US & NA Politics Thread

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.

**Elemental**

Frazzled wrote:

I remember when Democrats were calling Bush a Nazi.

I remember Bush being compared to Kaiser Wilhelm in WW1, and in hindsight, I think that's a more accurate comparison. Not really malicious as such, more over-privileged and under-qualified for what he was confronted with. Someone who would probably have been remembered as eccentric but basically harmless, if he hadn't jumped into a severely ill-advised military adventure that spiralled way, way out of control.

**Crazyterran**

"Democrats did one thing once, now it's their fault we up the ridiculousness forever! Forever!"

**whembly**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
feeder wrote:
quoting whembly
Validating bad-faith posting in the thread.

You commenting by snarkingly stating that I'm arguing in bad faith without presenting any evidence what so ever... is in fact... participating in a debate in bad faith.

**feeder**

"Borking" isn't anything like the Garland/Gorsuch travesty and you fething know it.

Your house is on fire, and you helped handsy ol' uncle Donnie, with his long history of arson, to carry gallons and gallons of gasoline into it.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
Roe v. Wade is an issue some Republicans oppose. One is on record against any justice that has shown any tendency against abortion.

Trump can argue that he didn’t ask any justice about RvW, but he wouldn’t need to ask them since they came from a list of anti-RvW Justices.

Which is kinda a pointless exercise to ask Kavanaugh how'd he rule a hypothetical case. Judges now will simply not answer on "how I'd rule a hypothetical" case anymore.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt this SCOTUS would even grant centori on any abortion cases.

Besides, it isn't all about Roe v. Wade... it's about overturning Casey vs Planned Parenthood.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also: $200 billions more in tariffs against China.

Ugh... so not a fan of tariff wars....

Also: slashed ACA funding.

Pretty sure it's for those navigators "helping" people sign up in the exchange.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

NinthMusketeer wrote:
AdeptSister wrote:
Does anyone else appreciate the irony that we have a lot liberal posters promoting the "We have to be bad because they made us be bad" approach?

But until the Republican voters hold the party accountable for the sacrifice of protocol and rules, I don't know what else Democrats can do. The Republican voters still support the policies of Trump. They still support a party that just cares about winning at any cost. It seems like they are generally fine with aim of not making things better for them, but making things worse for people they believe is the enemy / don't like.

I mean, what option is available? What could democrats do? Do you really think if they try to be respectable, make good policy, and stick to the original rules, they will win? How long to you think it would take?
There's a subtle but important different between doing something bad, clearly of ones own volition, and claiming 'they forced us too!' after the fact verses a calculated political move mirroring the previous actions of the opposing party both to show them what they have done and because there are no other options left. There is also a matter of equivalency; Dems would be doing exactly what the GOP had whereas the GOP just claims 'they made us bad!' while being far, far worse AND instigating the questionable actions in the first place.

Or... simply nominate better candidates.

I swear, I know a ton of reluctant Trump voters who probably would've voted for the "not HRC" Democratic nominee. Even still, these reluctant Trump voters would probably still consider voting for not-Trump as long as that candidate doesn't have the miles long baggage as HRC.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:
"Borking" isn't anything like the Garland/Gorsuch travesty and you fething know it.

I do know it... that's the genesis of the Senatorial downturn of normalcy.

Furthermore, DEMOCRATS refused to bring many of Dubya's conservative leaning jurists AS IT IS THEIR RIGHT to conduct their "Advise and Consent" practice as they see fit.

Your house is on fire, and you helped handsy ol' uncle Donnie, with his long history of arson, to carry gallons and gallons of gasoline into it.

Yeah... okay... burn it all fething down!

I nominate Frazzled's daschound for office... FOOD in EVERY BOWL is the winning ticket!

**motyak**

Reel back the stupidity guys. Responding to people's posts, or even part of them, with laughter, insults or a pile of orkmoticons is a good way to have a holiday from the OT. Be polite.

And don't make an argument then say "lol I know it has nothing to do with that". That's rude

**Ustrello**

Well the house republicans have wheeled out a new bill that has some certainly fascist undertones. Also in before some posters try to point out this would include the KKK, we all know they aren't the intended targets

Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6054/text?format=txt

**Wolfblade**

Just to repeat it, don't reply to whembly. You know he has no intention of arguing in good faith based on previous posts. Easier to just ignore him (and those others who aren't arguing in good faith) and let his nonsense go by. As the saying goes, don't feed the troll.

