...
One assumes this is yet more " typical terrible one size fits all lawmaking that the govt loves to pass " and people against such actions will be there to protest against it.
Actually in the context they were brought up, they seem to belong in the thread, and they both can kill people.
So do cows, skateboards, trees, lightning, peanuts and snowstorms. Just because two things have a similar effect does not mean they are analogous.
Alcohol, however, creates a lot more carnage than guns among citizens in the U.S.
You seem to be saying the existence of alcohol-related death justifies the existence of gun-related death. Is this your contention?
What I am pointing out is hypocracy of certain government leaders, and the media in general who vilify guns and groups such as the NRA because "guns kill people".
At the same time we see advertisements glamorizing alcohol consumption and those same government leaders hosting parties in which alcohol is served.
Actually in the context they were brought up, they seem to belong in the thread, and they both can kill people.
So do cows, skateboards, trees, lightning, peanuts and snowstorms. Just because two things have a similar effect does not mean they are analogous.
Alcohol, however, creates a lot more carnage than guns among citizens in the U.S.
You seem to be saying the existence of alcohol-related death justifies the existence of gun-related death. Is this your contention?
What I am pointing out is hypocracy of certain government leaders, and the media in general who vilify guns and groups such as the NRA because "guns kill people".
At the same time we see advertisements glamorizing alcohol consumption and those same government leaders hosting parties in which alcohol is served.
You would have a point, if guns and alcohol were analogous. But they aren't, so you don't.
Spinner wrote: Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.
Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?
There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.
Lord of Deeds wrote: On another tangent......Iran and missles. Good or bad? What, if anything, should the US do about it?
Frankly, at this point, I believe the Iranian leaders to be much more competent and stable than the US leaders, so I wouldn't oppose a nuclear Iran. That might at least give Trump a little pause.
Note that I did not say that Khamenei was morally better than Trump, just that he was much more competent. He has lead his country which is a very a difficult place geopolitically because of the US, he faced some crisis, and if we look at the result, he is not doing too bad with a quite hard task. Trump seems incapable not to fudge everything he tries.
Whatever one might think of the US administration, Iran having a nuclear weapon is probably not a good thing. In general, more nations having nuclear weapons is probably not a good thing. Nuclear weapons are issues unto themselves in ways that we have luckily avoided major problems up until now, and Iran has engaged in morally dubious actions regarding weapons proliferation (though so has the US)
That said, I think the deal worked out under the previous administration was largely a good one, the Iranians have a right to peaceful power generation purposes of atomic energy, and there are some very good reasons on the part of the Iranians to deeply distrust the United States that often is overlooked or ignored in the US, particularly on the right, in ways that, had they occurred to the US, we certainly would not be ignoring.
The deal is only as good as you can trust the Iranians.
I mean, this goes for any "deal", a "deal" inherently requires consent and trust on both sides.
Building nuclear power stations is a good thing, but developing missiles is quite different. Now I know I have no authority to presume what a country should spend its money on, but I think Iran has more important things to focus on than building missiles to help its people.
That may be, but that's not something any of us have a say in, and it's hardly unique to the Iranians, many could point right back at the US with its vast arsenals of ICBM's or programs like the F-35
With or without any sanctions, down the line Iran will be trying to make a nuclear weapon, like all other nuclear age developing countries,
Hrm, not necessarily true, there are many nations capable of developing nuclear weapons that have not, and some that have developed them that then dismantled their weapons and programs. Germany, Italy, Japan, South Africa, Spain, Ukraine, etc.
to assert its status and power as a counterbalance to its neighbours.
It's possible, but that goes any number of states that are potentially as dangerous as Iran or moreso, and the Iranians at least would have to publicly repudiate a Fatwa issued by Khamenei that nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islamic law which would...leave some egg on their faces.
As for current US foreign policy, I think we are seeing more of the White Houses advisors opinions taking place than Trumps own to keep steady relations in volatile areas.
Entirely possible, but either way, a lot of it is...strange
Actually in the context they were brought up, they seem to belong in the thread, and they both can kill people.
So do cows, skateboards, trees, lightning, peanuts and snowstorms. Just because two things have a similar effect does not mean they are analogous.
Alcohol, however, creates a lot more carnage than guns among citizens in the U.S.
You seem to be saying the existence of alcohol-related death justifies the existence of gun-related death. Is this your contention?
What I am pointing out is hypocracy of certain government leaders, and the media in general who vilify guns and groups such as the NRA because "guns kill people".
At the same time we see advertisements glamorizing alcohol consumption and those same government leaders hosting parties in which alcohol is served.
While I would hesitate to draw quite the same relation between guns and alcohol, there is a good point here, and particularly between marijuana and alcohol. If nothing else however, it's does help to point out how much gun control legislation, particularly AWB's, often would do basically literally nothing to effect the potential lethality of a shooter scenario, but makes for great press with the base.
Over 100,000 visas have been revoked as a result of President Trump’s ban on travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries, an attorney for the government revealed in Alexandria federal court Friday.
..that seems to be quite a few more than was mentioned before ...
One assumes this is yet more " typical terrible one size fits all lawmaking that the govt loves to pass " and people against such actions will be there to protest against it.
If you want to quote me you can attribute it. Since you seem to want my opinion on this, yes in my opinion Trump's immigration EO was poorly done. I even referred to it as "ham fisted" in the previous US Politics thread. While banning or capping the number of immigrants from specific countries is nothing new to US immigration law and we've always put limits on visas Trump's EO is over zealous and poorly done. If there are specific people Trump believes are too dangerous to be allowed entry to the US then Trump should have devised an EP that targets those people instead of just lumping everyone from a given country together is unjust and lazy. I'm not going to go protest it, I've never protested before and this isn't a tipping point for me. I will continue to vote in every election, encourage others to do the same and call and write to my state legislators and Congressional representative and senators in regards to pending legislation that I either strongly oppose or favor.
Spinner wrote: Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.
Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?
There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.
Mmmhm, I get that. My point is that if Obama had said anything resembling that, you'd be able to hear the GOP screams from Antarctica.
Spinner wrote: Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.
Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?
There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.
Mmmhm, I get that. My point is that if Obama had said anything resembling that, you'd be able to hear the GOP screams from Antarctica.
Oh yea 100% agreement. I live in the land of the Great Jade Helm Freakout.
Actually in the context they were brought up, they seem to belong in the thread, and they both can kill people.
So do cows, skateboards, trees, lightning, peanuts and snowstorms. Just because two things have a similar effect does not mean they are analogous.
Alcohol, however, creates a lot more carnage than guns among citizens in the U.S.
You seem to be saying the existence of alcohol-related death justifies the existence of gun-related death. Is this your contention?
What I am pointing out is hypocracy of certain government leaders, and the media in general who vilify guns and groups such as the NRA because "guns kill people".
At the same time we see advertisements glamorizing alcohol consumption and those same government leaders hosting parties in which alcohol is served.
You would have a point, if guns and alcohol were analogous. But they aren't, so you don't.
I disagree, so here we sit, about to enter a circular debate that will go nowhere. I suggest at this point we let it go.
And then, well there was that whole revolution thing which put a guy who hated Israel and the US in charge, who then went onto purge the moderates. That may have also had something to do with it. I mean the US' involvement in that whole affair didn't help things, but saying that the Iranian regime didn't begin with a hostile stance is understating things
I'm talking about a bigger picture.
The US was interfering in Iran before that, and had supported unpopular leaders who produced the conditions that allowed the revolution to happen at all. In the late 1940s Iran idolized the US. Like us they were a former British colony, wanted a democratic system of government, and hoped to be a regional power. Iran didn't become one of the few states to recognize Israeli Independence in 1947 because it was convenient (it was incredibly inconvenient), they did it in part because we were working with them. Constant US interference into Iranian affairs for the next 40 years not only soured that relationship but produced widespread anti-American sentiment in the country which only got worse when the US became even more hostile and aggressive towards them. We overthrew a democratically elected leader in 1953. We propped up the Shah, who subverted the democratic notions of the state, and we threw a raging hissy fit when our puppet dictator was overthrown. To top it all off, we helped put a madman in charge of Iraq almost solely to oppose Iran, and said madman went on to rage a brutal war against them.
Iran was not a host of anti-American sentiment when it was freed from British rule. We created anti-American sentiment in Iran by doing a long laundry list of really gakky to the people who lived there.
At this point I think we need to define what free speech is, as protected under US law.
Is it the right to say whatever you want, wherever you want, and everyone else has to shut up and listen?
Yes, minus the "everyone else has to shut up and listen" part.
However, we also have a right to peaceful assembly. It's really both that the rioters are violating. They are shutting down both speech and (as far as I know) peaceful assembly.
I had to google that guy. Same alma mater as my brother! I don't read a lot of Vice. Is it particularly right wing?
Vice is not particularly right wing, more "counter culture" in general, they do have some pretty good stuff, however McInnes doesn't have a relationship with them anymore, he's moved on to becoming a professional controversy generator/troll like Yiannopolous, a part of their livelyhood is generating exactly this kind of reaction, which also appears to be missed in the conversation.
Free speech also has exclusions, however, when public safety is an issue and happens to be false, ex. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. See Schenck vs. U.S. There is an interesting argument to be made about Milo's yayapouplus's message or whoever people are protesting against and whether it crosses over to intentionally saying false things to evoke a reaction and whether or not that is covered in his free speech.
I had to google that guy. Same alma mater as my brother! I don't read a lot of Vice. Is it particularly right wing?
Vice is not particularly right wing, more "counter culture" in general, they do have some pretty good stuff, however McInnes doesn't have a relationship with them anymore, he's moved on to becoming a professional controversy generator/troll like Yiannopolous, a part of their livelyhood is generating exactly this kind of reaction, which also appears to be missed in the conversation.
The existence of provocateurs does not justify violence.
First Amendment rights don't vanish when someone says something you disagree with...in fact, that's when it's actually meaningful.
He's doing extremely well so far in office with campaign promises. Two weeks in and we're seeing some solid work being done by the President of the United States.
I'm looking forward to seeing how he managers to get the funding for the wall. I would be extremely disappointed if the 'Build the Wall" was just to get elected.
The UC Berkeley riot was interesting. Antifa are making the actual college students look terrible.
For the record, Free Speech is only the government trying to shut you up. Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.
Feel free to test the limits of Free Speech at your own workplace for a fun time at the HR office. Private entities can and do limit free speech all the time.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Free speech also has exclusions, however, when public safety is an issue and happens to be false, ex. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. See Schenck vs. U.S.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: For the record, Free Speech is only the government trying to shut you up. Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.
Feel free to test the limits of Free Speech at your own workplace for a fun time at the HR office. Private entities can and do limit free speech all the time.
Free speech may indeed have consequences - but they should fall within the rule of law. Thug rule and vigilantism do not fall within the rule of law.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Free speech also has exclusions, however, when public safety is an issue and happens to be false, ex. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. See Schenck vs. U.S.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: For the record, Free Speech is only the government trying to shut you up. Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.
Feel free to test the limits of Free Speech at your own workplace for a fun time at the HR office. Private entities can and do limit free speech all the time.
Free speech may indeed have consequences - but they should fall within the rule of law.
As I said. Other people can do whatever they want to try and stop you, within the limits of the law. The rioters are not a first amendment issue at all, but are in fact just a common run of the mill law enforcement issue.
@Easy E: It's a whole lot more than a law enforcement issue to people like me who think that freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly are fundamental liberal values.
But yes, it is also a law enforcement issue, I grant you that.
Stevefamine wrote: He's doing extremely well so far in office with campaign promises. Two weeks in and we're seeing some solid work being done by the President of the United States.
I'm looking forward to seeing how he managers to get the funding for the wall. I would be extremely disappointed if the 'Build the Wall" was just to get elected.
The UC Berkeley riot was interesting. Antifa are making the actual college students look terrible.
By "solid work" do you mean all the executive actions he has taken thus far? Because none of that is solid and up to the whims and discretion of whoever happens to be president. Every one of his decrees can be done away with in one instant with a new president. It strikes me as odd, that the people who applaud his use of EO's, the very people who hated Obama's use of them, don't see that none of what Trump has done thus far really means much and is actually kind of totally unnecessary. Unlike Obama when he signed most of his, Trump has control of both houses. He could codify his decrees so they might actually last. Obama, in pretty much every instance I can think of him signing an EO, tried to get legislation passed or rely on congress to do so first, and only did so as a last resort. Dream Babies? Because congress couldn't pass comprehensive legislation. Gun stuff? Again, congress wouldn't act. Obama tried to play the long legacy game for fixes he believed in (I actually like that Obama cared about what people generations from now will think of him), and resorted to the band aid when it didn't work. Trump seems more concerned with the here and now, not caring or unable to see what might happen down the road. If you like Trumps decrees, fair enough, you are getting what you want right now. But you will be bitching about them when Trump is gone and the Dems take back control.
We also are not free to slander and libel which we all unfortunately do too frequently. It's one of the reasons we have such a problem with the "free" discourse of ideas.
It would seem that we could use a good dose of Grandma's wisdom of "if you don't have nuthin nice to say, don't say nuthin at all"
One thing I am not looking forward too is Sunday as I am worried that I won't be able to avoid seeing protests and political statements galore while trying to enjoy the Falcons pasting the Patriots. (Look already breaking Grandma's heart )
I do get a bit tired of various groups trying to take advantage of the chance to get wider media exposure due to coverage of unrelated and supposedly apolitical events.
jasper76 wrote: @Easy E: It's a whole lot more than a law enforcement issue to people like me who think that freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly are fundamental liberal values.
But yes, it is also a law enforcement issue, I grant you that.
Individuals trying to silence people is not a Constitutional Issue or indeed covered by the Constitution at all. It is a common misconception.
Now, as a societal/cultural issue we may feel different about it; but culture is not the Constitution.
Anyway, thanks to everyone with the meme ideas I can't believe I didn't think about some of those.
--"Make American great Again!" could go with so many pictures.
--"But her Emails!" could be brilliant in the right context.
--"All Praise Glorious Leader!" I can see being hilarious
--"Alternative Facts!" is also brilliant.
I expect Dakka Dakka to get to work on these stat!
Lord of Deeds wrote: We also are not free to slander and libel which we all unfortunately do too frequently. It's one of the reasons we have such a problem with the "free" discourse of ideas.
It would seem that we could use a good dose of Grandma's wisdom of "if you don't have nuthin nice to say, don't say nuthin at all"
One thing I am not looking forward too is Sunday as I am worried that I won't be able to avoid seeing protests and political statements galore while trying to enjoy the Falcons pasting the Patriots. (Look already breaking Grandma's heart )
I do get a bit tired of various groups trying to take advantage of the chance to get wider media exposure due to coverage of unrelated and supposedly apolitical events.
And I just realized that this is Super Bowl weekend. Oh, I know, the only sport that matters just had their all star game and is in mid season.
Lord of Deeds wrote: One thing I am not looking forward too is Sunday as I am worried that I won't be able to avoid seeing protests and political statements galore while trying to enjoy the Falcons pasting the Patriots. (Look already breaking Grandma's heart )
I do get a bit tired of various groups trying to take advantage of the chance to get wider media exposure due to coverage of unrelated and supposedly apolitical events.
I'm sure more pious lectures from celebrity millionaires will work out great for the Democrats
I had to google that guy. Same alma mater as my brother! I don't read a lot of Vice. Is it particularly right wing?
Vice is not particularly right wing, more "counter culture" in general, they do have some pretty good stuff, however McInnes doesn't have a relationship with them anymore, he's moved on to becoming a professional controversy generator/troll like Yiannopolous, a part of their livelyhood is generating exactly this kind of reaction, which also appears to be missed in the conversation.
The existence of provocateurs does not justify violence.
First Amendment rights don't vanish when someone says something you disagree with...in fact, that's when it's actually meaningful.
I'm not saying that it does justify violence, but lets also realize that expecting people not to take the bait is being unrealistic given the kinds of things these guys engage in.
If I leave a brand new Charger or Escalade, tricked out to the 9's, running and unlocked with the keys in the ignition in an area of town known for intense gang violence and car theft and go off telling people about how nice my car is and how the keys are just sitting there unattended, I shouldn't be surprised when my car gets stolen, less so when I expect it to get stolen so I can turn around and say terrible things about the people who live in that part of town. Doesn't make it right to steal the car, but I also basically went out of my way to ensure that possibility would come to pass with ulterior motives, and few will have any sympathy.
Lets also realize that some of the things these people have engaged in have gone well beyond simple "free speech" and well into direct and intentional direct personal harassment & attacks, doxxing, etc, in addition to racist/sexist/anti-semitic comments that get people real hot and bothered.
jasper76 wrote: @Easy E: It's a whole lot more than a law enforcement issue to people like me who think that freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly are fundamental liberal values.
But yes, it is also a law enforcement issue, I grant you that.
Individuals trying to silence people is not a Constitutional Issue or indeed covered by the Constitution at all. It is a common misconception.
Serious question: can't you sue an individual or group for violating your Constitutional rights?
jasper76 wrote: @Easy E: It's a whole lot more than a law enforcement issue to people like me who think that freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly are fundamental liberal values.
