US Politics: 2017 Edition

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.

**jasper76**

skyth wrote:

None of the examples you give are an attack on free speech. All it is is other people using their own free speech rights.

Free speech does not guarantee you the ability to not have your spreeh contested or disagreed with. If you say something offensive, it is not an attack on your right of free speech to use my right of free speech to call you on it.

I'm specifically talking about attacks on the principle of free speech. It's one thing to say, I disagree with Colin Capernicks protest of the anthem...go for it!. It's another thing to say that he shouldn't be allowed to protest to begin with. It's one thing to protest a speaker invited by a conservative group to a college campus...go for it! It's another thing to use assault, violence, and destruction to keep students from seeing the speaker they paid for.

Can you see the differences I'm trying to illustrate?

**Easy E**

Yes. Thankfully there are existing laws dealing with assault, violence, and property destruction.

**Co'tor Shas**

Prestor Jon wrote:

You're arguing against generalizations that I didn't make. The NYT times has had multiple scandals regarding journalistic integrity. The consumer has to take the stories in the NYT at face value and trust in the integrity of the reporting. That trust has been broken by the NYT more than once. How many times it has to be broken before an individual consumer decides not to rely on the NYT as a new source anymore will vary with the individual but losing faith in a news outlet after being burned by fake stories more than once isn't a crazy unreasonable positon.

I don't believe in the massive media conspiracies or that the "Media" is creating some kind of united front against Trump. The Media industry does suffer from a lot of cross contamination when it comes to issue of partisanship and trustworthiness. I believe that there is a partisan bias inherent in Fox News, I don't think many people would argue against that assertion. However, when we look at the news networks you see a lot of the same people moving around to different networks. Lou Dobbs moves from CNN to Fox, Glen Beck moves from CNN/HLN to Fox and then leaves Fox, Greta Van Sustern moves from Fox to MSNBC, Megyn Kelly leaves Fox for NBC, Maria Bartiromo leaves CNBC for Fox, etc. So do the journalists/hosts become more credible or less credible depending on which network they work on? Does the partisanship in their shows change depending on which network they are on? The networks all use the same business model, have the same for profit motive and the same "talent" moves around between networks and outlets.

I think the fact that 99.99% of the NYTs reporting has been accurate should be enough. Again it's pretending that a few insidents involving individual reporters who were then fired should damn the whole thing.

**jasper76**

Easy E wrote:
Yes. Thankfully there are existing laws dealing with assault, violence, and property destruction.

Yes, thankfully there are. Hopefully you also think the use of these tactics to shut down people's speech is worthy of condemnation, and that more generally we should support the principle of free speech, even if it's speech we don't agree with.

For my part, I think I'd rather die than live in a Borg society where the only speech and thought that are tolerated are those
approved by the collective hivemind. That is my big fear over all this anti-free speech sentiment.

**reds8n**

https://twitter.com/annediego/status/834572312317923328

" My flight from SFO to JFK. We were told we couldn't disembark without showing our "documents.""

assuming this is true is that normal ?

The CPAC is tons of fun :

"ACU's Dan Schneider now onstage denouncing the alt-right as a "hateful left-wing fascist group."

...hmmm....bit odd given they were going to have Milo as a guest speaker until recently eh ?

Everyone's favourite Nazi punch bag has been escorted out of CPAC/denied entry : "CPAC spox Ian Walters says Richard Spencer was removed because he is "repugnant."

. -- this happened just after Scott Walker criticized liberals for kicking speakers off campus

**Easy E**

jasper76 wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Yes. Thankfully there are existing laws dealing with assault, violence, and property destruction.

Yes, thankfully there are. Hopefully you also think the use of these tactics to shut down people's speech is worthy of condemnation, and that more generally we should support the principle of free speech, even if it's speech we don't agree with.

For my part, I think I'd rather die than live in a Borg society where the only speech and thought that are tolerated are those
approved by the collective hivemind. That is my big fear over all this anti-free speech sentiment.

This is an interesting question. I believe that speech has consequences and sometimes those consequences are unpleasant, but the government will not force you to be quiet by punishment. Instead, for millenia humans have instead relied on "culture" and "civility" to stem free speech to that which is "acceptable". Even here in the vaunted U.S. of A we are seeing someone currently being villified "socially" for what they said about Paedophilia.