**NinthMusketeer**

Ustrello wrote:
Well the house republicans have wheeled out a new bill that has some certainly fascist undertones. Also in before some posters try to point out this would include the KKK, we all know they aren't the intended targets

Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6054/text?format=txt

If they weren't already dead as the party of individual rights. But if it actually passed it would bite them in the ass hard, as Republican supporters engage in a lot more harassment than Democrat supporters. I imagine this will be dropped as soon as someone leans in an whispers that bit into Ryan's ear. Kind of like how thoroughly Trump dropped the 'make it easier to sue for libel/slander' sentiment. I wish he had, honestly, because in the US one can more or less make up any outrageous lie they want and use it to harm someone and it isn't a crime. But that would have bitten Trump's ass off with how hard it'd come back at him.

**Prestor Jon**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Well the house republicans have wheeled out a new bill that has some certainly fascist undertones. Also in before some posters try to point out this would include the KKK, we all know they aren't the intended targets

Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6054/text?format=txt
If they weren't already dead as the party of individual rights. But if it actually passed it would bite them in the ass hard, as Republican supporters engage in a lot more harassment than Democrat supporters. I imagine this will be dropped as soon as someone leans in an whispers that bit into Ryan's ear. Kind of like how thoroughly Trump dropped the 'make it easier to sue for libel/slander' sentiment. I wish he had, honestly, because in the US one can more or less make up any outrageous lie they want and use it to harm someone and it isn't a crime. But that would have bitten Trump's ass off with how hard it'd come back at him.

Masked/disguised Republican supporters commit more unlawful acts of violence and/or intimidation than masked/disguised Democrat supporters is a very specific claim to make with no supporting evidence.
Not a fan of the proposed legislation personally because I think federal laws that exist only to patnder to voters by making already criminal acts more illegal is a waste of time. Federal laws that only double down on existing state laws aren’t necessary unless there is ample evidence that multiple states aren’t enforcing those laws themselves to the extent that it has become a national problem.

**cuda1179**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Well the house republicans have wheeled out a new bill that has some certainly fascist undertones. Also in before some posters try to point out this would include the KKK, we all know they aren't the intended targets

Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, while in disguise, including while wearing a mask, injures, oppresses, threatens, or intimidates any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6054/text?format=txt
If they weren't already dead as the party of individual rights. But if it actually passed it would bite them in the ass hard, as Republican supporters engage in a lot more harassment than Democrat supporters. I imagine this will be dropped as soon as someone leans in an whispers that bit into Ryan's ear. Kind of like how thoroughly Trump dropped the 'make it easier to sue for libel/slander' sentiment. I wish he had, honestly, because in the US one can more or less make up any outrageous lie they want and use it to harm someone and it isn't a crime. But that would have bitten Trump's ass off with how hard it'd come back at him.

Have you been watching any kind of news in the last 5 years? A majority of harassment has been coming from the Liberal side.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Well, Trump's visit to NATO HQ is going exactly as we expected. Within 5 minutes of turning up, he accuses Germany of being a Russian stooge.

Which is ironic considering Trump's own domestic problems...

People may remember that during the election campiagn, I was willing to concede that some aspects of Trump's foreign policy might have some merit to it: better relations with Russia, avoiding needless fights in the Middle East etc etc

With regards to NATO funding and the 2% of GDP, there is some merit in Trump's criticisms. He's not the first POTUS to raise this. Germany is a very wealthy country and could easily hit the 2% target anytime.

For historical reasons which are understandable, Germany is reluctant to be seen to be re-arming too much. But they can't hide behind the Nazis forever...

None the less, there is a way of doing things, and Trump shooting from the hip, and saying to hell with the consequences, is not helping.

What is needed is vigorous diplomatic pressure applied politely according to diplomatics norms. That's how to do it.

**Kanluwen**

cuda1179 wrote:

Have you been watching any kind of news in the last 5 years? A majority of harassment has been coming from the Liberal side.