But yes, it is also a law enforcement issue, I grant you that.
Individuals trying to silence people is not a Constitutional Issue or indeed covered by the Constitution at all. It is a common misconception.
Serious question: can't you sue an individual or group for violating your Constitutional rights?
You can, but you don't have a case unless it's the govt. that is trying to silence you. The constitution limits what the federal govt. can do, not what private citizens or corporations can do. If they do so violently, it isn't a violation of rights, but a civil matter. I think this whole conversation about "free speech" is a total mislabeling about what "freedom of speech" actually means and its intention. It was primarily about the press speaking out against the govt. "If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter."--Thomas Jefferson. Read some of the papers from back then. They weren't exactly kind to him. He knew what was going on.
jasper76 wrote: @Easy E: It's a whole lot more than a law enforcement issue to people like me who think that freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly are fundamental liberal values.
But yes, it is also a law enforcement issue, I grant you that.
Individuals trying to silence people is not a Constitutional Issue or indeed covered by the Constitution at all. It is a common misconception.
Serious question: can't you sue an individual or group for violating your Constitutional rights?
Not if done in a private capacity in an otherwise legal manner. You can't sue a newspaper for not printing your letter to the editor, you can't sue Facebook for taking down a racist rant post advocating for the slaughter of a particular demographic, you can't sue a store for not allowing firearms inside, etc.
Spinner wrote: Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.
Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?
There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.
Spinner wrote: Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.
Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?
There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.
Easy E wrote: For the record, Free Speech is only the government trying to shut you up. Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.
Feel free to test the limits of Free Speech at your own workplace for a fun time at the HR office. Private entities can and do limit free speech all the time.
Let me embolden the part of your sentence that matters:
Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord of Deeds wrote: We also are not free to slander and libel which we all unfortunately do too frequently. It's one of the reasons we have such a problem with the "free" discourse of ideas.
It would seem that we could use a good dose of Grandma's wisdom of "if you don't have nuthin nice to say, don't say nuthin at all"
One thing I am not looking forward too is Sunday as I am worried that I won't be able to avoid seeing protests and political statements galore while trying to enjoy the Falcons pasting the Patriots. (Look already breaking Grandma's heart )
I do get a bit tired of various groups trying to take advantage of the chance to get wider media exposure due to coverage of unrelated and supposedly apolitical events.
Truth is an excellent defense to those allegations.
Spinner wrote: Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.
Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?
There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.
Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?
No.
Whembly is correct here. You might be thinking about when he flew over it a week after it happened in a helicopter and said "you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie".
Gordon Shumway wrote: Free speech also has exclusions, however, when public safety is an issue and happens to be false, ex. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. See Schenck vs. U.S.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: For the record, Free Speech is only the government trying to shut you up. Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.
Feel free to test the limits of Free Speech at your own workplace for a fun time at the HR office. Private entities can and do limit free speech all the time.
Free speech may indeed have consequences - but they should fall within the rule of law. Thug rule and vigilantism do not fall within the rule of law.
Easy E wrote: Anyway, thanks to everyone with the meme ideas I can't believe I didn't think about some of those.
--"Make American great Again!" could go with so many pictures.
--"But her Emails!" could be brilliant in the right context.
--"All Praise Glorious Leader!" I can see being hilarious
--"Alternative Facts!" is also brilliant.
I'd like to put forward; "But Obama". I'm already seeing a trend where, when Trump does something horrible, someone will start a sentence with "But Obama" shortly thereafter.
Spinner wrote: Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.
Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?
There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.
Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?
Different agencies. I believe those were military/guard. I meant more flooding an area with various police agencies. That is within federal purview.
Marching bluecoats down main street, not so much.
Easy E wrote: Anyway, thanks to everyone with the meme ideas I can't believe I didn't think about some of those.
--"Make American great Again!" could go with so many pictures.
--"But her Emails!" could be brilliant in the right context.
--"All Praise Glorious Leader!" I can see being hilarious
--"Alternative Facts!" is also brilliant.
I'd like to put forward; "But Obama". I'm already seeing a trend where, when Trump does something horrible, someone will start a sentence with "But Obama" shortly thereafter.
To do it right it needs to include either "bigly" or "very very" and preferably both.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Free speech also has exclusions, however, when public safety is an issue and happens to be false, ex. Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater. See Schenck vs. U.S.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: For the record, Free Speech is only the government trying to shut you up. Other people can do whatever they like within the limits of the law to shut you up or take-away your platform.
Feel free to test the limits of Free Speech at your own workplace for a fun time at the HR office. Private entities can and do limit free speech all the time.
Free speech may indeed have consequences - but they should fall within the rule of law. Thug rule and vigilantism do not fall within the rule of law.
That is why the police go and arrest rioters.
Wasn't it only like 1 person who got arrested over the UC Berkeley riots? I could be the victim of fake news here.
Spinner wrote: Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.
Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?
There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.
Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?
Different agencies. I believe those were military/guard. I meant more flooding an area with various police agencies. That is within federal purview.
Marching bluecoats down main street, not so much.
And I would argue that marching the guard down the streets immediately is exactly what should have happened. Not with guns though. Just sandbags and cash, like we did in Iraq.
Spinner wrote: Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.
Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?
There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.
Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?
Different agencies. I believe those were military/guard. I meant more flooding an area with various police agencies. That is within federal purview.
Marching bluecoats down main street, not so much.
And I would argue that marching the guard down the streets immediately is exactly what should have happened. Not with guns though. Just sandbags and cash, like we did in Iraq.
Indeed, but the Governor and Mayor refused Bush's offer...
jasper76 wrote: These riots are so counterproductive too. Really, even the peaceful demonstrations are.
They turn people like Milo Y. from obscure internet provocateurs I to full-fledged celebrities.
Although this Gavin McInnes guy is pretty harsh on the eyes...I don't thi K he's gonna catch on with the groupies.
Milo wasn't exactly obscure. He was discussed even here in Dakka many times. Whembly followed him on Facebook or twitter because he was funny. Was he not "mainstream kitchen table" famous, no. Probably not. Neither is my senator, John Thune. Should he be because he says gak stain stupid stuff? Yes. Infamous.
Semi-related: I knew a guy in Oakland whose dream was one day to buy a shotgun and move to Philly. He also said the Princess Bride was a terrible film.
I guess I'm saying that, anecdotally, there seems to be this mythologizing of the East Coast out here as a violent place full of tough guys.
Spinner wrote: Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.
Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?
There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.
Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?
Different agencies. I believe those were military/guard. I meant more flooding an area with various police agencies. That is within federal purview.
Marching bluecoats down main street, not so much.
And I would argue that marching the guard down the streets immediately is exactly what should have happened. Not with guns though. Just sandbags and cash, like we did in Iraq.
Indeed, but the Governor and Mayor refused Bush's offer...
Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.
Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.
Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.
I don't think it will even affect the moderates, to be honest. It just gives the radicals ammunition to feed into the narrative that "America doesn't think you are human" narrative they like to push. It might get some who don't understand the world a reason to fight back. Sort of like appealing to the uneducated in order to get elected. Sort of electing a gakstain like Trump, in other words.
Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.
With the bravado and haste in which it was signed and the apparently completely unorganized way it was executed, and with the way some on the right joyfully reacted to it and the discriminatory way the left portrayed it, I suspect that it will not be particularly helpful to US interests.
There were a lot of ways the administration could have enacted this which would have sidestepped most of the problems people had with it, but they chose not to.
Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.
Oh, absolutely not. Which is probably what Bannon, Flynn, and Trump's other cronies want, because then they have more scapegoats and ways to induce fear in the country.
Spinner wrote: Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.
Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?
There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.
Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?
Different agencies. I believe those were military/guard. I meant more flooding an area with various police agencies. That is within federal purview.
Marching bluecoats down main street, not so much.
And I would argue that marching the guard down the streets immediately is exactly what should have happened. Not with guns though. Just sandbags and cash, like we did in Iraq.
You want to make the guardsmen walk with sand bags? What did they do to piss you off?
Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.
It will reduce the refugee terrorism from zero to, uh... zero-er!
Spinner wrote: Probably not until we hear outrage about his threat to send 'the Feds' into Chicago.
Everyone remember how routine military training exercises were actually a cover for Obama to put us all in FEMA death camps?
There have been other times where federal law enforcement will legally flood a city. We have buttload of them right now in Houston. I can see them and hear the helicopters.
Bush did that in New Orleans, didn't he?
Different agencies. I believe those were military/guard. I meant more flooding an area with various police agencies. That is within federal purview.
Marching bluecoats down main street, not so much.
And I would argue that marching the guard down the streets immediately is exactly what should have happened. Not with guns though. Just sandbags and cash, like we did in Iraq.
You want to make the guardsmen walk with sand bags? What did they do to piss you off?
Nothing. They are strong and smart. They use their leg muscles. And their rhinos. Also, who cares? they are the guard. They are the emperors chaff.
Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.
The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.
Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.
The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.
I think you might be right, be in this case, would anybody have disagreed? An EO done the way an EO should be done and for the purpose EO's exist? Maybe. Take them to court later.
So, after Flint, it is good to see the R's learned about the importance of clean water.....
Republicans this week kicked off their drive to roll back Obama-era environmental regulations by repealing a "Stream Protection Rule" meant to keep coal mines from dumping waste into streams.
The U.S. Senate approved the measure Thursday in a 54 to 45 vote that went largely along party lines, with backing from Ohio GOP Sen. Rob Portman, and a "no" vote from Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown.
The House of Representatives approved it 228 to 194 on Wednesday, with support from all Ohio's Republicans and opposition from all of the state's Democrats.
Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.
The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.
You're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act... and no, the President can't simple 'send' the military into State.
President has to formally request the Governor to allow federal entities to help... and the Gov/mayor initially declined & dragged their feet...
tl;dr: The State Governor and Mayor Negan fethed up bigly by not being prepared. Since Bush was well hated at that time by the press, it was easy to deflect their short-comings and blame it on Bush.
Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.
Firstly the E.O order isn't a Muslim Ban as the media protests, because it bars entry all faiths of the nationalities of said countries. Will it make the USA safer? That is negligible, on the one hand yes some of those countries are in a mess fighting internal extremism and it would make it harder for an extremist to enter the USA legally. However a known terrorist would never make it through airport security. The fact of the matter is a terrorist is more than likely to enter illegally to avoid detection. The rule of thumb being if a terrorist wants to get in they will find a way. At least it shows Trump wants to cut down the possibility of foreign terrorism occurring on American soil, if the results are extremely limited of being effective.
Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.
The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.
You're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act... and no, the President can't simple 'send' the military into State.
President has to formally request the Governor to allow federal entities to help... and the Gov/mayor initially declined & dragged their feet...
tl;dr: The State Governor and Mayor Negan fethed up bigly by not being prepared. Since Bush was well hated at that time by the press, it was easy to deflect their short-comings and blame it on Bush.
Oh, they did, but that doesn't excuse Bush's one week later plan either. The president can certainly call in troops when needed. See the school desegregation for example. Those troops were there by federal proclamation, not state. Those black kids lived because Johnson sent in the troops. Watch the video footage again sometime. Look at the crowds against those kids. They wouldn't have made it to the front door without those troops there. "Send in the Guard!"
jasper76 wrote: These riots are so counterproductive too. Really, even the peaceful demonstrations are.
They turn people like Milo Y. from obscure internet provocateurs I to full-fledged celebrities.
Although this Gavin McInnes guy is pretty harsh on the eyes...I don't thi K he's gonna catch on with the groupies.
Milo wasn't exactly obscure. He was discussed even here in Dakka many times. Whembly followed him on Facebook or twitter because he was funny. Was he not "mainstream kitchen table" famous, no. Probably not. Neither is my senator, John Thune. Should he be because he says gak stain stupid stuff? Yes. Infamous.
Well, Dakka itself is very obscure. I'd never heard of him until he started making news due to all the protests, peaceful and non-peaceful.
I've never heard of John Thune before either, but I'm sure if protested started popping up against him all over the place I would. Something about not feeding the trolls...
Very problematic..lack of consequences will only encourage further acts of violence and mayhem.
They arrested three people, sounds like they're facing consquences, unless we're just sad the police didn't round up everyone there over an incident that ultimately was less intense than what happens on many campuses after some sporting events
I mean, it's not like they staged and armed takeover of a federal facility and beat the rap...
Vash108 wrote: So The Massachusetts sheriff offers jail inmates to build Mexican border wall?
Is... isn't that slave labor?
In a court of law no, because whilst serving time inmates from different prisons in the US and around the world do work for community projects as part of their sentence. Building a wall is juristically the same as what the chain gains used to do building the public highways and landscaping for the community. It would be slave labour if they were forced to work extreme hours in appalling conditions, but that will not be the case. For some prisoners, they may enjoy a chance to do something different in the fresh air outside of prison walls, even if it is monotonous work.
jasper76 wrote: These riots are so counterproductive too. Really, even the peaceful demonstrations are.
They turn people like Milo Y. from obscure internet provocateurs I to full-fledged celebrities.
Although this Gavin McInnes guy is pretty harsh on the eyes...I don't thi K he's gonna catch on with the groupies.
Milo wasn't exactly obscure. He was discussed even here in Dakka many times. Whembly followed him on Facebook or twitter because he was funny. Was he not "mainstream kitchen table" famous, no. Probably not. Neither is my senator, John Thune. Should he be because he says gak stain stupid stuff? Yes. Infamous.
Well, Dakka itself is very obscure. I'd never heard of him until he started making news due to all the protests, peaceful and non-peaceful.
I've never heard of John Thune before either, but I'm sure if protested started popping up against him all over the place I would. Something about not feeding the trolls...
I get the idea of not feeding the trolls, but you get the idea of not shutting up when the trolls start demanding tolls too, right? In all of the stories the trolls don't live long, not because of subservience to them, but because of reaction to them. No, I am not asking for violent reaction to the trolls, just a recognition of where the phrase comes from before the Internet made people quit thinking. They didnt feed the trolls, they killed the trolls.
Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.
Much will depend on what happens after 90 days, IMO. Will this just be temporary, or will it expand to someone bigger?
I'm at least willing to consider that the Trump administration is sincere in its efforts to review and improve our vetting procedures.
That said, I think the 90 day travel ban was ill-conceived and ill-executed, alot of innocent people with legit reasons to be here have been hurt, and there is a threat that this will push some people off the edge into radicalism.
jasper76 wrote: These riots are so counterproductive too. Really, even the peaceful demonstrations are.
They turn people like Milo Y. from obscure internet provocateurs I to full-fledged celebrities.
Although this Gavin McInnes guy is pretty harsh on the eyes...I don't thi K he's gonna catch on with the groupies.
Milo wasn't exactly obscure. He was discussed even here in Dakka many times. Whembly followed him on Facebook or twitter because he was funny. Was he not "mainstream kitchen table" famous, no. Probably not. Neither is my senator, John Thune. Should he be because he says gak stain stupid stuff? Yes. Infamous.
Well, Dakka itself is very obscure. I'd never heard of him until he started making news due to all the protests, peaceful and non-peaceful.
I've never heard of John Thune before either, but I'm sure if protested started popping up against him all over the place I would. Something about not feeding the trolls...
I get the idea of not feeding the trolls, but you get the idea of not shutting up when the trolls start demanding tolls too, right? In all of the stories the trolls don't live long, not because of subservience to them, but because of reaction to them. No, I am not asking for violent reaction to the trolls, just a recognition of where the phrase comes from before the Internet made people quit thinking.
Insult aside, what demands do you think Milo Y. and Gavin McInnes are making?
Very problematic..lack of consequences will only encourage further acts of violence and mayhem.
It will take time, but if there is political will, everyone involved could be arrested.
When we had our Stanley cup riot up here, it took three years of investigations, but ended up with nearly 900 charges against 300 people. We had guys turning themselves in because they were hoping for reduced penalties.
Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.
The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.
You're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act... and no, the President can't simple 'send' the military into State.
President has to formally request the Governor to allow federal entities to help... and the Gov/mayor initially declined & dragged their feet...
tl;dr: The State Governor and Mayor Negan fethed up bigly by not being prepared. Since Bush was well hated at that time by the press, it was easy to deflect their short-comings and blame it on Bush.
Oh, they did, but that doesn't excuse Bush's one week later plan either. The president can certainly call in troops when needed. See the school desegregation for example. Those troops were there by federal proclamation, not state. Those black kids lived because Johnson sent in the troops. Watch the video footage again sometime. Look at the crowds against those kids. They wouldn't have made it to the front door without those troops there. "Send in the Guard!"
Nationalizing the NG is different... of course Bush could've done it, and there's a case for that. Problem was, there were expectations that the locals were more prepared, and when the realization came that they weren't... it was too late and everyone had to scramble.
I was talking about the Federal departments (DHS, FEMA, Army Corps, etc...) in the immediate aftermath.
Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.
Much will depend on what happens after 90 days, IMO. Will this just be temporary, or will it expand to someone bigger?
I'm at least willing to consider that the Trump administration is sincere in its efforts to review and improve our vetting procedures.