What happens when "Culture" and "Civility" are no longer enough to put the guidelines into what is acceptable and what is not? How does a society put guard rails up for what is valid and what is not valid topics of discussion and values? All questiosn beyond my meagre brainpower.

**feeder**

I imagine the true believers on the right and left are in a tizzy at the moment. How racist do I have to be? How (in)tolerant? Where is the line of acceptable behaviour now?

The election of someone as plainly incapable for the job as Trump has blown the game wide open.

**whembly**

reds8n wrote:
https://twitter.com/annediego/status/834572312317923328

" My flight from SFO to JFK. We were told we couldn't disembark without showing our "documents.""

assuming this is true is that normal ?

Happened to me twice...

They do random check like this all the time.

**Kilkrazy**

jasper76 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
We've had Flag Protection laws and bills for a long time now, and they are a good sign that the 1st has always been under legislative attack.

I honestly never even understood the level of animus people have expressed over flag burning. It's an inanimate object, FFS. Do people really think it has magical powers or something? ... ...

Well, people do, and they are very often right-wing "Little Americans" who while demonstrating their deep love for the flag and patriotism by opposing flag burners, simultaneously ignore the rule that prevents its use as clothing, etc.

**jasper76**

Kilkrazy wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
We've had Flag Protection laws and bills for a long time now, and they are a good sign that the 1st has always been under legislative attack.

I honestly never even understood the level of animus people have expressed over flag burning. It's an inanimate object, FFS. Do people really think it has magical powers or something? ... ...

Well, people do, and they are very often right-wing "Little Americans" who while demonstrating their deep love for the flag and patriotism by opposing flag burners, simultaneously ignore the rule that prevents its use as clothing, etc.

You know I have a neighbor, a very nice guy, who told me about the proper way to fold a flag, raise a flag, present a flag etc, and all I could think is that he's worshipping an inanimate object like a god. Strange too, because the guy's a devout Christian, which IIRC means he's not supposed to worship idols...anyways, no skin off my back, but it's a material fetish I never identified with, even thouvg I love the USA and am glad I'm lucky enough to have been born a US citizen.

**d-usa**

Kilkrazy wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
We've had Flag Protection laws and bills for a long time now, and they are a good sign that the 1st has always been under legislative attack.

I honestly never even understood the level of animus people have expressed over flag burning. It's an inanimate object, FFS. Do people really think it has magical powers or something? ... ...

Well, people do, and they are very often right-wing "Little Americans" who while demonstrating their deep love for the flag and patriotism by opposing flag burners, simultaneously ignore the rule that prevents its use as clothing, etc.

Flag paper plates and napkins are always the most amazing ones to me. If I wiped my face with a regular flag and threw it in the trash they would be outraged.

**AlmightyWalrus**

CptJake wrote:
Witzkatz wrote:
If we lose free speech, we lose a huge part of what makes the USA such a special experiment.

You make it sound like the USA are the only nation that enshrined free speech and a "no" to censorship into their basic laws...

When Germany allows historically correct decals for WW2 German aircraft models, let me know.

Lemme know when it's OK to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

**jmurph**

jasper76 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
We've had Flag Protection laws and bills for a long time now, and they are a good sign that the 1st has always been under legislative attack.

I honestly never even understood the level of animus people have expressed over flag burning. It's an inanimate object, FFS. Do people really think it has magical powers or something? ... ...

Well, people do, and they are very often right-wing "Little Americans" who while demonstrating their deep love for the flag and patriotism by opposing flag burners, simultaneously ignore the rule that prevents its use as clothing, etc.

You know I have a neighbor, a very nice guy, who told me about the proper way to fold a flag, raise a flag, present a flag etc, and all I could think is that he's worshipping an inanimate object like a god. Strange too, because the guy's a devout Christian, which IIRC means he's not supposed to worship idols...anyways, no skin off my back, but it's a material fetish I never identified with, even thouvg I love the USA and am glad I'm lucky enough to have been born a US citizen.