"Harassment" being protests of officials at their offices, recently "harassing"(read: "YOU SUCK!" kind of commentary--or in a certain case, asking someone to leave and comping them their bill leading up to their leaving) administration officials who constantly lie or outright avoid any mechanisms that would be used to confront them over their failings.

Meanwhile, some Conservatives have been using death threats and actual violence yet there's no attempt to curtail people bringing homemade "armor", "shields", or flagpoles to rallies. Y'know, the stuff that the neo-Nazis show up with. But yeah. We needed a bill because some people wear masks at rallies...and by "masks", we're really meaning anything that covers part of your face--y'know, like the bandanas that a lot of protesters who have been at more than one rally will have with them for when some of those Fine People on the other side start hucking pepper spray.

**cuda1179**

Kanluwen wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:

Have you been watching any kind of news in the last 5 years? A majority of harassment has been coming from the Liberal side.

"Harassment" being protests of officials at their offices, recently "harassing"(read: "YOU SUCK!" kind of commentary--or in a certain case, asking someone to leave and comping them their bill leading up to their leaving) administration officials who constantly lie or outright avoid any mechanisms that would be used to confront them over their failings.

Meanwhile, some Conservatives have been using death threats and actual violence yet there's no attempt to curtail people bringing homemade "armor", "shields", or flagpoles to rallies. Y'know, the stuff that the neo-Nazis show up with. But yeah. We needed a bill because some people wear masks at rallies...and by "masks", we're really meaning anything that covers part of your face--y'know, like the bandanas that a lot of protesters who have been at more than one rally will have with them for when some of those Fine People on the other side start hucking pepper spray.

I think you need to review who is armed with clubs and pepper spray. While BOTH sides have come armed with it to rallies, it's mainly Liberals that are proactive in using these instruments. In the last couple encounter in Seattle police confirmed that conservatives were unarmed when confronted by club and pepper spray wielding protestors. I also don't remember any conservatives hitting people over the head with steel been bike locks in unprovoked attacks.

Let us also not pretend liberals are the only ones getting death threats.

**Kilkrazy**

As usual, Tom the Dancing Bug has nailed it:

Civility First, Please!

**Kanluwen**

cuda1179 wrote:

I think you need to review who is armed with clubs and pepper spray. While BOTH sides have come armed with it to rallies, it's mainly Liberals that are proactive in using these instruments. In the last couple encounter in Seattle police confirmed that conservatives were unarmed when confronted by club and pepper spray wielding protestors. I also don't remember any conservatives hitting people over the head with steel been bike locks in unprovoked attacks.

Sure, they haven't hit people with bike locks. They've only driven cars into crowds, beat people with a flagpole flying the fricking American flag, discharged firearms into crowds, etc.

It's funny how the world isn't what you pretend it is. So while Seattle might have been a legitimate case of protestors striking first, that has not been the case elsewhere.

Let us also not pretend liberals are the only ones getting death threats.

**cuda1179**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, Trump's visit to NATO HQ is going exactly as we expected. Within 5 minutes of turning up, he accuses Germany of being a Russian stooge.

Which is ironic considering Trump's own domestic problems.

With regards to NATO funding and the 2% of GDP, there is some merit in Trump's criticisms. He's not the first POTUS to raise this. Germany is a very wealthy country and could easily hit the 2% target anytime.

For historical reasons which are understandable, Germany is reluctant to be seen to be re-arming too much.

While I somewhat understand Germany not wanting a military stigma, I'm a bit sceptical since they have been caught in the past illegally supplying military weapons to banned countries in violation of international treaty.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

cuda1179 wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Well, Trump's visit to NATO HQ is going exactly as we expected. Within 5 minutes of turning up, he accuses Germany of being a Russian stooge.

Which is ironic considering Trump's own domestic problems.

With regards to NATO funding and the 2% of GDP, there is some merit in Trump's criticisms. He's not the first POTUS to raise this. Germany is a very wealthy country and could easily hit the 2% target anytime.

For historical reasons which are understandable, Germany is reluctant to be seen to be re-arming too much.

While I somewhat understand Germany not wanting a military stigma, I'm a bit sceptical since they have been caught in the past illegally supplying military weapons to banned countries in violation of international treaty.

My country, Britain, sells weapons to the Saudis, and these weapons have been killing civilians in Yemen, so we can't take the moral high ground there. And of course, the USA has supporte a lot of bad regimes in recent years.