That said, I think the 90 day travel ban was ill-conceived and ill-executed, alot of innocent people with legit reasons to be here have been hurt, and there is a threat that this will push some people off the edge into radicalism.
I think there's merit for temp ban if they're actually using the time to review the process... or at least, let the immigration officials convincethe new administration that "they've got this".
It's also a campaign promise... so there is that.
But for sure, there were obvious disconnects between the whitehouse and the other departments that compounded the issues... such that, you have to hope that they've learned their lessons over this ordeal.
Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.
The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.
You're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act... and no, the President can't simple 'send' the military into State.
President has to formally request the Governor to allow federal entities to help... and the Gov/mayor initially declined & dragged their feet...
tl;dr: The State Governor and Mayor Negan fethed up bigly by not being prepared. Since Bush was well hated at that time by the press, it was easy to deflect their short-comings and blame it on Bush.
Oh, they did, but that doesn't excuse Bush's one week later plan either. The president can certainly call in troops when needed. See the school desegregation for example. Those troops were there by federal proclamation, not state. Those black kids lived because Johnson sent in the troops. Watch the video footage again sometime. Look at the crowds against those kids. They wouldn't have made it to the front door without those troops there. "Send in the Guard!"
Nationalizing the NG is different... of course Bush could've done it, and there's a case for that. Problem was, there were expectations that the locals were more prepared, and when the realization came that they weren't... it was too late and everyone had to scramble.
I was talking about the Federal departments (DHS, FEMA, Army Corps, etc...) in the immediate aftermath.
Your question doesn't really follow from the statement I made, so I'm not really sure what you are asking now, Whem. Were the federal departments on the line for taking care of their responsibilities of taking care of things? I would think so. No?
Not trying to be trite he, I just don't get your question.
d-usa wrote: [
The reality is that this is a very true statement, we are okay with that, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a holiday party, we accept that terrorists can legally get guns and shoot up a gay nightclub, and we accept that someone with a legally owned firearm can shoot up a grade school.
In all fairness the guns the San Bernadino shooters used were illegally modified and illegally purchased all ready, contrary to you post. Also, if you were referring to Sandy Hook, that weapon wasn't legally possessed either. It was stolen.
Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.
The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.
You're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act... and no, the President can't simple 'send' the military into State.
President has to formally request the Governor to allow federal entities to help... and the Gov/mayor initially declined & dragged their feet...
tl;dr: The State Governor and Mayor Negan fethed up bigly by not being prepared. Since Bush was well hated at that time by the press, it was easy to deflect their short-comings and blame it on Bush.
Oh, they did, but that doesn't excuse Bush's one week later plan either. The president can certainly call in troops when needed. See the school desegregation for example. Those troops were there by federal proclamation, not state. Those black kids lived because Johnson sent in the troops. Watch the video footage again sometime. Look at the crowds against those kids. They wouldn't have made it to the front door without those troops there. "Send in the Guard!"
Nationalizing the NG is different... of course Bush could've done it, and there's a case for that. Problem was, there were expectations that the locals were more prepared, and when the realization came that they weren't... it was too late and everyone had to scramble.
I was talking about the Federal departments (DHS, FEMA, Army Corps, etc...) in the immediate aftermath.
Your question doesn't really follow from the statement I made, so I'm not really sure what you are asking now, Whem. Were the federal departments on the line for taking care of their responsibilities of taking care of things? I would think so. No?
Not trying to be trite he, I just don't get your question.
You're arguing that Bush could've nationalize the National Guard and swooped into New Orleans to save the day... right?
Does anyone here believe the Muslim Ban enacted with the EO will make America safer? Ignoring the morality or constitutionality of the act, it just seems shortsighted. It actually feels like it will increase the chance of moderates being radicalized.
Much will depend on what happens after 90 days, IMO. Will this just be temporary, or will it expand to someone bigger?
I'm at least willing to consider that the Trump administration is sincere in its efforts to review and improve our vetting procedures.
That said, I think the 90 day travel ban was ill-conceived and ill-executed, alot of innocent people with legit reasons to be here have been hurt, and there is a threat that this will push some people off the edge into radicalism.
jasper76 wrote: These riots are so counterproductive too. Really, even the peaceful demonstrations are.
They turn people like Milo Y. from obscure internet provocateurs I to full-fledged celebrities.
Although this Gavin McInnes guy is pretty harsh on the eyes...I don't thi K he's gonna catch on with the groupies.
Milo wasn't exactly obscure. He was discussed even here in Dakka many times. Whembly followed him on Facebook or twitter because he was funny. Was he not "mainstream kitchen table" famous, no. Probably not. Neither is my senator, John Thune. Should he be because he says gak stain stupid stuff? Yes. Infamous.
Well, Dakka itself is very obscure. I'd never heard of him until he started making news due to all the protests, peaceful and non-peaceful.
I've never heard of John Thune before either, but I'm sure if protested started popping up against him all over the place I would. Something about not feeding the trolls...
I get the idea of not feeding the trolls, but you get the idea of not shutting up when the trolls start demanding tolls too, right? In all of the stories the trolls don't live long, not because of subservience to them, but because of reaction to them. No, I am not asking for violent reaction to the trolls, just a recognition of where the phrase comes from before the Internet made people quit thinking.
Insult aside, what demands do you think Milo Y. and Gavin McInnes are making?
Not sure where you were insulted there, if you think you were, please PM me, because that wasn't my intent. I do not think they have any sort of demands because they have no coherent consistent argument (if you know Milo, you understand this). Their goal is to sew dissent. Why? Why for anything? Money. Milo gets paid for his Internet forum and his talks because he gets a rise out of people. So did Honey BooBoo. I regard him and his thoughts in the same way I regard hers.
Lord of Deeds wrote: One thing I am not looking forward too is Sunday as I am worried that I won't be able to avoid seeing protests and political statements galore while trying to enjoy the Falcons pasting the Patriots. (Look already breaking Grandma's heart )
I do get a bit tired of various groups trying to take advantage of the chance to get wider media exposure due to coverage of unrelated and supposedly apolitical events.
I'm sure more pious lectures from celebrity millionaires will work out great for the Democrats
I mean, speeches from celebrity millionaires seemed to work out pretty well for the republicans.
Bad on them. They are both out of office too. Good. Also isn't Nagin up in court for something? When you send in troops to clean something up it shouldn't be an "offer". More of a demand situation. Troops follow orders, not suggestions.
The ex military guys can opine better but I believe it is illegal for the active military to do such domestically.
You're thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act... and no, the President can't simple 'send' the military into State.
President has to formally request the Governor to allow federal entities to help... and the Gov/mayor initially declined & dragged their feet...
tl;dr: The State Governor and Mayor Negan fethed up bigly by not being prepared. Since Bush was well hated at that time by the press, it was easy to deflect their short-comings and blame it on Bush.
Oh, they did, but that doesn't excuse Bush's one week later plan either. The president can certainly call in troops when needed. See the school desegregation for example. Those troops were there by federal proclamation, not state. Those black kids lived because Johnson sent in the troops. Watch the video footage again sometime. Look at the crowds against those kids. They wouldn't have made it to the front door without those troops there. "Send in the Guard!"
Nationalizing the NG is different... of course Bush could've done it, and there's a case for that. Problem was, there were expectations that the locals were more prepared, and when the realization came that they weren't... it was too late and everyone had to scramble.
I was talking about the Federal departments (DHS, FEMA, Army Corps, etc...) in the immediate aftermath.
Your question doesn't really follow from the statement I made, so I'm not really sure what you are asking now, Whem. Were the federal departments on the line for taking care of their responsibilities of taking care of things? I would think so. No?
Not trying to be trite he, I just don't get your question.
You're arguing that Bush could've nationalize the National Guard and swooped into New Orleans to save the day... right?
Yeah, I and I thought your statement "bush could have done it, and there's a case for it"pretty much ended that thought. Expectations or assumptions are irrelevant to the legal case to the matter. His expat actions and assumptions were wrong on the matter.
AdeptSister wrote: So there are significant issues in our vetting process? Why did they choose these seven countries? How does it help (in total)?
Because they thought they had legal standing because of an issue Obama used to more closely vet those seven countries citizens. It comes back to Gulliani's statement about how Trump asked him to make outlawing Muslims legal when he was on the campaign trail. They tried to make religious tests fit within the law. Evidently, it doesn't, based on the the rulings of all the courts that have looked at it thus far.
Not sure where you were insulted there, if you think you were, please PM me, because that wasn't my intent. I do not think they have any sort of demands because they have no coherent consistent argument (if you know Milo, you understand this). Their goal is to sew dissent. Why? Why for anything? Money. Milo gets paid for his Internet forum and his talks because he gets a rise out of people. So did Honey BooBoo. I regard him and his thoughts in the same way I regard hers.
On the I insult thing, I probably just misinterpreted something. My bad, no worries.
Fair enough on the Milo stuff, I thought you were implying through analogy that he was making some sort of demands or something. I watched a couple of his speeches since he has "blown up" and I've heard him say numerous distasteful and offensive stuff but never any kind of demands, per se.
Lord of Deeds wrote: One thing I am not looking forward too is Sunday as I am worried that I won't be able to avoid seeing protests and political statements galore while trying to enjoy the Falcons pasting the Patriots. (Look already breaking Grandma's heart )
I do get a bit tired of various groups trying to take advantage of the chance to get wider media exposure due to coverage of unrelated and supposedly apolitical events.
I'm sure more pious lectures from celebrity millionaires will work out great for the Democrats
I mean, speeches from celebrity millionaires seemed to work out pretty well for the republicans.
Yep. The Dems need to learn and learn quickly that pious celebs are detracting from rather than adding to their support.
That said, I am actually looking forward to Lady Gaga's performance because (a) she can sing her ass off (did anyone hear her rendition of the star-spangled banner was it last Super Bowl?...best I've ever heard) and (b) there will almost certainly be cheap cringe thrills to consume. A guilty pleasure of mine.
AdeptSister wrote: So there are significant issues in our vetting process? Why did they choose these seven countries? How does it help (in total)?
The order imposes a temporary, 90-day ban on people entering the U.S. from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. These are countries either torn apart by jihadist violence or under the control of hostile, jihadist governments.
Sec of State and Homeland Sec may, on a case-by-case basis,may issue waivers to those whom are otherwise blocked. Last I heard earlier the week, over 900 waivers were issued...
AFAIK, there is an indefinite hold on admission of Syrian refugees to the United States “until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.” Syrian War is a hellhole right now that makes vetting anyone near impossible.
As for why those 7 countries, they were identified by previous administration where the usual vetting process are challenged, which the current administration chose to use for this EO.
One issue that came up in the campaign was that Trump claimed our "vetters" did not adequately examine social media and social media networks, specifically of the female San Bernadine shooter, IIRC.
Not sure where you were insulted there, if you think you were, please PM me, because that wasn't my intent. I do not think they have any sort of demands because they have no coherent consistent argument (if you know Milo, you understand this). Their goal is to sew dissent. Why? Why for anything? Money. Milo gets paid for his Internet forum and his talks because he gets a rise out of people. So did Honey BooBoo. I regard him and his thoughts in the same way I regard hers.
On the I insult thing, I probably just misinterpreted something. My bad, no worries.
Fair enough on the Milo stuff, I thought you were implying through analogy that he was making some sort of demands or something. I watched a couple of his speeches since he has "blown up" and I've heard him say numerous distasteful and offensive stuff but never any kind of demands, per se.
Well, there's the demand that he be allowed to act like tool on any platform he chooses and publicly name and shame private individuals who never sought out conflict with him, such as when he used a speaking invitation at a university to toss up the name and picture of a transgender attending student and directly attack them and went on to state how he'd "almost" bang them. That sort of thing goes beyond free speech, and is why he gets the reactions he gets, and is typical of the type of behavior which got him banned from Twitter, which he then complained about being a free speech issue...
Not sure where you were insulted there, if you think you were, please PM me, because that wasn't my intent. I do not think they have any sort of demands because they have no coherent consistent argument (if you know Milo, you understand this). Their goal is to sew dissent. Why? Why for anything? Money. Milo gets paid for his Internet forum and his talks because he gets a rise out of people. So did Honey BooBoo. I regard him and his thoughts in the same way I regard hers.
On the I insult thing, I probably just misinterpreted something. My bad, no worries.
Fair enough on the Milo stuff, I thought you were implying through analogy that he was making some sort of demands or something. I watched a couple of his speeches since he has "blown up" and I've heard him say numerous distasteful and offensive stuff but never any kind of demands, per se.
Well, there's the demand that he be allowed to act like tool on any platform he chooses and publicly name and shame private individuals who never sought out conflict with him, such as when he used a speaking invitation at a university to toss up the name and picture of a transgender attending student and directly attack them and went on to state how he'd "almost" bang them. That sort of thing goes beyond free speech, and is why he gets the reactions he gets, and is typical of the type of behavior which got him banned from Twitter, which he then complained about being a free speech issue...
So far as I can tell, he is being invited to campuses and paid for by conservative student groups.
It's definitely crappy to use your podium to attack individual students, though I'm not familiar with the details here.
Lord of Deeds wrote: One thing I am not looking forward too is Sunday as I am worried that I won't be able to avoid seeing protests and political statements galore while trying to enjoy the Falcons pasting the Patriots. (Look already breaking Grandma's heart )
I do get a bit tired of various groups trying to take advantage of the chance to get wider media exposure due to coverage of unrelated and supposedly apolitical events.
I'm sure more pious lectures from celebrity millionaires will work out great for the Democrats
I mean, speeches from celebrity millionaires seemed to work out pretty well for the republicans.
Yep. The Dems need to learn and learn quickly that pious celebs are detracting from rather than adding to their support.
That said, I am actually looking forward to Lady Gaga's performance because (a) she can sing her ass off (did anyone hear her rendition of the star-spangled banner was it last Super Bowl?...best I've ever heard) and (b) there will almost certainly be cheap cringe thrills to consume. A guilty pleasure of mine.
That was more referring to the fact they elected a celebrity millionaire.
Not sure where you were insulted there, if you think you were, please PM me, because that wasn't my intent. I do not think they have any sort of demands because they have no coherent consistent argument (if you know Milo, you understand this). Their goal is to sew dissent. Why? Why for anything? Money. Milo gets paid for his Internet forum and his talks because he gets a rise out of people. So did Honey BooBoo. I regard him and his thoughts in the same way I regard hers.
On the I insult thing, I probably just misinterpreted something. My bad, no worries.
Fair enough on the Milo stuff, I thought you were implying through analogy that he was making some sort of demands or something. I watched a couple of his speeches since he has "blown up" and I've heard him say numerous distasteful and offensive stuff but never any kind of demands, per se.
Well, there's the demand that he be allowed to act like tool on any platform he chooses and publicly name and shame private individuals who never sought out conflict with him, such as when he used a speaking invitation at a university to toss up the name and picture of a transgender attending student and directly attack them and went on to state how he'd "almost" bang them. That sort of thing goes beyond free speech, and is why he gets the reactions he gets, and is typical of the type of behavior which got him banned from Twitter, which he then complained about being a free speech issue...
So far as I can tell, he is being invited to campuses and paid for by conservative student groups.
It's definitely crappy to use your podium to attack individual students, though I'm not familiar with the details here.
It was at UW Milwaukee, where he was invited by the campus conservatives, and has continued to be invited by campus conservatives knowing he does this kinds of things since then. Tthe footage of the entire event is on his youtube channel.
Lord of Deeds wrote: One thing I am not looking forward too is Sunday as I am worried that I won't be able to avoid seeing protests and political statements galore while trying to enjoy the Falcons pasting the Patriots. (Look already breaking Grandma's heart )
I do get a bit tired of various groups trying to take advantage of the chance to get wider media exposure due to coverage of unrelated and supposedly apolitical events.
I'm sure more pious lectures from celebrity millionaires will work out great for the Democrats
I mean, speeches from celebrity millionaires seemed to work out pretty well for the republicans.
Yep. The Dems need to learn and learn quickly that pious celebs are detracting from rather than adding to their support.
That said, I am actually looking forward to Lady Gaga's performance because (a) she can sing her ass off (did anyone hear her rendition of the star-spangled banner was it last Super Bowl?...best I've ever heard) and (b) there will almost certainly be cheap cringe thrills to consume. A guilty pleasure of mine.
That was more referring to the fact they elected a celebrity millionaire.
I gotcha....yeah, Trump the Anomaly. At the same time, I really do think preachy celebs worked against the Democrats "big league",.and continuing to deploy them is a losing strategy.
That said, I'm all for everyone speaking their minds...I just think some self-awareness is called for. They're not helping the cause anymore. Maybe they just haven't found their anti-Trump yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Vakathi: I'll check it out a d give you my thoughts.
AdeptSister wrote: So there are significant issues in our vetting process? Why did they choose these seven countries? How does it help (in total)?
There are not significant issues (the US has the most extensive vetting process in the world), the countries chosen were done so because said countries are associated with terrorism by Trump's supporters (with varying degrees of validity) while also omitting several countries Trump has business interests in, and it does not actually help since there was no issue with refugee terrorism in the first place.
