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.

 d-usa wrote:
If a theory that basically boils down to "I'll vote for the donkey-cave because you called me an donkey-cave" helps people sleep better at night, then there really is nothing anyone can do to point out how stupid that theory really is.

The truth is that people decided that it having a pussy-grabbing white supremacist pandering POTUS is more acceptable than a Democrat for president.

A large part of the population may not be racist and sexist and filled with hate. But they were okay with having a racist sexist hateful president.

Don't forget the pretend billionaire part. That's probably the thing that would finally kill his cult of personality. I don't think the Venn diagram of Trump supporters and Supply Side Jesus Fans is a perfect circle, but it's damn close. If he released his tax returns and it shows that his wealth is a lie, heads would implode.

 d-usa wrote:


A large part of the population may not be racist and sexist and filled with hate. But they were okay with having a racist sexist hateful president.

How dare you call Republicans racists, sexists, haters even though you explicitly pointed out the distinction between being a thing and being okay with a thing in abstract.

In other news, Peter Fonda should probably be facing...a lot of charges.

Like...wow.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In other news, Peter Fonda should probably be facing...a lot of charges.

Like...wow.

Ouch.
I'm not too well informed on what the Trump kids are doing, but it does seem a bit extreme to throw them under the bus if they weren't involved in the first place.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In other news, Peter Fonda should probably be facing...a lot of charges.

Like...wow.

So I wasn't too far off in my guess then.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In other news, Peter Fonda should probably be facing...a lot of charges.

Like...wow.

I saw that earlier and, yeah, that's not cool, to put it mildly.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In other news, Peter Fonda should probably be facing...a lot of charges.

Like...wow.

How can someone even say that? Like seriously, how messed up in your head do you need to be before you start saying such things? In public... Is this supposed to be some kind of joke or parody? Because I genuinely don't get how someone actually even think that, let alone say it out loud in public. It is so disturbing it is almost funny.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In other news, Peter Fonda should probably be facing...a lot of charges.

Like...wow.

How can someone even say that? Like seriously, how messed up in your head do you need to be before you start saying such things? In public... Is this supposed to be some kind of joke or parody? Because I genuinely don't get how someone actually even think that, let alone say it out loud in public. It is so disturbing it is almost funny.

Exhibit A of the Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

 Vaktathi wrote:
In other news, Peter Fonda should probably be facing...a lot of charges.

While it's kind of tasteless there's nothing in there that is a crime. And he does have a point, however poorly expressed. The people advocating the current poor treatment of immigrant children would very quickly change their position if it was their child in a cage, not the children of "those people".

He manages to take a pretty reasonable “how would she like it if this happened to her and her children” argument, and turn it up to over 9000.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In other news, Peter Fonda should probably be facing...a lot of charges.

While it's kind of tasteless there's nothing in there that is a crime. And he does have a point, however poorly expressed. The people advocating the current poor treatment of immigrant children would very quickly change their position if it was their child in a cage, not the children of "those people".

There would have been a point (albeit a really bad one, 'he-who-fights-monsters' one) if he had just left it at putting Trump's kid in a cage as well. But it is the part where he wants the boy to get gang-raped by pedophiles that is... just wrong. It is so completely insane and disturbing that it completely destroys the point he probably wanted to make. It is not just 'poorly expressed'. That is like a massive understatement. I don't even know what to call it. This is to 'poorly expressed' what a nuclear bomb is to a firecracker. Sure, they are both explosives, but on an entirely different level. Like, I still don't get how a sane mind could even think how writing this down was a good idea. Unless he secretly gets off on the idea of a defenseless young boy being raped or something like that (in which case it would still not be a good idea to write it down). It is actually getting me mad. Even if demanding that a kid should be raped is not illegal, it definitely should be.

Yeah, pretty terrible sentiments.

It's OK to attack Ivanka Trump over her political views because she is an adult who willingly inserted herself into the political sphere. This is not true of Barron, or Sasha, Malia, or (at the time) the Bush girls or Chelsea Clinton. Let the kids be kids in peace, FFS.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
There would have been a point (albeit a really bad one, 'he-who-fights-monsters' one) if he had just left it at putting Trump's kid in a cage as well. But it is the part where he wants the boy to get gang-raped by pedophiles that is... just wrong. It is so completely insane and disturbing that it completely destroys the point he probably wanted to make. It is not just 'poorly expressed'. That is like a massive understatement. I don't even know what to call it. This is to 'poorly expressed' what a nuclear bomb is to a firecracker. Sure, they are both explosives, but on an entirely different level. Like, I still don't get how a sane mind could even think how writing this down was a good idea. Unless he secretly gets off on the idea of a defenseless young boy being raped or something like that (in which case it would still not be a good idea to write it down). It is actually getting me mad. Even if demanding that a kid should be raped is not illegal, it definitely should be.