Again, nothing new. Look back to Rome and the fasces. Many humans have a natural tendency towards authoritarianism and like clear symbols of authority and power. These symbols get incorporated into a sense of self identity. Likewise, nationalism draws strongly on ideas of a collective identity that is symbolized by the flag. Thus, psychologically, any threat to the symbol becomes a threat to what it represents. Rationally, this is absurd; but, it has strong emotional appeal. Much like other appeals to safety and collective identity against external threats.

**whembly**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Witzkatz wrote:
If we lose free speech, we lose a huge part of what makes the USA such a special experiment.

You make it sound like the USA are the only nation that enshrined free speech and a "no" to censorship into their basic laws...

When Germany allows historically correct decals for WW2 German aircraft models, let me know.

Lemme know when it's OK to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Is the theatre on fire?

**CptJake**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Witzkatz wrote:
If we lose free speech, we lose a huge part of what makes the USA such a special experiment.

You make it sound like the USA are the only nation that enshrined free speech and a "no" to censorship into their basic laws...

When Germany allows historically correct decals for WW2 German aircraft models, let me know.

Lemme know when it's OK to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Any time there is a fire.

Not sure how not allowing reckless endangerment in a crowded public place is even close to not allowing a historically correct marking on a toy airplane...

But go there if it makes you feel good.

**amanita**

d-usa wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
We've had Flag Protection laws and bills for a long time now, and they are a good sign that the 1st has always been under legislative attack.

I honestly never even understood the level of animus people have expressed over flag burning. It's an inanimate object, FFS. Do people really think it has magical powers or something? ... ...

Well, people do, and they are very often right-wing "Little Americans" who while demonstrating their deep love for the flag and patriotism by opposing flag burners, simultaneously ignore the rule that prevents its use as clothing, etc.

Flag paper plates and napkins are always the most amazing ones to me. If I wiped my face with a regular flag and threw it in the trash they would be outraged.

So the converse of that is then you shouldn't be upset with the guy with his confederate flag and swastika t-shirt, right?

Symbols have value because of what they symbolize, not any inherent value of the material or medium on which they are depicted. Is this really so hard to understand?

**Prestor Jon**

jasper76 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
We've had Flag Protection laws and bills for a long time now, and they are a good sign that the 1st has always been under legislative attack.

I honestly never even understood the level of animus people have expressed over flag burning. It's an inanimate object, FFS. Do people really think it has magical powers or something? ... ...

Well, people do, and they are very often right-wing "Little Americans" who while demonstrating their deep love for the flag and patriotism by opposing flag burners, simultaneously ignore the rule that prevents its use as clothing, etc.

You know I have a neighbor, a very nice guy, who told me about the proper way to fold a flag, raise a flag, present a flag etc, and all I could think is that he's worshipping an inanimate object like a god. Strange too, because the guy's a devout Christian, which IIRC means he's not supposed to worship idols...anyways, no skin off my back, but it's a material fetish I never identified with, even thouvg I love the USA and am glad I'm lucky enough to have been born a US citizen.

It's not worship it's just respect. The flag is a symbol of the country and what it stands for so the flag should be treated with due respect. Folding the flag properly, taking it down at night or illuminating it, etc is just being respectful not turning an inanimate object into a God. You don't have to buy a flag or own a flag or fly the flag but if you do then you should do it right.

**Rosebuddy**

jasper76 wrote:
skyth wrote:

None of the examples you give are an attack on free speech. All it is is other people using their own free speech rights.

Free speech does not guarantee you the ability to not have your spreeh contested or disagreed with. If you say something offensive, it is not an attack on your right of free speech to use my right of free speech to call you on it.

I'm specifically talking about attacks on the principle of free speech. It's one thing to say, I disagree with Colin Capernicks protest of the anthem...go for it!. It's another thing to say that he shouldn't be allowed to protest to begin with. It's one thing to protest a speaker invited by a conservative group to a college campus...go for it! It's another thing to use assault, violence, and destruction to keep students from seeing the speaker they paid for.

Can you see the differences I'm trying to illustrate?

People didn't block Yiannopoulos from appearing because they simply disagreed with him. They stopped him from holding his speech because he has a history of leading harassment against minorities. It's why he's infamous in the first place.