Not sure where you were insulted there, if you think you were, please PM me, because that wasn't my intent. I do not think they have any sort of demands because they have no coherent consistent argument (if you know Milo, you understand this). Their goal is to sew dissent. Why? Why for anything? Money. Milo gets paid for his Internet forum and his talks because he gets a rise out of people. So did Honey BooBoo. I regard him and his thoughts in the same way I regard hers.
On the I insult thing, I probably just misinterpreted something. My bad, no worries.
Fair enough on the Milo stuff, I thought you were implying through analogy that he was making some sort of demands or something. I watched a couple of his speeches since he has "blown up" and I've heard him say numerous distasteful and offensive stuff but never any kind of demands, per se.
Well, there's the demand that he be allowed to act like tool on any platform he chooses and publicly name and shame private individuals who never sought out conflict with him, such as when he used a speaking invitation at a university to toss up the name and picture of a transgender attending student and directly attack them and went on to state how he'd "almost" bang them. That sort of thing goes beyond free speech, and is why he gets the reactions he gets, and is typical of the type of behavior which got him banned from Twitter, which he then complained about being a free speech issue...
So far as I can tell, he is being invited to campuses and paid for by conservative student groups.
It's definitely crappy to use your podium to attack individual students, though I'm not familiar with the details here.
It was at UW Milwaukee, where he was invited by the campus conservatives, and has continued to be invited by campus conservatives knowing he does this kinds of things since then. Tthe footage of the entire event is on his youtube channel.
And the "SJW liberal students" rise towards the bait and lash out the way students or young people do, make headlines, get notoriety, get clicks, get money. He has no real convictions, I'm not sure the conservative students realize this. They think he is speaking to them. He doesn't care about them or their causes, which may be legitimate. He cares about himself. Fine. Good on him for finding a way to make money, bad on people that let him by causing outrage. The "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater" exception to free speech really does seem to be something to pin on him though.
AdeptSister wrote: So there are significant issues in our vetting process? Why did they choose these seven countries? How does it help (in total)?
There are not significant issues (the US has the most extensive vetting process in the world), the countries chosen were done so because said countries are associated with terrorism by Trump's supporters (with varying degrees of validity) while also omitting several countries Trump has business interests in, and it does not actually help since there was no issue with refugee terrorism in the first place.
There is an issue of perception of refugee terrorism in the US, and this Muslim ban addresses those fears though.
Remember, my feelings on a subject are just as important as your facts on that same subject.
It was at UW Milwaukee, where he was invited by the campus conservatives, and has continued to be invited by campus conservatives knowing he does this kinds of things since then. Tthe footage of the entire event is on his youtube channel.
I saw the bit. It was in bad taste. However, the student had made themself a public figure...it's clear from his screen capture that the student was giving a televised interview, and though I did not see the interview, the context implied that he was an activist on the whole transgender bathroom issue. Is the joke Milo cracked really that much different than making fun of say Bill O'Really for being unattractive because you disagree with his politics? Or Trumps ridiculous hairstyle?
Is the left really willing to embrace or condone violence, destruction, and mayhem over something like this?
It was at UW Milwaukee, where he was invited by the campus conservatives, and has continued to be invited by campus conservatives knowing he does this kinds of things since then. Tthe footage of the entire event is on his youtube channel.
I saw the bit. It was in bad taste. However, the student had made themself a public figure...it's clear from his screen capture that the student was giving a televised interview, and though I did not see the interview, the context implied that he was an activist on the whole transgender bathroom issue. Is the joke Milo cracked really that much different than making fun of say Bill O'Really for being unattractive because you disagree with his politics? Or Trumps ridiculous hairstyle?
Is the left really willing to embrace violence, destruction, and maybe over something like this?
Ultimately, it's rankly inappropriate behavior from an invited speaker on a campus. I don't think "the left" is embracing violence and destruction any more than "the right" is on the whole, particularly when the people actually engaged in the violence are generally reported as being outside elements not part of the main protest group. If we're going to accuse the left of embracing violence over something like this, well, again, did we forget that there was literally an armed takeover of a federal facility by extreme right wing elements just a year ago that resulted in a fatality after a car chase and federal charges as opposed to some public disorder arrests?
feeder wrote: As was already explained in the previous thread, it's not "the left" that is doing this. It is a minority within a minority within a minority.
You're falling for outrage clickbait.
Thanks for your opinion. If the thuggish behavior we are witnessing were isolated and condemned, I might be more conciliatory on this point, but it's part of a pattern, and I see more support for it on the left than condemnation.
feeder wrote: As was already explained in the previous thread, it's not "the left" that is doing this. It is a minority within a minority within a minority.
You're falling for outrage clickbait.
Thanks for your opinion. If the thuggish behavior we see from the elect were isolated and condemned, I might be more conciliatory on this point, but it's part of a pattern.
By that logic every talking head who says "denounce the racists or your racist too" is completely correct and everyone on the right is racist cause the right spends a lot of time apologizing for racists.
The party of personal responsibility, alive and well 2017.
Vaktathi wrote: did we forget that there was literally an armed takeover of a federal facility by extreme right wing elements just a year ago that resulted in a fatality after a car chase and federal charges as opposed to some public disorder arrests?
What I didn't forget was the elected Republicans who supported them, and therefore all Republicans support the violent overthrow of the United States Federal Government.
Ultimately, it's rankly inappropriate behavior from an invited speaker on a campus. I don't think "the left" is embracing violence and destruction any more than "the right" is on the whole, particularly when the people actually engaged in the violence are generally reported as being outside elements not part of the main protest group. If we're going to accuse the left of embracing violence over something like this, well, again, did we forget that there was literally an armed takeover of a federal facility by extreme right wing elements just a year ago that resulted in a fatality after a car chase and federal charges as opposed to some public disorder arrests?
I believe this kind of behavior should be condemned wherever it is found, and I think the fact that the thugs in Oregon got away with what they did is a travesty of justice.
I sincerely hope you are correct that this kind of behavior is not becoming mainstream on the left.
feeder wrote: As was already explained in the previous thread, it's not "the left" that is doing this. It is a minority within a minority within a minority.
You're falling for outrage clickbait.
Thanks for your opinion. If the thuggish behavior we are witnessing were isolated and condemned, I might be more conciliatory on this point, but it's part of a pattern, and I see more support for it on the left than condemnation.
It is isolated and condemned. It's dozens of people at a rally of thousands. Not many people on "the left" are lining up to give these guys high-fives.
Outrage clickbait is certainly trying to paint this as some kind of epidemic, though.
feeder wrote: As was already explained in the previous thread, it's not "the left" that is doing this. It is a minority within a minority within a minority.
You're falling for outrage clickbait.
Thanks for your opinion. If the thuggish behavior we see from the elect were isolated and condemned, I might be more conciliatory on this point, but it's part of a pattern.
Sure there' a pattern, but it's an explainable one. What happened at Berkeley appears to match very closely from what happened in Portland, the main protest group did it's thing and the "feth everything just because" crowd used it as cover to trash the "snobby liberal" hangout places
Ultimately, it's rankly inappropriate behavior from an invited speaker on a campus. I don't think "the left" is embracing violence and destruction any more than "the right" is on the whole, particularly when the people actually engaged in the violence are generally reported as being outside elements not part of the main protest group. If we're going to accuse the left of embracing violence over something like this, well, again, did we forget that there was literally an armed takeover of a federal facility by extreme right wing elements just a year ago that resulted in a fatality after a car chase and federal charges as opposed to some public disorder arrests?
I believe this kind of behavior should be condemned wherever it is found, and I think the fact that the thugs in Oregon got away with what they did is a travesty of justice.
I sincerely hope you are correct that this kind of behavior is not becoming mainstream on the left.
I don't think there's evidence that this kind of behavior is mainstream on either side. We're seeing handfuls of idiots out of thousands or tens of thousands of people being made out like they're the whole. When all the stuff in Portland went down after the election, there was 5 digits worth of protestors and only a few dozen people causing issues.
It is isolated and condemned. It's dozens of people at a rally of thousands. Not many people on "the left" are lining up to give these guys high-fives.
Outrage clickbait is certainly trying to paint this as some kind of epidemic, though.
I hope your correct. My social media feeds are full of lefties, and most who comment are hailing UC Berkeley as some kind of moral and political victory. And I've see this expressed on dakka as well, although admittedly nothing like a majority of folk.
Is the left really willing to embrace or condone violence, destruction, and mayhem over something like this?
Is the right really willing to hyper-politicize stupidity by screaming at the top of its lungs "fall in line or you're just as bad as them"?
Who is doing this?
As a liberal, I don't condone it. I think it is immature. Like children react when they have no other way to express their displeasure. As a liberal I am not among them. Don't pin it on liberals. Too broad of a brush and sort of a childish way to frame it. Were these liberals, sure. Does that describe liberals? Nope. Just like I don't use Yayaplishbrush to describe conservatives. Too easy and cheap and lacking in thought as to what makes them disagree with me.
feeder wrote: As was already explained in the previous thread, it's not "the left" that is doing this. It is a minority within a minority within a minority.
You're falling for outrage clickbait.
Thanks for your opinion. If the thuggish behavior we see from the elect were isolated and condemned, I might be more conciliatory on this point, but it's part of a pattern.
Sure there' a pattern, but it's an explainable one. What happened at Berkeley appears to match very closely from what happened in Portland, the main protest group did it's thing and the "feth everything just because" crowd used it as cover to trash the "snobby liberal" hangout places
Ultimately, it's rankly inappropriate behavior from an invited speaker on a campus. I don't think "the left" is embracing violence and destruction any more than "the right" is on the whole, particularly when the people actually engaged in the violence are generally reported as being outside elements not part of the main protest group. If we're going to accuse the left of embracing violence over something like this, well, again, did we forget that there was literally an armed takeover of a federal facility by extreme right wing elements just a year ago that resulted in a fatality after a car chase and federal charges as opposed to some public disorder arrests?
I believe this kind of behavior should be condemned wherever it is found, and I think the fact that the thugs in Oregon got away with what they did is a travesty of justice.
I sincerely hope you are correct that this kind of behavior is not becoming mainstream on the left.
I don't think there's evidence that this kind of behavior is mainstream on either side. We're seeing handfuls of idiots out of thousands or tens of thousands of people being made out like they're the whole. When all the stuff in Portland went down after the election, there was 5 digits worth of protestors and only a few dozen people causing issues.
Seems to fit the horseshoe theory. (Thanks Shadow Captain Edithae for introducing me this theory before the thread was locked)
I sincerely hope that you're right that these actions and attitudes are not becoming mainstream anywhere.
It is isolated and condemned. It's dozens of people at a rally of thousands. Not many people on "the left" are lining up to give these guys high-fives.
Outrage clickbait is certainly trying to paint this as some kind of epidemic, though.
I hope your correct. My social media feeds are full of lefties, and most who comment are hailing UC Berkeley as some kind of moral and political victory. And I've see this expressed on dakka as well, although admittedly nothing like a majority of folk.
I've seen no one celebrating the vandalism and hooliganism here. It's not okay when some gakhead is coming to your school speak gak out his gakhole, it's not okay when 1/5th of the country elects a narcissistic clownshow president, and it's not okay even when your hockey team loses the Stanley Cup in game 7.
Shutting up Milo (peaceably) is something I can get behind, though. If karma exists that gakhead is getting cancer of the larynx.
As a liberal, I don't condone it. I think it is immature. Like children react when they have no other way to express their displeasure. As a liberal I am not among them. Don't pin it on liberals. Too broad of a brush and sort of a childish way to frame it. Were these liberals, sure. Does that describe liberals? Nope. Just like I don't use Yayaplishbrush to describe conservatives. Too easy and cheap and lacking in thought as to what makes them disagree with me.
Point taken. I was will heretofore refer to it as a "trend on the left" rather than just "the left". I won't pretend like its not going on. I am as a liberal as well and I don't want these kinds of actions and attitudes taking over, lest we become the very thing we're supposed to stand against.
Yeah, the more extreme you get, the closer the behavior and justifications on both ends become even if the aims are different, and a lot of these people doing the actual rioting in these places are just in it for the excuse to trash stuff and have no real aims other than "feth the system", despite having no idea what "the system" actually is or really what the protests are about. The Women's March (at least in Portland) was reasonably well organized and coordinated with the police and they were able to prevent any issues like they'd had with previous protests with those kinds of elements.
feeder wrote: Shutting up Milo (peaceably) is something I can get behind, though.
I'm all for people's right to protest and assemble peacefully. I'm also for students rights to hire the speakers they want and for them to assemble peacefully, as well.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah, the more extreme you get, the closer the behavior and justifications on both ends become even if the aims are different, and a lot of these people doing the actual rioting in these places are just in it for the excuse to trash stuff and have no real aims other than "feth the system", despite having no idea what "the system" actually is or really what the protests are about. The Women's March (at least in Portland) was reasonably well organized and coordinated with the police and they were able to prevent any issues like they'd had with previous protests with those kinds of elements.
Well yeah, there was a few thousand Moms present. You don't act the fool in front of your Mom.
It is isolated and condemned. It's dozens of people at a rally of thousands. Not many people on "the left" are lining up to give these guys high-fives.
Outrage clickbait is certainly trying to paint this as some kind of epidemic, though.
I hope your correct. My social media feeds are full of lefties, and most who comment are hailing UC Berkeley as some kind of moral and political victory. And I've see this expressed on dakka as well, although admittedly nothing like a majority of folk.
I've seen no one celebrating the vandalism and hooliganism here. It's not okay when some gakhead is coming to your school speak gak out his gakhole, it's not okay when 1/5th of the country elects a narcissistic clownshow president, and it's not okay even when your hockey team loses the Stanley Cup in game 7.
Shutting up Milo (peaceably) is something I can get behind, though. If karma exists that gakhead is getting cancer of the larynx.
There were some posters here on Dakka saying it was acceptable to punch people out because of what they say.
It is isolated and condemned. It's dozens of people at a rally of thousands. Not many people on "the left" are lining up to give these guys high-fives.
Outrage clickbait is certainly trying to paint this as some kind of epidemic, though.
I hope your correct. My social media feeds are full of lefties, and most who comment are hailing UC Berkeley as some kind of moral and political victory. And I've see this expressed on dakka as well, although admittedly nothing like a majority of folk.
I've seen no one celebrating the vandalism and hooliganism here. It's not okay when some gakhead is coming to your school speak gak out his gakhole, it's not okay when 1/5th of the country elects a narcissistic clownshow president, and it's not okay even when your hockey team loses the Stanley Cup in game 7.
Shutting up Milo (peaceably) is something I can get behind, though. If karma exists that gakhead is getting cancer of the larynx.
There were some posters here on Dakka saying it was acceptable to punch people out because of what they say.
Yeah, Nazi-punching is morally but not legally justified. Captain America and Indiana Jones started their careers doing just that.
But you're mistaken if you think that isn't an extremely specific corner case, and not a general acceptance of violence when someone doesn't agree with your point of view.
Regarding Milo and his joke, a point I have is: do people just need to grow thicker skin?
If you choose to make yourself a public figure, you open yourself up to ridicule. The left does it, the right does it. It's a story as old as America.
I think if Milo had chosen to attack an anonymous student, his joke would have been abhorrent. But the student he attacked did make a choice to become a public figure on the issue of transgender bathrooms.
It seems to me it's overly sensitive to make yourself a public figure, and then cry foul when someone in the public decides to make fun.
Am I way off here? I mean, people ridicule right-wingers as a matter of course.
jasper76 wrote: Regarding Milo and his joke, a point I have is: do people just need to grow thicker skin?
If you choose to make yourself a public figure, you open yourself up to ridicule. The left does it, the right does it. It's a story as old as America.
I think if Milo had chosen to attack an anonymous student, his joke would have been abhorrent. But the student he attacked did make a choice to become a public figure on the issue of transgender bathrooms.
It seems to me it's overly sensitive to make yourself a public figure, and then cry foul when someone in the public decides to make fun.
Am I way off here? I mean, people ridicule right-wingers as a matter of course.
Seriously. Obama mocked Special Olympians on Jay Leno and the audiance laughed.
jasper76 wrote: Regarding Milo and his joke, a point I have is: do people just need to grow thicker skin?
If you choose to make yourself a public figure, you open yourself up to ridicule. The left does it, the right does it. It's a story as old as America.
I think if Milo had chosen to attack an anonymous student, his joke would have been abhorrent. But the student he attacked did make a choice to become a public figure on the issue of transgender bathrooms.
It seems to me it's overly sensitive to make yourself a public figure, and then cry foul when someone in the public decides to make fun.
Am I way off here? I mean, people ridicule right-wingers as a matter of course.
I'd guess it's the difference between poking fun and being genuinely horrible and offensive.
I might suggest that some are according the subject of Milo's ridicule the kind of protection that we afford to children. Most people agree that it's socially unacceptable to ridicule a child, because they are seen generally as unaccountable for their actions and decisions...they are not yet mature enough to know what they are doing, or face the adult consequences of what they decide to do, so we back off and let kids be kids.