Let's be honest here, this is the US prison system we're talking about, where rape and abuse are horrifyingly common. I don't think it's getting off on it or celebrating it, it's simply pointing out that children in that situation are at a serious risk of sexual abuse (on top of all of the other poor treatment) and asking the "how would you feel if it was your kid, not some stranger's kid" question.

And no, it shouldn't be illegal. Freedom of speech protects even tasteless speech, no matter how awful we think it is.

There is a difference between “how would she like it if her child ends up in a dangerous situation” and “hey guys, lets kidnap him and lock him up to get raped”.

 d-usa wrote:
There is a difference between “how would she like it if her child ends up in a dangerous situation” and “hey guys, lets kidnap him and lock him up to get raped”.

Well yes, I already pointed out that it was tasteless and awful. But it's not "getting off to it", it's a tasteless way of saying "how would you feel if it was your kid being kidnapped and possibly raped instead of one of those icky brown kids you hate".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
In other news, Peter Fonda should probably be facing...a lot of charges.

While it's kind of tasteless there's nothing in there that is a crime.

Hrm, I don't think it would take a prosecutor much to get a charge out of that if they wanted to, there's a pretty direct and personal subject there targeted on a non-public minor, and a rather direct incitement to action.

I don't believe he probably really meant any of it, but that's the sort of thing that can easily get out of hand in many different ways. It's one thing to say "I think X should all die" as a general basic policy platform, that's usually protected even if distasteful, but "we should do specific X thing to specific Y person for specific Z reasons" within a clearly belligerent context, that could pass the sniff test for charges as a True Threat. I could see that going to a jury. Not sure I'd vote to convict, but I could see that being a not wildly outrageous case.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, I don't think it would take a prosecutor much to get a charge out of that if they wanted to, there's a pretty direct and personal subject there targeted on a non-public minor, and a rather direct incitement to action.

I don't believe he probably really meant any of it, but that's the sort of thing that can easily get out of hand in many different ways. It's one thing to say "I think X should all die" as a general basic policy platform, that's usually protected even if distasteful, but "we should do specific X thing to specific Y person for specific Z reasons" within a clearly belligerent context, that could pass the sniff test for charges as a True Threat. I could see that going to a jury. Not sure I'd vote to convict, but I could see that being a not wildly outrageous case.

For it to be incitement it has to be a lot more immediate and plausible, instead of a clearly exaggerated political twitter rant about something that has zero chance of happening. For it to lead to charges and conviction it would have to be a politically-motivated prosecution and a pro-Trump jury. Purely on the merits of the case it's just another case of people saying awful things.

 Vaktathi wrote:
In other news, Peter Fonda should probably be facing...a lot of charges.

Like...wow.

You know, I thought to myself "How bad could it be?" But wow, somebody needs to take that mans phone away. Just, why would you say those things? Barron is a fething child.

On the flip side, now we get to hear about those dang "liberal celebrities" for a few months. Real great work Peter. I bet your family is proud.

This thread is worth a read. Yes,Trump has walked his policy back but we're not out of the woods yet. Author is a professor of law specialising in immigration and human rights.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1009584753937350657.html

(bit late on the subject of the EO) There's also no plan in place to reunite any of the kids with the parents currently either, so while future families might not be torn apart, it hasn't done anything for the current ones.

 Peregrine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
There is a difference between “how would she like it if her child ends up in a dangerous situation” and “hey guys, lets kidnap him and lock him up to get raped”.

Well yes, I already pointed out that it was tasteless and awful. But it's not "getting off to it", it's a tasteless way of saying "how would you feel if it was your kid being kidnapped and possibly raped instead of one of those icky brown kids you hate".

I think it's hilarious that these people are falling over themselves to pointedly not understand an angry rant written in all caps.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-wants-to-take-us-spot-at-un-human-rights-council-2018-6?r=UK&IR=T

Russia wants to swoop in on the empty spot left by the US on the UN Human Rights Council

.. getting really easy eh ?

 reds8n wrote:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-wants-to-take-us-spot-at-un-human-rights-council-2018-6?r=UK&IR=T

Russia wants to swoop in on the empty spot left by the US on the UN Human Rights Council

.. getting really easy eh ?

Not surprising, really. As the US irresponsibly vacates its various positions on the world stage, other countries will move in. John Oliver did a good bit on China this week that ended with a commentary that China is ready and able to fill in for the US, and that we probably shouldn't be so eager to give them that chance.

I am all for China taking. You will miss us.

I am tired of ferenners blaming the US for everything. You have been around since time began yet you haven't fixed anything and come hat in hand every time there is a crisis.

The idea that the US won't be damaged by China doing so is unrealistic, its 2018, not 1018. The US can't isolate itself from the consequences of a hegemonic shift.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The idea that the US won't be damaged by China doing so is unrealistic, its 2018, not 1018. The US can't isolate itself from the consequences of a hegemonic shift.