**d-usa**

amanita wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
We've had Flag Protection laws and bills for a long time now, and they are a good sign that the 1st has always been under legislative attack.

I honestly never even understood the level of animus people have expressed over flag burning. It's an inanimate object, FFS. Do people really think it has magical powers or something? ... ...

Well, people do, and they are very often right-wing "Little Americans" who while demonstrating their deep love for the flag and patriotism by opposing flag burners, simultaneously ignore the rule that prevents its use as clothing, etc.

Flag paper plates and napkins are always the most amazing ones to me. If I wiped my face with a regular flag and threw it in the trash they would be outraged.

So the converse of that is then you shouldn't be upset with the guy with his confederate flag and swastika t-shirt, right?

Symbols have value because of what they symbolize, not any inherent value of the material or medium on which they are depicted. Is this really so hard to understand?

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

**CptJake**

For what it is worth, there is a difference between using a flag as a beach towel, cutting one up to make a shirt, wiping your face with one, or using one as a door mat and having items with flag type print/colors/patterns on them.

**jasper76**

Rosebuddy wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
skyth wrote:

None of the examples you give are an attack on free speech. All it is is other people using their own free speech rights.

Free speech does not guarantee you the ability to not have your spreeh contested or disagreed with. If you say something offensive, it is not an attack on your right of free speech to use my right of free speech to call you on it.

I'm specifically talking about attacks on the principle of free speech. It's one thing to say, I disagree with Colin Capernicks protest of the anthem...go for it!. It's another thing to say that he shouldn't be allowed to protest to begin with. It's one thing to protest a speaker invited by a conservative group to a college campus...go for it! It's another thing to use assault, violence, and destruction to keep students from seeing the speaker they paid for.

Can you see the differences I'm trying to illustrate?

People didn't block Yiannopoulos from appearing because they simply disagreed with him. They stopped him from holding his speech because he has a history of leading harassment against minorities. It's why he's infamous in the first place.

So is it correct to assume that you believe in the principle of freedom of speech, up to the point where you draw a personal line? The line in the US is direct incitement to violence, and things like yelling "fire" on a crowded place. I'm OK with that, but when limits delve outside, if you want to limit "point of view" speech, for example, then someone or some group must become the arbiter of what is OK to say and what is prohibited.

I don't trust any individual or group to take on that role.

(I'm also just assuming what you are saying about Milo is true for the sake of argument ... what you are saying has been hotly contested by Milo's fans and by Milo himself, but really the issue isn't Milo so much as the conservative students that invited him to their campus and paid to hear him speak)

**whembly**

jasper76 wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
skyth wrote:

None of the examples you give are an attack on free speech. All it is is other people using their own free speech rights.

Free speech does not guarantee you the ability to not have your spreeh contested or disagreed with. If you say something offensive, it is not an attack on your right of free speech to use my right of free speech to call you on it.

I'm specifically talking about attacks on the principle of free speech. It's one thing to say, I disagree with Colin Capernicks protest of the anthem...go for it!. It's another thing to say that he shouldn't be allowed to protest to begin with. It's one thing to protest a speaker invited by a conservative group to a college campus...go for it! It's another thing to use assault, violence, and destruction to keep students from seeing the speaker they paid for.

Can you see the differences I'm trying to illustrate?

People didn't block Yiannopoulos from appearing because they simply disagreed with him. They stopped him from holding his speech because he has a history of leading harassment against minorities. It's why he's infamous in the first place.

So is it correct to assume that you believe in the principle of freedom of speech, up to the point where you draw a personal line? The line in the US is direct incitement to violence, and things like yelling "fire" on a crowded place. I'm OK with that, but when limits delve outside, if you want to limit "point of view" speech, then someone or some group must become the arbiter of what is OK to say and what is prohibited.

I don't trust any individual or group to take on that role.

(I'm also just assuming what you are saying about Milo is true for the sake of argument ... what you are saying has been hotly contested by Milo's fans and by Milo himself)

It's how Citizen's United is justified....

**jasper76**

Incidentally, the devil himself, Steve Bannon, along with Reince Priebus are currently on TV speaking at CPAC.

I think this is the first time I've actually heard Bannon speak. Let's see if the man lives up to the myth.

