Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

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.

 whembly wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Or a Biden v. Trump? It woulnd have been a contest.

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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Or a Biden v. Trump? It woulnd have been a contest.

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?

Swatting away olive branches is not a virtue.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised to get this from Donald "Grab 'em by the pussy" Trump. It's pretty unenforceable though, as previous sex discrimination cases have shown.
http://www.ibtimes.com/donald-trump-white-house-dress-code-policy-female-staffers-must-dress-women-president-2485576

 jasper76 wrote:


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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


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.

The actual ruling.

 d-usa wrote:
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.

The actual ruling.

Sweet. Executive vs. Judicial throwdown! Isn't this the first since Trump ascended to the throne, as it were?

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...

This feels like the point where Trump either learns his power has limits or he try's to go full dictator.

 Steve steveson wrote:
This feels like the point where Trump either learns his power has limits or he try's to go full dictator.

I think we all know how that's going to go. You're either with me or against me, branding the last person to oppose it a traitor etc...

 d-usa wrote:
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.

The actual ruling.

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?

Well, Trump says we need good ''deals''. It's the right way in real-estate deals.
What is needed are win-win situations for all nations participating.

Phone calls leaked from Trump arguing with Australia/Mexico

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.

Trump is handling the ruling gracefully as expected...

 d-usa wrote:
Trump is handling the ruling gracefully as expected...

I would expect the Potus to be more confident/souvereign when it comes to personal disputes like that with Schwarzenegger.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And since NY doesn't like to take second place to California, even in riots against free speech:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/03/violent-protests-nyu-new-york-city-gavin-mcinnes-vice-media

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".

You know, attacking federal judges isn't exactly going to make the like you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/04/trump-lashes-out-at-federal-judge-who-temporarily-blocked-travel-ban/





Also:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/04/white-house-agenda-collapse-global-order-war

It sort of makes sense. The far-right in the Republican party has been whining about our international agreements for years.

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.

How long before impeachment?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
How long before impeachment?

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...

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
How long before impeachment?

I wouldn't count on that. It will not happen unless as said there will be something like the Watergate scandal.

 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?

 thekingofkings wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:


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.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And since NY doesn't like to take second place to California, even in riots against free speech:
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/03/violent-protests-nyu-new-york-city-gavin-mcinnes-vice-media

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.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
How long before impeachment?

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.