Should typical college age students be afforded the same kind of protections?
I dunno, could be all off here, but the guy sews discord and hate. He has already managed to get one one thread locked and a few posters on vacation here. Just please ignore the turd bucket and the reaction he gets, it only serves to feed what he does and evoke stronger counter reactions. Just shut up about him and move on already. I've spent way more of my time reading about him than he deserves in this thread. Get a new hobby horse to back. I, for my part, will not respond any longer to any post where he is the subject or cause. I suggest others do the same unless we want this one locked as well.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I don't think it will even affect the moderates, to be honest.
It will, it obviously will. Not likely in making them more Muslim, or more proponent of violent Islam, no. But it will obviously and very deeply taint their vision of the US and it's government. It has such a huge impact on many people's life for no reason beside bigotry and ignorance…
Sentinel1 wrote: At least it shows Trump wants to cut down the possibility of foreign terrorism occurring on American soil, if the results are extremely limited of being effective.
Does it shows that he wants to cut that down and is terribly incompetent (not blocking countries that send terrorists), or does that show he is competent but unwilling? Got to pick one but you have to admit in any case it makes him a terrible choice.
feeder wrote: There is an issue of perception of refugee terrorism in the US, and this Muslim ban addresses those fears though.
Remember, my feelings on a subject are just as important as your facts on that same subject.
This last sentence is a way to mock proponent of the ban?
whembly wrote: As for why those 7 countries, they were identified by previous administration where the usual vetting process are challenged, which the current administration chose to use for this EO.
What were those countries identified as? Countries where the government is hostile to the US? Then yeah, that makes sense. Countries which citizens should be barred from entering the US? Hell no, Obama wasn't that dumb. Doesn't matter if Trump wrote that list or if he took a list that was made for an entirely different purpose, it's still 100% him being a stupid evil person. [edit]I said stupid evil person, will I be banned for Rule #1? Suspense I never know. Others have said worse about Trump but that's not enough to show I won't be suspended for it. I feel like I'm playing Russian roulette.[/edit]
Gordon Shumway wrote: I dunno, could be all off here, but the guy sews discord and hate. He has already managed to get one one thread locked and a few posters on vacation here. Just please ignore the turd bucket and the reaction he gets, it only serves to feed what he does and evoke stronger counter reactions. Just shut up about him and move on already. I've spent way more of my time reading about him than he deserves in this thread. Get a new hobby horse to back. I, for my part, will not respond any longer to any post where he is the subject or cause. I suggest others do the same unless we want this one locked as well.
Fair enough, for my part I actually think the effect of his college tour and the reactions it is causing are provoking debates that our country actually needs to have. Do we really value free speech? Freedom of assembly? Has progressive culture overreached? Are we fighting perpetual battles that have already been won? Are college age adults really still children? Stuff like that is fascinating to me, and I'm not at all afraid of the questions...let's meet them head on. Maybe it takes a crude, offensive, professional provocateur stirring up the pot for us to critically examine our own preconceptions.
My 2 cents, anyways.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Incidentally, I am fundamentally interested in these issues as a means to explain why a figure like Donald Trump could compete in, let alone win a US election.
I think the right has some serious questions to ask itself on the Trump phenomenon. The traditional right has been soundly rejected,and they should also be asking themselves where they went wrong and how and why they were defeated so utterly.
I get the idea of not feeding the trolls, but you get the idea of not shutting up when the trolls start demanding tolls too, right? In all of the stories the trolls don't live long, not because of subservience to them, but because of reaction to them. No, I am not asking for violent reaction to the trolls, just a recognition of where the phrase comes from before the Internet made people quit thinking. They didnt feed the trolls, they killed the trolls.
I think trolling comes from trawling, as in trawling/fishing for victims of internet pranks and is not really what Milo Y.'s doing. He's harassing/outing people and has such nice phrases like "somebody should do something about this", implying further harassment.
Vaktathi wrote:Yeah, the more extreme you get, the closer the behavior and justifications on both ends become even if the aims are different, and a lot of these people doing the actual rioting in these places are just in it for the excuse to trash stuff and have no real aims other than "feth the system", despite having no idea what "the system" actually is or really what the protests are about. The Women's March (at least in Portland) was reasonably well organized and coordinated with the police and they were able to prevent any issues like they'd had with previous protests with those kinds of elements.
There might be some anarchists who are only there to cause chaos but it's more complicated than that. Protesters here in Europe started using black bloc tactics because they couldn't trust the police who regularly try to instigate violence, sexual harass, randomly pepper spraying/tear gas people, guide naive protestors into certain areas "to disperse them and avoid bottlenecks in a march" while actually kettling them to cause panic (works well against first time protestors), destroying phones and trying to destroy videos, randomly arresting people who have done nothing, cause riots so they can crack down on the protest and disrupt peaceful protests instead of keeping the peace like they are supposed to. It doesn't help that the police overall is right leaning while these protestors are usually left leaning. And that tends to escalate especially when you throw in a few anarchsits.
Look at the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. A woman may be losing an arm and another her eye, caused by nonlethal methods. Stuff like rubber bullets which sound like goofy paintball stuff but is made of metal, just coated with rubber. There's this joke that white people in the US finally got a taste of what real protests are like when the Occupy Wall Street protests happened because they finally experienced that the police is protecting power, not people. Anyone remember this guy who got $38,000 for psychological pain and suffering because he pepper sprayed protestors? The actual left (not liberals) have no reason to trust the police when it comes to protests but they usually know what they are getting into when they participate. Liberals who want to help are often not prepared for the police and that can be really sobering/horrifying if you actually expect the police to "protect and serve" in these instances.
The women's march got lucky that it didn't get the same treatment that most other protests do from the police who are usually far more aggressive, no matter how the protest behaves. Sure if you have never been in a one of these protests, only see what they show on TV, and just trust what the police says then all the violence was always caused by protesters and not by the, of course, always calm, even handed, and professional police force. The same police that gets twitchy when a dark skinned man wants to get out his wallet and the same police that would never lie about police brutality but looks to react much more aggressively in interactions with the population now that smartphone cameras are ubiquitous.
I don't think protests/riots will stop being a thing or calm down in the US because, like explained above, it's not just some random anarchists but also the police, and the actual left has started organising in the USA and they don't trust the police to treat them fairly. The cherry on top is that the USA has, with Steve Bannon, an actual white supremacist in the White House (or race realist, or human biodiversity advocate, or whatever new euphemism for racist they have introduced, I just can't keep up with the right wing PC culture). The right is causing much more violence (and actual deaths) than a punched alt-right demagogue here and there, it's just usually explained away as a "frustrated loner" like Dylann Roof or the Quebec Mosque terrorist who were radicalised by alt-right/Nazi rhetoric (for example by people like Milo Y. and Richard Spencer) but that, for some reason, doesn't get so easily attributed to the whole right side of the political spectrum. When the left has mass murderers like these (let's add: in comparable numbers, so we can keep score for the pedants) then people can start throwing around that centrist "both sides are equally bad" and horseshoe theory drivel.
To be fair to the Berkely police, I went to a lot of protests in Berkeley armed because I was worried about my safety (on the Pro-Israel side), and the police never once let those screaming matches break out into violence that I saw...unless you count this one tiny Palestinian lady who went around kicking people's shins. The police were great at avoiding escalation. The events that went crazy were usually the ones you'd never expect, like marches in solitary with the grad student union or the ethnic studies department against budget cuts.
Ustrello wrote: Guys I found a source on the bowling green massacre and it is as horrible as ConJob says it is
Spoiler:
That is just sick and depraved! You will notice the perps wearing the traditional red of the right wing (and commies somehow)
On the point of Milo, having listened to him, he is no more a troll than his counterparts on the left. The issue this election is that the traditional stances of both parties was rejected in favor of someone who *(really could have been anyone) would change things up. the dems have been losing at the state level fairly regularly until they got swept out of the federal side (not surprising for the incumbent party in the white house) and their response is to double down on what made them lose, sure it is popular with their constituents, but when you look at it, both parties are being hijacked by their extreme elements. consider how a rubio v webb, or omalley v bush election would have been.
On the point of Milo, having listened to him, he is no more a troll than his counterparts on the left. The issue this election is that the traditional stances of both parties was rejected in favor of someone who *(really could have been anyone) would change things up. the dems have been losing at the state level fairly regularly until they got swept out of the federal side (not surprising for the incumbent party in the white house) and their response is to double down on what made them lose, sure it is popular with their constituents, but when you look at it, both parties are being hijacked by their extreme elements. consider how a rubio v webb, or omalley v bush election would have been.
One of my sincere hopes is that out of all this political turmoil, a new center will arise that actually represents the majority of Americans...one that abandons issues of yesteryear and focuses instead on our current common ground.
I get the idea of not feeding the trolls, but you get the idea of not shutting up when the trolls start demanding tolls too, right? In all of the stories the trolls don't live long, not because of subservience to them, but because of reaction to them. No, I am not asking for violent reaction to the trolls, just a recognition of where the phrase comes from before the Internet made people quit thinking. They didnt feed the trolls, they killed the trolls.
I think trolling comes from trawling, as in trawling/fishing for victims of internet pranks and is not really what Milo Y.'s doing. He's harassing/outing people and has such nice phrases like "somebody should do something about this", implying further harassment.
Vaktathi wrote:Yeah, the more extreme you get, the closer the behavior and justifications on both ends become even if the aims are different, and a lot of these people doing the actual rioting in these places are just in it for the excuse to trash stuff and have no real aims other than "feth the system", despite having no idea what "the system" actually is or really what the protests are about. The Women's March (at least in Portland) was reasonably well organized and coordinated with the police and they were able to prevent any issues like they'd had with previous protests with those kinds of elements.
There might be some anarchists who are only there to cause chaos but it's more complicated than that. Protesters here in Europe started using black bloc tactics because they couldn't trust the police who regularly try to instigate violence, sexual harass, randomly pepper spraying/tear gas people, guide naive protestors into certain areas "to disperse them and avoid bottlenecks in a march" while actually kettling them to cause panic (works well against first time protestors), destroying phones and trying to destroy videos, randomly arresting people who have done nothing, cause riots so they can crack down on the protest and disrupt peaceful protests instead of keeping the peace like they are supposed to. It doesn't help that the police overall is right leaning while these protestors are usually left leaning. And that tends to escalate especially when you throw in a few anarchsits.
Look at the Dakota Access Pipeline protests. A woman may be losing an arm and another her eye, caused by nonlethal methods. Stuff like rubber bullets which sound like goofy paintball stuff but is made of metal, just coated with rubber. There's this joke that white people in the US finally got a taste of what real protests are like when the Occupy Wall Street protests happened because they finally experienced that the police is protecting power, not people. Anyone remember this guy who got $38,000 for psychological pain and suffering because he pepper sprayed protestors? The actual left (not liberals) have no reason to trust the police when it comes to protests but they usually know what they are getting into when they participate. Liberals who want to help are often not prepared for the police and that can be really sobering/horrifying if you actually expect the police to "protect and serve" in these instances.
The women's march got lucky that it didn't get the same treatment that most other protests do from the police who are usually far more aggressive, no matter how the protest behaves. Sure if you have never been in a one of these protests, only see what they show on TV, and just trust what the police says then all the violence was always caused by protesters and not by the, of course, always calm, even handed, and professional police force. The same police that gets twitchy when a dark skinned man wants to get out his wallet and the same police that would never lie about police brutality but looks to react much more aggressively in interactions with the population now that smartphone cameras are ubiquitous.
I don't think protests/riots will stop being a thing or calm down in the US because, like explained above, it's not just some random anarchists but also the police, and the actual left has started organising in the USA and they don't trust the police to treat them fairly. The cherry on top is that the USA has, with Steve Bannon, an actual white supremacist in the White House (or race realist, or human biodiversity advocate, or whatever new euphemism for racist they have introduced, I just can't keep up with the right wing PC culture). The right is causing much more violence (and actual deaths) than a punched alt-right demagogue here and there, it's just usually explained away as a "frustrated loner" like Dylann Roof or the Quebec Mosque terrorist who were radicalised by alt-right/Nazi rhetoric (for example by people like Milo Y. and Richard Spencer) but that, for some reason, doesn't get so easily attributed to the whole right side of the political spectrum. When the left has mass murderers like these (let's add: in comparable numbers, so we can keep score for the pedants) then people can start throwing around that centrist "both sides are equally bad" and horseshoe theory drivel.
There is certainly truth in here. There is this strange thing where even peaceful, constitutionally protected protests are looked at with disdain from the "law and order" types. With the mere act of protest, making fuss, inconveniencing others is looked at negatively, because it upsets the Status-Quo.
Now we certainly have problems with people like anarchists and some far-leftists types (i.e. actual communists) causing violence (although it should be noted that violent 1st world communists are well in the minority). But that is exsaerbated by how protests are treated and viewed. And how certain news organizations would rather report on the vast minority of violent ones, rather than all the non-violent ones.
Biden would have won in a landslide, against any of them. But we really as a nation had no right to ask him or his family to sacrifice any more than they already had.
On the point of Milo, having listened to him, he is no more a troll than his counterparts on the left. The issue this election is that the traditional stances of both parties was rejected in favor of someone who *(really could have been anyone) would change things up. the dems have been losing at the state level fairly regularly until they got swept out of the federal side (not surprising for the incumbent party in the white house) and their response is to double down on what made them lose, sure it is popular with their constituents, but when you look at it, both parties are being hijacked by their extreme elements. consider how a rubio v webb, or omalley v bush election would have been.
One of my sincere hopes is that out of all this political turmoil, a new center will arise that actually represents the majority of Americans...one that abandons issues of yesteryear and focuses instead on our current common ground.
It would take a good number of centrist pubs and dems to break off, but a moderate party that could compromise on things would keep the far left and far right in the fringes where they belong. But what we really need is to stop looking at each other with contempt and condescension, its pretty obvious that the left and right despise one another.
Co'tor Shas wrote: There is this strange thing where even peaceful, constitutionally protected protests are looked at with disdain from the "law and order" types. With the mere act of protest, making fuss, inconveniencing others is looked at negatively, because it upsets the Status-Quo.
This likely won't be a popular thing to say here, but here I go: If protests are staged too frequently, almost daily, which I suggest to you too is becoming the case, then protests won't be taken seriously, because they lose their shock value, and average workaday citizens who also have it hard will perceive them as mere whining.
It would take a good number of centrist pubs and dems to break off, but a moderate party that could compromise on things would keep the far left and far right in the fringes where they belong. But what we really need is to stop looking at each other with contempt and condescension, its pretty obvious that the left and right despise one another.
I agree. I have lived more than four decades and less than five and I have never experienced this kind of hatred between right and left.
And I don't think any of it is necessary if we can figure out what our common issues are and elect represtenatives who focus on those issues.
thekingofkings wrote: the dems have been losing at the state level fairly regularly until they got swept out of the federal side (not surprising for the incumbent party in the white house) and their response is to double down on what made them lose
Democrats are primarily losing because of two things that have little to do with policy:
1) Gerrymandering. For example, here in NC our legislature is way more republican-dominated than the state as a whole, because the republican party got into power once and then immediately redrew all the districts to favor themselves.
2) The natural back and forth swing between parties. The democrats had strong majorities in congress at the peak of Obama's popularity, but the red states/districts they flipped probably weren't sustainable no matter what happened and things gradually went back to normal. The pattern will probably repeat itself over the next few years, Trump's failures will result in a swing the other way and the republicans probably won't hold all the seats they got in 2016.
A real contest for a change? I bet that Biden would even win the popular vote by, like, millions.
I would've voted for Biden over Trump...
I know you believe that, but we all saw how your NeverTrump worked out, and all I can conclude is your social network and news sources would have had the same influence on you they did in real life.
A real contest for a change? I bet that Biden would even win the popular vote by, like, millions.
I would've voted for Biden over Trump...
I know you believe that, but we all saw how your NeverTrump worked out, and all I can conclude is your social network and news sources would have had the same influence on you they did in real life.
If the man says he would have voted for Biden, why don't you believe him?
thekingofkings wrote: the dems have been losing at the state level fairly regularly until they got swept out of the federal side (not surprising for the incumbent party in the white house) and their response is to double down on what made them lose
Democrats are primarily losing because of two things that have little to do with policy:
1) Gerrymandering. For example, here in NC our legislature is way more republican-dominated than the state as a whole, because the republican party got into power once and then immediately redrew all the districts to favor themselves.
2) The natural back and forth swing between parties. The democrats had strong majorities in congress at the peak of Obama's popularity, but the red states/districts they flipped probably weren't sustainable no matter what happened and things gradually went back to normal. The pattern will probably repeat itself over the next few years, Trump's failures will result in a swing the other way and the republicans probably won't hold all the seats they got in 2016.
I dont fully agree on your first point as both groups gerrymander the heck out of their states, look at colorado, mostly blue, almost always goes blue, but has a lot of republicans. but more to the point, it would not matter if they could appeal to more people. there are not that many "rednecks" all over the country who will never vote dem. even in indiana there is a democratic senator.