**d-usa**

CptJake wrote:
For what it is worth, there is a difference between using a flag as a beach towel, cutting one up to make a shirt, wiping your face with one, or using one as a door mat and having items with flag type print/colors/patterns on them.

Not according to the Flag Code.

**Easy E**

jasper76 wrote:
Incidentally, the devil himself, Steve Bannon, along with Reince Priebus are currently on TV speaking at CPAC.

I think this is the first time I've actually heard Bannon speak. Let's see if the man lives up to the myth.

Something about the banality of evil.... or some such?

**jasper76**

Easy E wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Incidentally, the devil himself, Steve Bannon, along with Reince Priebus are currently on TV speaking at CPAC.

I think this is the first time I've actually heard Bannon speak. Let's see if the man lives up to the myth.

Something about the banality of evil.... or some such?

FWIW, the appearance was pretty brief and the contents quite vapid, with Bannon and Priebus mostly just telling the crowd that they like each other, and kissing each other's fannies.

**amanita**

d-usa wrote:
amanita wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
We've had Flag Protection laws and bills for a long time now, and they are a good sign that the 1st has always been under legislative attack.

I honestly never even understood the level of animus people have expressed over flag burning. It's an inanimate object, FFS. Do people really think it has magical powers or something? ... ...

Well, people do, and they are very often right-wing "Little Americans" who while demonstrating their deep love for the flag and patriotism by opposing flag burners, simultaneously ignore the rule that prevents its use as clothing, etc.

Flag paper plates and napkins are always the most amazing ones to me. If I wiped my face with a regular flag and threw it in the trash they would be outraged.

So the converse of that is then you shouldn't be upset with the guy with his confederate flag and swastika t-shirt, right?

Symbols have value because of what they symbolize, not any inherent value of the material or medium on which they are depicted. Is this really so hard to understand?

Which has nothing to do with what I said.

Yeah, sorry. My reply was directed more toward Jaspar76.

**jasper76**

Prestor Jon wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
We've had Flag Protection laws and bills for a long time now, and they are a good sign that the 1st has always been under legislative attack.

I honestly never even understood the level of animus people have expressed over flag burning. It's an inanimate object, FFS. Do people really think it has magical powers or something? ... ...

Well, people do, and they are very often right-wing "Little Americans" who while demonstrating their deep love for the flag and patriotism by opposing flag burners, simultaneously ignore the rule that prevents its use as clothing, etc.

You know I have a neighbor, a very nice guy, who told me about the proper way to fold a flag, raise a flag, present a flag etc, and all I could think is that he's worshipping an inanimate object like a god. Strange too, because the guy's a devout Christian, which IIRC means he's not supposed to worship idols...anyways, no skin off my back, but it's a material fetish I never identified with, even thouvg I love the USA and am glad I'm lucky enough to have been born a US citizen.

It's not worship it's just respect. The flag is a symbol of the country and what it stands for so the flag should be treated with due respect. Folding the flag properly, taking it down at night or illuminating it, etc is just being respectful not turning an inanimate object into a God. You don't have to buy a flag or own a flag or fly the flag but if you do then you should do it right.

Fair enough. As I've said, this is not something I particularly care about, one way or another. Put it on a t-shirt, fly it in the air proudly, use it for a bonfire, use it as a hanky. Doesn't bother me either way. Its just a piece of ornamental cloth to me.

**Easy E**

In other news, the original Cheeto speaks up about Repeal adn replace of Obamacare....

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/john-boehner-obamacare-republicans-235303

Former House Speaker John Boehner predicted on Thursday that a full repeal and replace of Obamacare is “not going to happen.”

Boehner, who resigned in 2015 amid unrest among conservatives, said at an Orlando health care conference that the idea that a repeal-and-replace plan would blitz through Congress is just “happy talk.”

Instead, he said changes to former President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement would likely be relatively modest.

“[Congressional Republicans are] going to fix Obamacare – I shouldn’t call it repeal-and-replace, because it’s not going to happen,” he said.

Prepare for Trumpcare- Obamacare with cross border insurance purchasing, malpractice ceilings, and all the known tweaks needed for the ACA added in!

**d-usa**

Which is stuff they could have done during the past 6 years of course.