Not quite. We're headed for the mother of all wars with China, if we don't stop now. The wealthy have benefitted, but only the wealthy.

I mean quite, besides war with China is avoidable. In the long term neither side really wants to have a conflict, which is why they keep inventing all kinds of ways around international law that avoid direct conflict with the US. If war would be inevitable, then retreating back to the Pacific Islands is no use as some in China dream of a Chinese Hawaii. Retreating is only going to make China bolder, and that boldness could cross into accidental recklessness and war you want to avoid.

And its not just the wealthy who have benefitted. Sure they have benefitted immensly more because of the way our system works. But the average US citizen has enjoyed a life style not attainable without the system set up after WW2.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean quite, besides war with China is avoidable. In the long term neither side really wants to have a conflict, which is why they keep inventing all kinds of ways around international law that avoid direct conflict with the US. If war would be inevitable, then retreating back to the Pacific Islands is no use as some in China dream of a Chinese Hawaii. Retreating is only going to make China bolder, and that boldness could cross into accidental recklessness and war you want to avoid.

And its not just the wealthy who have benefitted. Sure they have benefitted immensly more because of the way our system works. But the average US citizen has enjoyed a life style not attainable without the system set up after WW2.

No. We can avoid war by returning our forces home, eliminating military support treaties with every country on the planet, and returning to just being a commercial power.

The current system only benefits the wealthy who have given up any pretense of caring. Communism is dead. We did our part.

China was strong before the US existed, as did its hegemonic aspirations. It will be the same after the US.
Same for Russia.

No need for us to be involved any more. The people who think we should be are the wealthy who benefit from it. Theirs sons and daughters haven't been in a war since forever so there is no downside for them.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean quite, besides war with China is avoidable. In the long term neither side really wants to have a conflict, which is why they keep inventing all kinds of ways around international law that avoid direct conflict with the US. If war would be inevitable, then retreating back to the Pacific Islands is no use as some in China dream of a Chinese Hawaii. Retreating is only going to make China bolder, and that boldness could cross into accidental recklessness and war you want to avoid.

And its not just the wealthy who have benefitted. Sure they have benefitted immensly more because of the way our system works. But the average US citizen has enjoyed a life style not attainable without the system set up after WW2.

No. We can avoid war by returning our forces home, eliminating military support treaties with every country on the planet, and returning to just being a commercial power.

The current system only benefits the wealthy who have given up any pretense of caring. Communism is dead. We did our part.

China was strong before the US existed, as did its hegemonic aspirations. It will be the same after the US.
Same for Russia.

No need for us to be involved any more. The people who think we should be are the wealthy who benefit from it. Theirs sons and daughters haven't been in a war since forever so there is no downside for them.

We have isolationists, anarchists, and wanna-be freikorps all over the place. The US feels more and more like the 1930's have been catching up with us.

Perhaps this is common after all big recessions?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I mean quite, besides war with China is avoidable. In the long term neither side really wants to have a conflict, which is why they keep inventing all kinds of ways around international law that avoid direct conflict with the US. If war would be inevitable, then retreating back to the Pacific Islands is no use as some in China dream of a Chinese Hawaii. Retreating is only going to make China bolder, and that boldness could cross into accidental recklessness and war you want to avoid.

And its not just the wealthy who have benefitted. Sure they have benefitted immensly more because of the way our system works. But the average US citizen has enjoyed a life style not attainable without the system set up after WW2.

No. We can avoid war by returning our forces home, eliminating military support treaties with every country on the planet, and returning to just being a commercial power.

The current system only benefits the wealthy who have given up any pretense of caring. Communism is dead. We did our part.

China was strong before the US existed, as did its hegemonic aspirations. It will be the same after the US.
Same for Russia.

No need for us to be involved any more. The people who think we should be are the wealthy who benefit from it. Theirs sons and daughters haven't been in a war since forever so there is no downside for them.

Ok, first of all the US military is why the US is such a commercial power. All those treaties and bases allow the US to mostly dictate the economic rules in the world. Once the US steps back its going to be negatively affected if China takes over that controlling role. The US being a commercial power still relies on other countries being free and able to trade to the benefit of the US. If China takes on a hegemonic role that is out the window.

Communism might be dead, but you're not fighting an ideology, you're standing against good old fashioned repressive nationalism when it comes to China. China was not always strong before the US existed, its last period of real strength being centuries ago and severly limited by technology at the time. Global hegemony of the British or American kind has never been on display by China and even the Soviet Union only had a lesser kind, nowhere near the control the US has exhibited. China's hegemonic theory involves the concept of "all under heaven", a world united behind (subservient) one vision (China's). The US is going to be negatively affected, splendid isolation is no longer a choice.

The US can walk away, but it can't avoid the consequences. You can walk away now, but China will be walking right behind you. You're only shifting where those troops go and suffering for it.