If the man says he would have voted for Biden, why don't you believe him?
Swatting away olive branches is not a virtue.
1. Experience. If Biden had run, the GOP would have tied the next Benghazi or email gate to him during the campaign and we'd have seen the same "both bad" logic leading into the same "politics is a blood sport" team rallying and the exact same finish as we have now.
2. It's not an olive branch. It's the same kind of concern-trolling, "If your side had just done this thing it didn't do, I would totally have respected that" BS. It's the same logic game kids play when they say, "I would have shared with you the toy if you hadn't asked for it." That's a mind game, not an olive branch.
If the man says he would have voted for Biden, why don't you believe him?
Swatting away olive branches is not a virtue.
1. Experience. If Biden had run, the GOP would have tied the next Benghazi or email gate to him during the campaign and we'd have seen the same "both bad" logic leading into the same "politics is a blood sport" team rallying and the exact same finish as we have now.
2. It's not an olive branch. It's the same kind of concern-trolling, "If your side had just done this thing it didn't do, I would totally have respected that" BS. It's the same logic game kids play when they say, "I would have shared with you the toy if you hadn't asked for it." That's a mind game, not an olive branch.
I think you may be underestimating the appeal of Biden. There are a lot of us that supported Johnson that would readily have voted Biden.
If the man says he would have voted for Biden, why don't you believe him?
Swatting away olive branches is not a virtue.
1. Experience. If Biden had run, the GOP would have tied the next Benghazi or email gate to him during the campaign and we'd have seen the same "both bad" logic leading into the same "politics is a blood sport" team rallying and the exact same finish as we have now.
2. It's not an olive branch. It's the same kind of concern-trolling, "If your side had just done this thing it didn't do, I would totally have respected that" BS. It's the same logic game kids play when they say, "I would have shared with you the toy if you hadn't asked for it." That's a mind game, not an olive branch.
I think you are reaching, but I won't continue to White Knight for Whembley, who I know through my own experience can speak perfectly well for himself.
So regarding the travel ban, Federal judge says no and stopped the order nationwide.
Federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Washington state, temporarily stopped the order. US Customs and Border Protection then alerted airlines the US government would quickly begin reinstating visas that were previously canceled, and CBP advised airlines that refugees that are in possession of US visas will be admitted as well, an airline executive said.
Federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Washington state, temporarily stopped the order. US Customs and Border Protection then alerted airlines the US government would quickly begin reinstating visas that were previously canceled, and CBP advised airlines that refugees that are in possession of US visas will be admitted as well, an airline executive said.
I believe it is about the 5th or 6th, but the others are all state level, and the White House has stated that states do not have the authority to challenge executive orders. That is why it is significant that this is a federal level decision.
Kilkrazy wrote: I believe it is about the 5th or 6th, but the others are all state level, and the White House has stated that states do not have the authority to challenge executive orders. That is why it is significant that this is a federal level decision.
Popcorn ready...let the games begin!
Let's see if the Trump phenomenon has destroyed the Judiciary, as well...
Federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Washington state, temporarily stopped the order. US Customs and Border Protection then alerted airlines the US government would quickly begin reinstating visas that were previously canceled, and CBP advised airlines that refugees that are in possession of US visas will be admitted as well, an airline executive said.
Apparently alliances with the two are on really rocky ground after Trump threatened them but the real issue is that someone leaked them. Sending our guys in the military to Mexico is just fine and dandy but someone letting people know that threatening to go in there militarily is what is wrong. Don't worry though Trump let evangelicals know everything is super awesome and not to worry about it. I wouldn't worry as we don't need to be allies with Australia or Mexico when we have Russia to give us a little something something.
I had to google that guy. Same alma mater as my brother! I don't read a lot of Vice. Is it particularly right wing?
Vice is not particularly right wing, more "counter culture" in general, they do have some pretty good stuff, however McInnes doesn't have a relationship with them anymore, he's moved on to becoming a professional controversy generator/troll like Yiannopolous, a part of their livelyhood is generating exactly this kind of reaction, which also appears to be missed in the conversation.
The existence of provocateurs does not justify violence.
First Amendment rights don't vanish when someone says something you disagree with...in fact, that's when it's actually meaningful.
Does doxing students who attend the venue of the speech who you claim are undocumented and instructing your audience how to go about doing the same thing count as "free speech" for you then? Because apparently that was going to be a big feature of Milo the Muppet's wee show.
First Amendment rights protect you from being silenced by the government or their institutions and agents, that's it, and that's all they should ever do. You do not have a right to be heard, and you don't have a right to state your views unopposed - all forms of peaceful protest, up to and including disruption of events, are legitimate. But once again the presence of a small minority of violent thugs at an otherwise peaceful and IMO entirely justified protest are being used to smear "the left" collectively. Unsurprising of course, double-standards are a way of life for the right - minority(in the numerical sense) violence at a left-leaning protest immediately condemns the entire left as free speech-hating riotous monsters, the whole left are collectively responsible for a tiny handful of nutters on Tumblr, every Muslim is by default responsible in some way for every Muslim terrorist, but woe be-fricking-tide anyone who dares suggest the right bears any responsibility for its own extremist elements; all right-wing terrorists are "lone wolves", all right-wing paranoid militias are isolated cases, and Milo and his chums, the right-wing equivalent of overzealous college student groups and aggressive Tumblerinas, they're just "provocateurs".
I could very well be wrong, but for all Trump's blunt action, there is a sly individual behind that persona. I think he will push things as far as they can go, but I don't think he will impeach himself soon. If he does get impeachment it would have to be over Nixon style scandal which hasn't happened yet...
jasper76 wrote: I agree. I have lived more than four decades and less than five and I have never experienced this kind of hatred between right and left.
Are you sure it's not just the internet blurring your perspective?
I've never really paid attention to American politics across the span of my life so I don't really have an idea what it used to be like, but my understanding was politics was always one of those topics you bring up when you want start a fight and get everyone hating each other Isn't it historically one of those "topics you don't bring up at a dinner party" things?
If the man says he would have voted for Biden, why don't you believe him?
Swatting away olive branches is not a virtue.
1. Experience. If Biden had run, the GOP would have tied the next Benghazi or email gate to him during the campaign and we'd have seen the same "both bad" logic leading into the same "politics is a blood sport" team rallying and the exact same finish as we have now.
2. It's not an olive branch. It's the same kind of concern-trolling, "If your side had just done this thing it didn't do, I would totally have respected that" BS. It's the same logic game kids play when they say, "I would have shared with you the toy if you hadn't asked for it." That's a mind game, not an olive branch.
I think you may be underestimating the appeal of Biden. There are a lot of us that supported Johnson that would readily have voted Biden.
Perhaps. I remember how the Republicans viewed him in 2008, as a gaff-prone, salty bumbler with his foot constantly in his mouth. No matter how much respect he seems to have gained, I'm fairly confident that a month of solid mud-flinging by Fox and Breitbart would ring the old Pavlovian bells and produce the same results. We are talking about a party of people who fell in line for Donald Trump fairly quickly despite most of them having seen him as an unqualified joke of a candidate. At this point, I will openly assume that any Trump voter who pretends he would have voted for X (as long as X wasn't a real option) is just covering his shame and shifting blame.
I had to google that guy. Same alma mater as my brother! I don't read a lot of Vice. Is it particularly right wing?
Vice is not particularly right wing, more "counter culture" in general, they do have some pretty good stuff, however McInnes doesn't have a relationship with them anymore, he's moved on to becoming a professional controversy generator/troll like Yiannopolous, a part of their livelyhood is generating exactly this kind of reaction, which also appears to be missed in the conversation.
The existence of provocateurs does not justify violence.
First Amendment rights don't vanish when someone says something you disagree with...in fact, that's when it's actually meaningful.
Does doxing students who attend the venue of the speech who you claim are undocumented and instructing your audience how to go about doing the same thing count as "free speech" for you then? Because apparently that was going to be a big feature of Milo the Muppet's wee show.
First Amendment rights protect you from being silenced by the government or their institutions and agents, that's it, and that's all they should ever do. You do not have a right to be heard, and you don't have a right to state your views unopposed - all forms of peaceful protest, up to and including disruption of events, are legitimate. But once again the presence of a small minority of violent thugs at an otherwise peaceful and IMO entirely justified protest are being used to smear "the left" collectively. Unsurprising of course, double-standards are a way of life for the right - minority(in the numerical sense) violence at a left-leaning protest immediately condemns the entire left as free speech-hating riotous monsters, the whole left are collectively responsible for a tiny handful of nutters on Tumblr, every Muslim is by default responsible in some way for every Muslim terrorist, but woe be-fricking-tide anyone who dares suggest the right bears any responsibility for its own extremist elements; all right-wing terrorists are "lone wolves", all right-wing paranoid militias are isolated cases, and Milo and his chums, the right-wing equivalent of overzealous college student groups and aggressive Tumblerinas, they're just "provocateurs".
I think your being a bit excessive by generalising that all right thinkers in politics are condemnable for being bigoted reactionists that blame the Left movement for everything bar Muslims who are terrorists? There are just as many extremist in the Left as the right. Each blame the other with excessive provoking comments. I do not disagree with the first half of your statement as you are pretty precise.
I could very well be wrong, but for all Trump's blunt action, there is a sly individual behind that persona.
I thought so as well during the election campaign, but his actions since inauguration leads me to believe that's giving him too much credit. Too me it looks a lot more like genuine incompetence rather than a facade of bluster.
There could be some minds pulling the strings behind the throne though, but I don't think Trump is aware of it himself, if so.
If the man says he would have voted for Biden, why don't you believe him?
Swatting away olive branches is not a virtue.
1. Experience. If Biden had run, the GOP would have tied the next Benghazi or email gate to him during the campaign and we'd have seen the same "both bad" logic leading into the same "politics is a blood sport" team rallying and the exact same finish as we have now.
2. It's not an olive branch. It's the same kind of concern-trolling, "If your side had just done this thing it didn't do, I would totally have respected that" BS. It's the same logic game kids play when they say, "I would have shared with you the toy if you hadn't asked for it." That's a mind game, not an olive branch.
I think you may be underestimating the appeal of Biden. There are a lot of us that supported Johnson that would readily have voted Biden.
I think you are reaching, but I won't continue to White Knight for Whembley, who I know through my own experience can speak perfectly well for himself.
Federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Washington state, temporarily stopped the order. US Customs and Border Protection then alerted airlines the US government would quickly begin reinstating visas that were previously canceled, and CBP advised airlines that refugees that are in possession of US visas will be admitted as well, an airline executive said.
Weird... after reading the order, the judge doesn't even go into the merits of the TRO.... meaning, *why* the TRO is justified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I believe it is about the 5th or 6th, but the others are all state level, and the White House has stated that states do not have the authority to challenge executive orders. That is why it is significant that this is a federal level decision.
TX and AZ state has sued the Obama Whitehouse over their non-enforcement of federal immigration laws.
The SCOTUS threw out those cases simply stating that the states doesn't have standing, as the Constitution only refers the federal Congress and Executive the full authority of immigration.
This TRO will likely get thrown out for the same reasons.
Federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Washington state, temporarily stopped the order. US Customs and Border Protection then alerted airlines the US government would quickly begin reinstating visas that were previously canceled, and CBP advised airlines that refugees that are in possession of US visas will be admitted as well, an airline executive said.
Is there the possibility of the US government getting sued by people whose plans (holiday/new job etc.) were affected by the denial of visas?
Possible? Yep... happens all the time on the lower courts... will they prevail? Nope.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Trump is handling the ruling gracefully as expected...
They're following the TRO, but loudly condemning it while appealing...
Unlike Obama's administration who refused the judge over the DACA cases... (and was held in contempt)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
wuestenfux wrote: I wonder if Trump has ever heard something about checks and balances or separation of powers. I guess he wants to rule like a strongman.
If that were true... he wouldn't have nominated Gorsuch.
Justice Gorsuch luuuuuurrrrrrve the Separation of Powers and has jealously ruled in such fashion in the past.
If the man says he would have voted for Biden, why don't you believe him?
Swatting away olive branches is not a virtue.
1. Experience. If Biden had run, the GOP would have tied the next Benghazi or email gate to him during the campaign and we'd have seen the same "both bad" logic leading into the same "politics is a blood sport" team rallying and the exact same finish as we have now.
2. It's not an olive branch. It's the same kind of concern-trolling, "If your side had just done this thing it didn't do, I would totally have respected that" BS. It's the same logic game kids play when they say, "I would have shared with you the toy if you hadn't asked for it." That's a mind game, not an olive branch.
I think you may be underestimating the appeal of Biden. There are a lot of us that supported Johnson that would readily have voted Biden.
Perhaps. I remember how the Republicans viewed him in 2008, as a gaff-prone, salty bumbler with his foot constantly in his mouth. No matter how much respect he seems to have gained, I'm fairly confident that a month of solid mud-flinging by Fox and Breitbart would ring the old Pavlovian bells and produce the same results. We are talking about a party of people who fell in line for Donald Trump fairly quickly despite most of them having seen him as an unqualified joke of a candidate. At this point, I will openly assume that any Trump voter who pretends he would have voted for X (as long as X wasn't a real option) is just covering his shame and shifting blame.
Biden's faults are baked in... we all know this.
But, the one thing Biden does really well, is that he's an endearing figure.... probably moreso than George H.W. Bush. Yes, he'll gaffe here and there, but it'll largely be inured due to Drumpf's daily diarrhea and the fact that he'll pull in more of those 'missing Democrat' voters that didn't pull the lever for Clinton.
Federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Washington state, temporarily stopped the order. US Customs and Border Protection then alerted airlines the US government would quickly begin reinstating visas that were previously canceled, and CBP advised airlines that refugees that are in possession of US visas will be admitted as well, an airline executive said.
Weird... after reading the order, the judge doesn't even go into the merits of the TRO.... meaning, *why* the TRO is justified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I believe it is about the 5th or 6th, but the others are all state level, and the White House has stated that states do not have the authority to challenge executive orders. That is why it is significant that this is a federal level decision.
TX and AZ state has sued the Obama Whitehouse over their non-enforcement of federal immigration laws.
The SCOTUS threw out those cases simply stating that the states doesn't have standing, as the Constitution only refers the federal Congress and Executive the full authority of immigration.
This TRO will likely get thrown out for the same reasons.
I'm unsure what you are saying here. Are you saying this ruling is going to be overturned, or the Executive Order?
whembly wrote: The actual ruling.
Weird... after reading the order, the judge doesn't even go into the merits of the TRO.... meaning, *why* the TRO is justified.
Not in detail (I suppose we'd need to read the States' argumentation for that) but basically, as far as I understand, the district Court agrees sufficiently with what the states have claimed so that it thinks a following suit would see the states likely to succeed. And in such a case; the the status quo should be upheld until that 'proper' suit can be settled.
Federal Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush appointee who presides in Washington state, temporarily stopped the order. US Customs and Border Protection then alerted airlines the US government would quickly begin reinstating visas that were previously canceled, and CBP advised airlines that refugees that are in possession of US visas will be admitted as well, an airline executive said.
Weird... after reading the order, the judge doesn't even go into the merits of the TRO.... meaning, *why* the TRO is justified.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I believe it is about the 5th or 6th, but the others are all state level, and the White House has stated that states do not have the authority to challenge executive orders. That is why it is significant that this is a federal level decision.
TX and AZ state has sued the Obama Whitehouse over their non-enforcement of federal immigration laws.
The SCOTUS threw out those cases simply stating that the states doesn't have standing, as the Constitution only refers the federal Congress and Executive the full authority of immigration.
This TRO will likely get thrown out for the same reasons.
I'm unsure what you are saying here. Are you saying this ruling is going to be overturned, or the Executive Order?
Ruling will be overturned.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Two-thirds of the order explains why the TRO is justified, and whembly says "it doesn't even go into the merits of why it's justified".
Color me surprised.
He explains why but doesn't provide any legal merits/justification as to why the state has standing.
Standing: In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case.
Page 4, Line 8 through Page 5, Line 9 has the judge explaining how he used two different standards to determine if the states had a valid case and explains how they met those standards.
Edit: I am not a legal person, and I'm not going to repeat any legal opinions from blogs or twitter posts I read to make any claims as to the validity of the claims made in this ruling. I'm just saying it seems like the Judge seems to think they had standing and it looks to me like he explained his decision. He might be wrong about it, but the explanation is in there.
Does doxing students who attend the venue of the speech who you claim are undocumented and instructing your audience how to go about doing the same thing count as "free speech" for you then? Because apparently that was going to be a big feature of Milo the Muppet's wee show.
If this is what Milo is doing or planning to do, I am certainly against it. I was not aware this kind of behavior was occurring or was being planned, as the case may be.
For what it's worth, I am a liberal, not a right-winger, but I admit there are many trends I observe coming from elements of the left that I am deeply uncomfortable with and cannot get behind.
jasper76 wrote: I agree. I have lived more than four decades and less than five and I have never experienced this kind of hatred between right and left.
Are you sure it's not just the internet blurring your perspective?
I'm at least willing to consider the possibility, but I have noticed a level of animosity among many of my own friends since the campaign and after Trumps victory that seems to me to be something new.
As far as political animosity goes, the Bush years were pretty bad at times, but what's going on now seems to me to be jacked up a level from what it was like then.
I should also note that the Obama years there was a ton of animosity coming from the right against liberals, Democrats, and especially Obama himself.
Maybe this has been slowly coming to a boil since the GW Bush days.
"The executive order adversely affects the states’ residents in areas of employments, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel. These harms extend to the States by virtue of their roles as parens patriae of the residents living within their borders"
That's the summary basically, as far as I understand.
Some of the people adversely affected by the EO are residents of the States in question. Therefore the states have standing. According to the district court.
One of my sincere hopes is that out of all this political turmoil, a new center will arise that actually represents the majority of Americans...one that abandons issues of yesteryear and focuses instead on our current common ground.
The common ground of which Americans? Suburban middle class? Californian techies? The precariat? And I don't think that centrism will ever represent the majority of people. It's an ideology that appeals to a small group of horse-trading politicos.
This likely won't be a popular thing to say here, but here I go: If protests are staged too frequently, almost daily, which I suggest to you too is becoming the case, then protests won't be taken seriously, because they lose their shock value, and average workaday citizens who also have it hard will perceive them as mere whining.
"Average workaday citizens" meaning who exactly? The people who attend protests aren't some sort of pixie that can be summoned on a whim. They're flesh-and-blood humans who need an income and who have families, friends and homes. If things are so bad that cities are affected by protests every day then that means there is a widespread support for protests. The black bloc would be an integral part of protecting and directing these protests, too, so the lived experiences of millions of Americans would overcome old propaganda.
Does doxing students who attend the venue of the speech who you claim are undocumented and instructing your audience how to go about doing the same thing count as "free speech" for you then? Because apparently that was going to be a big feature of Milo the Muppet's wee show.
If this is what Milo is doing or planning to do, I am certainly against it. I was not aware this kind of behavior was occurring or was being planned, as the case may be.
For what it's worth, I am a liberal, not a right-winger, but I admit there are many trends I observe coming from elements of the left that I am deeply uncomfortable with and cannot get behind.
There have always been radical left terrorists, though. And the moderate left has always denounced them or rolled their eyes at the antics. It sounds to me like you're letting certain media narratives dictate your feelings, along the lines of "why aren't the moderate Muslims denouncing these attacks? I mean more moderate Muslims than already have. This trend of rising Islamisism is really making me reconsider being friends with the moderate Muslims I know so well." It's really hard for me to see where you're coming from when you group an entire half of the political spectrum together and judge it by the actions of a dozen donkey-caves who might not even be a part of that spectrum.
Apparently alliances with the two are on really rocky ground after Trump threatened them but the real issue is that someone leaked them. Sending our guys in the military to Mexico is just fine and dandy but someone letting people know that threatening to go in there militarily is what is wrong. Don't worry though Trump let evangelicals know everything is super awesome and not to worry about it. I wouldn't worry as we don't need to be allies with Australia or Mexico when we have Russia to give us a little something something.
Like I said in the last thread, there's always someone willing to talk to the press.
Plus Trump is giving them extra motivation. No one wants this administration to be the end of their careers. There will be people seeking "paper trails" of their "conscience" if only as a just in case measure.
One of my sincere hopes is that out of all this political turmoil, a new center will arise that actually represents the majority of Americans...one that abandons issues of yesteryear and focuses instead on our current common ground.
The common ground of which Americans? Suburban middle class? Californian techies? The precariat? And I don't think that centrism will ever represent the majority of people. It's an ideology that appeals to a small group of horse-trading politicos.
This likely won't be a popular thing to say here, but here I go: If protests are staged too frequently, almost daily, which I suggest to you too is becoming the case, then protests won't be taken seriously, because they lose their shock value, and average workaday citizens who also have it hard will perceive them as mere whining.
"Average workaday citizens" meaning who exactly? The people who attend protests aren't some sort of pixie that can be summoned on a whim. They're flesh-and-blood humans who need an income and who have families, friends and homes. If things are so bad that cities are affected by protests every day then that means there is a widespread support for protests. The black bloc would be an integral part of protecting and directing these protests, too, so the lived experiences of millions of Americans would overcome old propaganda.
Regarding common ground, I mean common ground of all Americans. Regarding centrism, perhaps your right that they will never represent the majority of Americans, which I think is a shame, and I'm aloud to hope.
Regarding "average workaday citizens", perhaps that was a poor choice of words. I didn't mean to suggest that protestors were not human beings, as well. I guess what I meant was people who do about their daily lives and do not involve themselves in protests. My point stands that if protests are employed too frequently, they become routine, lose their shock value, and many people just tune out.
I was trying to come up with an explanation for an assertion a poster made that many Americans are dismissive of protests in general.
Does doxing students who attend the venue of the speech who you claim are undocumented and instructing your audience how to go about doing the same thing count as "free speech" for you then? Because apparently that was going to be a big feature of Milo the Muppet's wee show.
If this is what Milo is doing or planning to do, I am certainly against it. I was not aware this kind of behavior was occurring or was being planned, as the case may be.
For what it's worth, I am a liberal, not a right-winger, but I admit there are many trends I observe coming from elements of the left that I am deeply uncomfortable with and cannot get behind.
There have always been radical left terrorists, though. And the moderate left has always denounced them or rolled their eyes at the antics. It sounds to me like you're letting certain media narratives dictate your feelings, along the lines of "why aren't the moderate Muslims denouncing these attacks? I mean more moderate Muslims than already have. This trend of rising Islamisism is really making me reconsider being friends with the moderate Muslims I know so well." It's really hard for me to see where you're coming from when you group an entire half of the political spectrum together and judge it by the actions of a dozen donkey-caves who might not even be a part of that spectrum.
I have already conceded the point that I was painting with too broad of a brush. I'll try and be careful not to do so going forward. I thought this is exactly what I was doing with how I phrased my last sentence in the quote.
Certainly many Americans are dismissive of protests, because they've been able to live outside of the need to protest. They haven't had a reason to have first-hand experiences that contradict the conventional wisdom.
OWS was notable for this. A lot of white liberals, who previously had no reason to think of the police as anything other than sworn to serve and protect, got these notions beaten out of them by cops.
Regarding common ground, I mean common ground of all Americans. Regarding centrism, perhaps your right that they will never represent the majority of Americans, which I think is a shame, and I'm aloud to hope.
Finding common ground is plain good organising because if you want to be able to do anything relevant you must ask yourself who your friends are. There is strength in numbers. But you must also ask yourself who your enemies are. There are some people that you can never find common ground with because their goals are opposed to yours. Uber drivers will not find common ground with Uber owners. There are many kinds of Americans and not all of them can trust each other.
Regarding "average workaday citizens", perhaps that was a poor choice of words. I didn't mean to suggest that protestors were not human beings, as well. I guess what I meant was people who do about their daily lives and do not involve themselves in protests. My point stands that if protests are employed too frequently, they become routine, lose their shock value, and many people just tune out.
I just wanted to point out that "protesters" and "regular people" aren't mutually exclusive groups. I see that kind of rhetoric a lot when dismissing direct action, a common thing to do is call them professional protesters paid by Soros, and that kind of thing is just meant to be misleading. It's true that a particular kind of event that is repeated time and time again becomes normal. Anti-abortion protests are an example of this. But I think that's true only up to a certain point. Things could reach the level where the people who don't care to get involved and don't know someone who is involved are such a small group that it isn't worth considering. How things have been is not going to be a good guide for how things will be, or perhaps it's better to say how things may be because it's impossible to be certain.
@Rose buddy: with your example of Uber drivers and Uber owners, they are both in it to make money. There is a quick example of common ground.
I think there is a general problem with branding opponents as enemies, that is a loaded term...but this is probably just a matter of semantics.
Regarding protests, for my part, I can imagine several hypothetical situstions that might lead me to feel the need to protest and protest frequently. But it's true that many people are dismissive of protests, and I suggest it's because they are occurring too frequently.
Modern political protestors should be careful in case they turn into your example given of pro-life protestors. People may just tune out to the messages they are trying to get across.
jasper76 wrote: @Rose buddy: with your example of Uber drivers and Uber owners, they are both in it to make money. There is a quick example of common ground.
That's a shallow look at it, however. The driver and the owner don't make the same kind of money in the same way. They don't really work together. The driver has to sell their labour while the owner sells the driver to investors. The incentives aren't the same, either. Uber doesn't even make money from the actual service they provide, they get money from wealthy people who want to support a way to get around taxi regulations. That has been the major legal battles for the company.
Regarding protests, for my part, I can imagine several hypothetical situstions that might lead me to feel the need to protest and protest frequently. But it's true that many people are dismissive of protests, and I suggest it's because they are occurring too frequently.
Modern political protestors should be careful in case they turn into your example given of pro-life protestors. People may just tune out to the messages they are trying to get across.
If there is one thing that the current protesters have over the people who want to ban abortion it's that some messages can't be ignored. People won't get tired of "feth Trump" when the Trump administration is actively working to make a lot of peoples' lives worse.
@Rose buddy, I wasn't trying to imply that commonnground extends everywhere, only that there is common ground to be had, even if it's at a basic level, likr Uber owners want to make money, and Uber drivers want to make money.
To the extent, real or imagined, that the Trump administration is trying to make people's lives worse, then people who are affected likely will not get sick of the Dump Trump type protests. I'm not sure that frequency of protests does much to change the minds of people who are Trump supporters though. If you can try and put yourself in their minds for a sec, many of them probably think that due to the frequency of protests, the protestors are willing to protest anything at all that the Trump admin does if they are seeing protests daily. There's probably an argument to be made that this will actually push them even further into their support for Trump.
Having said that, I do understand that protests also do serve a purpose for networking, organizing etc with like-minded people, so they serve another purpose beyond trying to change people's minds.
On a related note, one thing I've seen alot of video of is people using blockade type tactics to try and stop people going to work, or students going to class....stuff like that. Not sure how widespread this behavior is. This is definitely counter-productive, and almost certain to push their opponents even further into their views and create animosity towards the protestors and their causes. I think this is a supremely unwise persuasive tactic. I know we weren't really talking about protest methods, but I thought I'd bring it up.
The stuff where people block transit gets everyone irked very quickly and isn't usually what most protestors are out to do. Again, looking at the people in Portland doing things like blocking MAX trains and the like, few people were sympathetic and it was largely the same type of people looking for an excuse to be jerkwads just for its own sake, and that's where a majority of the police intervention occurred, often accompanied by clapping from everyone else.
There's a time and place for protests like that, but they need to be big, organized, and known events, and such worked during the civil rights protests of the 50's and 60's, but small groups of people deciding to just block a commuter rail line with people trying to get home from work as a spur-of-the-moment thing just pisses people off.
jasper76 wrote: @Rose buddy, I wasn't trying to imply that commonnground extends everywhere, only that there is common ground to be had, even if it's at a basic level, likr Uber owners want to make money, and Uber drivers want to make money.
To the extent, real or imagined, that the Trump administration is trying to make people's lives worse, then people who are affected likely will not get sick of the Dump Trump type protests. I'm not sure that frequency of protests does much to change the minds of people who are Trump supporters though. If you can try and put yourself in their minds for a sec, many of them probably think that due to the frequency of protests, the protestors are willing to protest anything at all that the Trump admin does if they are seeing protests daily. There's probably an argument to be made that this will actually push them even further into their support for Trump.
If someone's that tuned out to what other people are saying, then there's really no good way to change their mind, and the protest isn't for them. It's like arguing politics in this thread; you don't do it to try and persuade whoever you're arguing with, you try and lay out reasonable points for the silent lurkers.
jasper76 wrote: My point stands that if protests are employed too frequently, they become routine, lose their shock value, and many people just tune out.
Or they make the atmosphere feel like there is a revolution/insurrection brewing slowly…
jasper76 wrote: My point stands that if protests are employed too frequently, they become routine, lose their shock value, and many people just tune out.
I'll just add this point that often gets overlooked: Protests are not the first choice, people usually don't just start one for the fun of standing in the cold or getting beaten up by police. A protest is usually what happens when other options have been exhausted. And the same goes for large scale riots when people feel like things are really bad. and this is often an emotional release and venting happens in destructive ways. White people can even riot for the smallest things like when their favourite sports team loses (or wins, it doesn't even matter) without any long term consequences for all white people. I've yet to see the police preventively attack large-ish groups of white people with team jerseys and face paint to disperse them and prevent riots :/
The colleges where Milo Y. was to appear have been petitioned to not invite him because he's outing people. But "free speech" in the abstract was important than the chilling effect (colloquially speaking, not in a legal context) his type of incitement has on minorities who then self-censor (to use a term free speech absolutists like). But the people in power who make these decision don't even register that Milo Y.'s speech restricts other speech (or they are ignoring it and willing to throw their own students under the bus). The protests were the last resort, not the first and best option.
The same goes for revolutions against the government, people feel like they have nothing to lose anymore. Imagine possibly dying for the greater good being a better option than living in the status quo. Can you imagine people complaining about how violent the American Revolution was, how wrong and aggressive it was, and saying stuff like "how could they destroy the tea, that's private property and won't solve anything", "they should have petitioned George III" or "they will only make him stronger and give him attention"?
All that drama and his ultimate destination was the Prayer Breakfast. That's just rough. Like, worse than the time I camped out for ten hours to see a Star Wars prequel.
So, I heard about this on the radio on my drive home. There is a rumor that Trump will be enforcing a little known part of legal immigration law. Most legal immigrants need a sponsor here in the US. When they sponsor an immigrant they vow to be financially responsible for them, however this provision has never really been enforced. If it does get enforced it means that if an immigrant cant pay for parking tickets, runs up a hospital bill, has to pay fines he can't afford, or defaults on his credit card the sponsor is financially liable, just like he said he would be.
Which talks about the cases that require a sponsor, which seems to be limited to someone that may become a burden, and doesn't seem to indicate that every single immigrant for any reason requires a sponsor. Sponsorship specifically seems to be limited to people bringing in their family members or employers bringing in workers. It specifically excludes people filing a visa on their own behalf.
My guess is that "heard on the radio" likely means right-wing talk radio, and if it's Hannity I wouldn't have wasted the 5 minutes on Google.
infinite_array wrote: So, what - Trump found that dealing with the illegal and soon-to-be-legal immigrants was to hard, so now he wants to go after legal immigrants?
Past the necessary amounts of salt for daytime radio, isn't this breaking with his campaign promise to go after illegal immigrants?
To his supporters, is there a difference? Or would they even care?
Vaktathi wrote: The stuff where people block transit gets everyone irked very quickly and isn't usually what most protestors are out to do. Again, looking at the people in Portland doing things like blocking MAX trains and the like, few people were sympathetic and it was largely the same type of people looking for an excuse to be jerkwads just for its own sake, and that's where a majority of the police intervention occurred, often accompanied by clapping from everyone else.
There's a time and place for protests like that, but they need to be big, organized, and known events, and such worked during the civil rights protests of the 50's and 60's, but small groups of people deciding to just block a commuter rail line with people trying to get home from work as a spur-of-the-moment thing just pisses people off.
I think it would be fun to unleash pro wrestlers with folding chairs on the protestors who block traffic. It would be an entertaining spectacle.
cuda1179 wrote: So, I heard about this on the radio on my drive home. There is a rumor that Trump will be enforcing a little known part of legal immigration law. Most legal immigrants need a sponsor here in the US. When they sponsor an immigrant they vow to be financially responsible for them, however this provision has never really been enforced. If it does get enforced it means that if an immigrant cant pay for parking tickets, runs up a hospital bill, has to pay fines he can't afford, or defaults on his credit card the sponsor is financially liable, just like he said he would be.
That's how it is here, mostly to make sure people think twice about marying the waitress at the resort during a trip south.
It doesn't really destroy the fabric of society, as far as policy, but it doesn't seem to do much more than put new divorcees in even more economic trouble, either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: I think it would be fun to unleash pro wrestlers with folding chairs on the protestors who block traffic. It would be an entertaining spectacle.
You would finally get to see pro wrestlers in a fight, so, true!
Well now that Trump has been overruled for trying to remove the ban on his E.O, I wonder if they will be trying to find more loopholes and court battles, or whether the administration will see it as a lost cause?
Whether Trump is in the right or wrong, his administration is clearing up a lot of vague loopholes between White House E.O etc vs State lawyers. However I may be wrong in worrying, but the Judges court ruling in Seattle could be detrimental down the line. This could mean the White House has limited powers to impose law whereas, conversely a State could become overpowered by not liking it and overruling the White House. Now this may be an exaggeration, but it could start a trend of States frustrating reforms and laws for future Presidents and their administrations down the line.
Amendment: It seems this argument isn't quite over with a deadline of Monday to provide better arguments for both sides.
Sentinel1 wrote: This could mean the White House has limited powers to impose law whereas, conversely a State could become overpowered by not liking it and overruling the White House.
There should always be a limit to one person imposing laws. Always. All the court has the power to do is to interpret and implement the law as it exists. This is not a state overruling the White House, but a court saying the law breached the constitution. This is holding the president to account and forcing him to follow the law.
CNN wrote an interesting article on the real danger of Trump and the way he is pulling apart the mechanisms that are there to hold his power in check.
On Saturday morning, President Donald Trump may have unleashed his most bone-chilling tweet -- at least to those who believe the United States should not become a Trump-led dictatorship. And I don't make that comment simply to be provocative or without giving it a great deal of thought. Our democracy is far more fragile than some might grasp and Trump is engaging in a concerned effort to undermine the workings of it.
Here is Trump's truly jaw-dropping tweet from Saturday morning: "The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"
Why is this so concerning? It's OK to argue about whether the judge should or shouldn't have issued this order. But Trump is apparently attempting to delegitimize our federal judiciary by calling Judge James Robart, a George W. Bush-appointed judge, a "so-called" judge while arguing that his decision is "ridiculous."
Let's be blunt, because the stakes demand it: An independent federal judiciary is our last, best hope at preventing Trump from violating the US Constitution and illegally grabbing power. And Trump has to understand that, hence his attempt to undermine it.
The President truly appears to be leading a master class in transforming the United States into a dictatorship. Trump -- and it's fair to assume it is by design -- has sought to undermine anyone or anything that tries to counter him.
First, Trump has made the media -- which is a watchdog of our presidents -- a focus of his attacks, calling them "dishonest," claiming they peddle "fake news" and even recently labeling them "the opposition party." The practical result is that when the media calls out Trump's lies and presents objective facts to counter him, his followers will likely dismiss the media reports and instead side with Trump.
Then Trump went after our intelligence agencies because he didn't agree with their views on Russia's involvement in our recent election. Trump lashed out, calling these agencies, charged with gathering information for our national security, "disgraceful" and accusing them of leaking information, comparing it to "something that Nazi Germany would have done."
Trump has clearly begun the process of destroying their credibility so if they come forward in the future to oppose his views or offer facts to undermine his position, he will tell his followers they also aren't to be believed.
And now Trump, who attacked a judge during his campaign, citing his Mexican heritage, has turned on our judiciary again. But this time it's far more disturbing given Trump is not a candidate, but president of the United States. The rationale must be assumed to be the same, namely that Trump wants to delegitimize the judiciary so that court decisions Trump disagrees with will be viewed by his followers as at the least horribly partisan, or at worst invalid.
It's frightening to think where this could lead. For example, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in the historic case of Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation in our public schools was unconstitutional, it took then-President Dwight Eisenhower to implement that decision.
Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus had refused to follow the Court's decision and instead surrounded an all-white high school in his state with National Guard troops to prevent its integration. Eisenhower responded by federalizing the Arkansas National Guard to enforce the Supreme Court's seminal decision and allow black students to attend the school.
Would Trump do the same if he had passionately disagreed with the Court's decision or would he simply ignore it while attacking the legitimacy of our judiciary, sparking a constitutional crisis? And would certain Trump-supporting federal agency heads, or even federal officers, refuse to follow court orders (or at least do it very slowly) because Trump has convinced them the federal judiciary's decisions cannot be trusted?
There's no doubt Trump supporters are very loyal to him personally. Keep in mind that Trump infamously bragged that he could even shoot a person on Fifth Avenue in New York and his supporters would still be on his side. And according to a CNN/ORC poll, while Trump has only a 44% approval rating overall, 90% of Republicans think he's doing a good job.
The Founding Fathers enshrined a separation of powers in our Constitution so that there would be inherent checks and balances to avoid a situation where a president could become a king. After all, the Founders had just risked life and limb rebelling against the King of England.
Trump's concerted attacks to delegitimize our media, our intelligence community and now our federal judiciary would have no doubt alarmed them. And it should be terrifying to every American who truly believes in our Constitution and in the promise of America.
I found this after seeing an advert for the NYT on Facebook and seeing the comments attacking them for lieing, printing fiction etc. We have reached a point where people are dismissing anything they don't agree with as a lie and people agree with them. It used to be that people would try and find alternative information or ad different narrative, but now we have reached a point where people, mainly hard right wing, will dismiss even verifiable facts as a lie. Trump managed to do this with the inauguration crowds, which is relatively minor, but also very much verifiable. Think what he would do with something he really wants hidden that is based on conflicting accounts and slowly appearing facts.
Sentinel1 wrote: Well now that Trump has been overruled for trying to remove the ban on his E.O, I wonder if they will be trying to find more loopholes and court battles, or whether the administration will see it as a lost cause?
Whether Trump is in the right or wrong, his administration is clearing up a lot of vague loopholes between White House E.O etc vs State lawyers. However I may be wrong in worrying, but the Judges court ruling in Seattle could be detrimental down the line. This could mean the White House has limited powers to impose law whereas, conversely a State could become overpowered by not liking it and overruling the White House. Now this may be an exaggeration, but it could start a trend of States frustrating reforms and laws for future Presidents and their administrations down the line.
Amendment: It seems this argument isn't quite over with a deadline of Monday to provide better arguments for both sides.
There's no final verdict yet. The latest rejection was Trumps people applying for the temporal restraining order to be lifted but being denied.
As I understand things, the EO is technically still in effect, but it has been temporarily suspended by the district court and will be so until the case against the EO can be properly adjudicated.
I don't think any of this is new per say. I'm sure cases like this has come up before. I believe more than a few of Obamas EO's got struck down or had to be changed, for example.
It's just that the White House administrations usually have done more research and have been more careful in writing their EO's so that they are not as susceptible to be challenged by States.
.
Why, oh why, oh why am I posting on this thread again.... I could just not, and my "Threads subscribed to by Compel" list would just be so much less stressful...
Oh well....
I did read the "so-called Judge" tweet and, yeah, once again, I found myself feeling really, well, rather concerned. In the UK at least, using the term "So-called" is really kinda a big deal when it's said by politicians, and the media.
Specifically, the "so-called Islamic State." And like the article said, this is a very precisely, carefully chosen term. The idea is a specific term used to demonstrate their lack of legitimacy.
To then use this phrase against ones own Government structures. It's well, not good...
Steve steveson wrote: [Let's be blunt, because the stakes demand it: An independent federal judiciary is our last, best hope at preventing Trump from violating the US Constitution and illegally grabbing power. And Trump has to understand that, hence his attempt to undermine it.
I don't think Trump has to understand it at all (he is frankly too dim witted at this point for me to believe he understands anything). All Trump has to do is continue being a far right mouthpiece. His understanding is irrelevant. The Right has been trying to bring down the courts or convert them into an ideological body since Roe v. Wade, and will continue to do so because they see no value in an independent court system.
Just to be clear, that's CNNs words, not mine. The quote makes it look like mine. I don't disagree with them in broad terms, but they are not my words.
Compel wrote: Why, oh why, oh why am I posting on this thread again.... I could just not, and my "Threads subscribed to by Compel" list would just be so much less stressful...
Oh well....
I did read the "so-called Judge" tweet and, yeah, once again, I found myself feeling really, well, rather concerned. In the UK at least, using the term "So-called" is really kinda a big deal when it's said by politicians, and the media.
Specifically, the "so-called Islamic State." And like the article said, this is a very precisely, carefully chosen term. The idea is a specific term used to demonstrate their lack of legitimacy.
To then use this phrase against ones own Government structures. It's well, not good...
At all.
Ish. Yes, you are correct that in the U.K. a politician talking about a "so called judge" would be calling their legitimacy in to question, which would be huge. The Islamic state thing is really a more correct use of the term. "So called" because they don't really have a name. Isis is not really a cohesive group or even ideology. More a loose collection of fighters who believe in a caliphate and brining it about by force. Many do not call themselves Isis, and those that do haven't joined anything, just said "I fight for Isis".
Kilkrazy wrote: It is being reported that there are Trump supporters demonstrating against the suspension of the travel ban.
Relapse said something about pro wrestlers and folding chairs. I wouldn't mind replacing those by a pack of rabid pit-bulls and badgers with this crowd.
Kilkrazy wrote: If a case like this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and they find against Trump, what is he going to do?
Rant about it on Twitter I suppose.
Expressing disappointment is all the PotUS can do when the court strikes down an EO. Whether it's Obama's DAPA immigration EO or Trump's travel ban immigration EO there's no further recourse after SCotUS adjudicates the lower court ruling. The Trump dictatorship concern trolling is just hyperbolic fear mongering. There's nothing Trump can do to change court rulings. Trump was unprofessional and rude with his comments about the judge but he can't do anything to the judge, that's the whole point of our separation of powers set up of checks and balances. FDR threatened to replace judges who ruled against his policies but Trump doesn't have the support in Congress to do that and Andrew Jackson deliberately disobeyed a SCotUS ruling but Trump can't get away with that in this current political climate.
Kilkrazy wrote: If a case like this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and they find against Trump, what is he going to do?
Rant about it on Twitter I suppose.
Expressing disappointment is all the PotUS can do when the court strikes down an EO. Whether it's Obama's DAPA immigration EO or Trump's travel ban immigration EO there's no further recourse after SCotUS adjudicates the lower court ruling. The Trump dictatorship concern trolling is just hyperbolic fear mongering. There's nothing Trump can do to change court rulings. Trump was unprofessional and rude with his comments about the judge but he can't do anything to the judge, that's the whole point of our separation of powers set up of checks and balances. FDR threatened to replace judges who ruled against his policies but Trump doesn't have the support in Congress to do that and Andrew Jackson deliberately disobeyed a SCotUS ruling but Trump can't get away with that in this current political climate.
I thought the SCotUS Justices couldn't be replaced, thus FDR's plan to "pack the court" with extra judges, to shift the balance.
In theory, Trump could do the same but as you say, Trump couldn't get away with that today. FDR would barely have gotten away with his plan if it had came down to it and he, at at that moment, was magnitudes more popular than Trump is now.
Kilkrazy wrote: If a case like this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and they find against Trump, what is he going to do?
Rant about it on Twitter I suppose.
Expressing disappointment is all the PotUS can do when the court strikes down an EO. Whether it's Obama's DAPA immigration EO or Trump's travel ban immigration EO there's no further recourse after SCotUS adjudicates the lower court ruling. The Trump dictatorship concern trolling is just hyperbolic fear mongering. There's nothing Trump can do to change court rulings. Trump was unprofessional and rude with his comments about the judge but he can't do anything to the judge, that's the whole point of our separation of powers set up of checks and balances. FDR threatened to replace judges who ruled against his policies but Trump doesn't have the support in Congress to do that and Andrew Jackson deliberately disobeyed a SCotUS ruling but Trump can't get away with that in this current political climate.
I thought the SCotUS Justices couldn't be replaced, thus FDR's plan to "pack the court" with extra judges, to shift the balance.
In theory, Trump could do the same but as you say, Trump couldn't get away with that today. FDR would barely have gotten away with his plan if it had came down to it and he, at at that moment, was magnitudes more popular than Trump is now.
Probably. That's the dangerous bit. He is forming a cult of personality around him. He may not be able to do anything, but there nothing you can be 100% sure of. At the moment we are reliant on the GOP smacking him down if he goes to far. Will they do that if hey think it will loose them votes?
One of the realities with our SCOTUS is that they really don't have an enforcement mechanism for their rulings against the executive branch. They can say "you can't do that", but as far as I know there really is no way for them to stop the executive from doing something other than voluntary compliance with the ruling by the executive branch.
Kilkrazy wrote: If a case like this goes all the way to the Supreme Court and they find against Trump, what is he going to do?
Rant about it on Twitter I suppose.
Expressing disappointment is all the PotUS can do when the court strikes down an EO. Whether it's Obama's DAPA immigration EO or Trump's travel ban immigration EO there's no further recourse after SCotUS adjudicates the lower court ruling. The Trump dictatorship concern trolling is just hyperbolic fear mongering. There's nothing Trump can do to change court rulings. Trump was unprofessional and rude with his comments about the judge but he can't do anything to the judge, that's the whole point of our separation of powers set up of checks and balances. FDR threatened to replace judges who ruled against his policies but Trump doesn't have the support in Congress to do that and Andrew Jackson deliberately disobeyed a SCotUS ruling but Trump can't get away with that in this current political climate.
I thought the SCotUS Justices couldn't be replaced, thus FDR's plan to "pack the court" with extra judges, to shift the balance.
In theory, Trump could do the same but as you say, Trump couldn't get away with that today. FDR would barely have gotten away with his plan if it had came down to it and he, at at that moment, was magnitudes more popular than Trump is now.
Probably. That's the dangerous bit. He is forming a cult of personality around him. He may not be able to do anything, but there nothing you can be 100% sure of. At the moment we are reliant on the GOP smacking him down if he goes to far. Will they do that if hey think it will loose them votes?
You got a point there. Much of the normal political realities have shown not to apply to Trump.
d-usa wrote: One of the realities with our SCOTUS is that they really don't have an enforcement mechanism for their rulings against the executive branch. They can say "you can't do that", but as far as I know there really is no way for them to stop the executive from doing something other than voluntary compliance with the ruling by the executive branch.
The SCOTUS ruling itself cannot, however if the executive branch continues, subsequent actions brought before courts based on those rulings can result in cessation orders or contempt charges, things that carry the backing of law enforcement agencies.
Kilkrazy wrote: It is being reported that there are Trump supporters demonstrating against the suspension of the travel ban.
Relapse said something about pro wrestlers and folding chairs. I wouldn't mind replacing those by a pack of rabid pit-bulls and badgers with this crowd.
I was thinking it would be glorious if the next time protestors blocked traffic, these guys could come running in with a blast of pyrotechnics and thundering music to clean house.
d-usa wrote: One of the realities with our SCOTUS is that they really don't have an enforcement mechanism for their rulings against the executive branch. They can say "you can't do that", but as far as I know there really is no way for them to stop the executive from doing something other than voluntary compliance with the ruling by the executive branch.
The SCOTUS ruling itself cannot, however if the executive branch continues, subsequent actions brought before courts based on those rulings can result in cessation orders or contempt charges, things that carry the backing of law enforcement agencies.
Cessation orders could also be ignored as well, and contempt charges would probably be something of a constitutional crisis when the SCOTUS can throw the sitting POTUS in jail. It's certainly unknown territory because presidents haven't given cause to explore the issue. They know the role of the court and respect the checks and balances of or system.
Being held in Contempt of SCOTUS is a pretty rare thing in general it appears:
I hate the "government is telling pastors what they can and cannot say" argument. No they aren't telling pastors what they can say, they are telling people who made the choice to become tax exempt what they have to do in order to comply with the special tax status they chose to apply for.
Want the ability to say what you want like any other person or organization? Pay the same taxes like any other person or organization.
I assume it's not even that. They can say whatever they wish in a personal capacity, they just have limits on what they can say in the capacity as a representative of that organisation, like many other organisations?
d-usa wrote: I hate the "government is telling pastors what they can and cannot say" argument. No they aren't telling pastors what they can say, they are telling people who made the choice to become tax exempt what they have to do in order to comply with the special tax status they chose to apply for.
Want the ability to say what you want like any other person or organization? Pay the same taxes like any other person or organization.
It's a silly rule. Why do we as a society need to shut up pastors and preachers and priests, using tax exemption as a carrot and the lack of it as a stick. It's so hostile to freedom of speech.
For my part, they should just pay taxes like any other business, whether they promote politics or not. But I know that will never happen.
d-usa wrote: I hate the "government is telling pastors what they can and cannot say" argument. No they aren't telling pastors what they can say, they are telling people who made the choice to become tax exempt what they have to do in order to comply with the special tax status they chose to apply for.
Want the ability to say what you want like any other person or organization? Pay the same taxes like any other person or organization.
What part of the 1st requires you to pay taxes?
I can see the angle you are coming from. I think the way you are wording it is dangerous though.
A similar point of view could be with the US Military. My freedom of speech is curtailed. When I enlisted, I gave away a number of my rights, not the least of which, those protected by the first. That was a contract I signed though, between me and the government.
Does that same contract exist between religious organizations and the government? Does one such thing even exist? Should it? I didn't give up my rights for tax breaks. Sure I get them, on occasion (I have to be in a region where getting shot at is not unexpected), but the reason for the restriction to my rights has more to do with the nature of my service then anything else. The mission cannot be completed at times if I didn't have restrictions placed on my free speech, for example.
You can't put the same litmus test up against religious organizations, IMO. Nor does the Constitution provide said right. Article 1, Section 8 is what gives the government the power to curtail the rights of the military. Where does it do that for religious orgs?
d-usa wrote: One of the realities with our SCOTUS is that they really don't have an enforcement mechanism for their rulings against the executive branch. They can say "you can't do that", but as far as I know there really is no way for them to stop the executive from doing something other than voluntary compliance with the ruling by the executive branch.
The SCOTUS ruling itself cannot, however if the executive branch continues, subsequent actions brought before courts based on those rulings can result in cessation orders or contempt charges, things that carry the backing of law enforcement agencies.
I thought the issue was that the law enforcement agencies themselves were contemptuous of the court.
.
)