As I say, Trump has a point in this, and had he walked in there with a charm offensive, whilst holding the big stick, he'd probably be able to wring some promises out of Europeans leaders.

The Europeans don't do government by twitter. And Trump barging in there like a drunk uncle at Christmas is not helping

**Kilkrazy**

Germany is doubling their spend on military over the next 12 years. Trump just wants them to do it quicker. The Germans have to deal with domestic German politics, though.

**cuda1179**

Kanluwen wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:

I think you need to review who is armed with clubs and pepper spray. While BOTH sides have come armed with it to rallies, it's mainly Liberals that are proactive in using these instruments. In the last couple encounter in Seattle police confirmed that conservatives were unarmed when confronted by club and pepper spray wielding protestors. I also don't remember any conservatives hitting people over the head with steel been bike locks in unprovoked attacks.

Sure, they haven't hit people with bike locks. They've only driven cars into crowds, beat people with a flagpole flying the fricking American flag, discharged firearms into crowds, etc.

It's funny how the world isn't what you pretend it is. So while Seattle might have been a legitimate case of protestors striking first, that has not been the case elsewhere.

Yes, driving a car into a crowd was a bad act, no denying it. But you seem to be denying that counter protesting liberals have been the instigators of many riots and assaults. The vast majority of violent acts at college protests, Berkeley in particular, was instigated by liberals. Also, hitting someone with a flagpole after they instigate violence isn't starting violence.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Germany is doubling their spend on military over the next 12 years. Trump just wants them to do it quicker. The Germans have to deal with domestic German politics, though.

12 Years? The Russians could have Poland and the Baltic nations in the bag in 12 days!

That's not good enough from Germany.

To be fair to Germany, I've read enough military history to know that raising even a division of troops takes time. Recruits have to be trained, equipment supplied or built, command structures put in place etc etc But 12 years?

It could be done in 5 years.

**cuda1179**

Let us not also forget liberals filling glass jugs full of explosives and tossing them into a crowd.

As for a parallel to the car into a crowd incident, didn't a liberal lure cops into an area so he could shoot them?

There are crazies on both sides. Sometimes super crazies.

That being said, banning masks from people intent on harming others isn't a terrible idea, and I don't care what side politically the offenders fall on.

**A Town Called Malus**

cuda1179 wrote:
Let us not also forget liberals filling glass jugs full of explosives and tossing them into a crowd.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/antifa-protestor-punch-m80/

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cuda1179 wrote:
As for a parallel to the car into a crowd incident, didn't a liberal lure cops into an area so he could shoot them?

Just as much as a conservative gunned down black people in a church.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

cuda1179 wrote:

That being said, banning masks from people intent on harming others isn't a terrible idea, and I don't care what side politically the offenders fall on.

What about banning guns from people intent on harming others?

How are you going to determine whether or not people intend harm until after the fact in which case the mask doesn't matter.

**Kanluwen**

cuda1179 wrote:

That being said, banning masks from people intent on harming others isn't a terrible idea, and I don't care what side politically the offenders fall on.

That being said, police should also be banned from obscuring/hiding their badge numbers, names, and they have no business having anything obscuring their faces.
And hey maybe we should ban polos, MAGA hats, and other items specifically associated with one group.

Because that's the point of this law. It's not to "ban masks from people intent on harming others"(because again, they're not always the ones starting crap--but you really should know this)--it's to target specific groups involved with protests. It's also overly broad to the point where someone wearing a scarf could be considered 'obscuring their face' during a protest, violent or not.

**cuda1179**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Let us not also forget liberals filling glass jugs full of explosives and tossing them into a crowd.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/antifa-protestor-punch-m80/

r.

Snopes only states it can't be proven that one specific individual at one protest did that. The very same article even states that Antifa threw explosives at that event.

**Frazzled**

How about we just sit back and watch the Antifa and Neo Nazis go at it for our amusement? Whoever loses, we win!

**Kanluwen**

cuda1179 wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Let us not also forget liberals filling glass jugs full of explosives and tossing them into a crowd.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/antifa-protestor-punch-m80/

Snopes only states it can't be proven that one specific individual at one protest did that. The very same article even states that Antifa threw explosives at that event.

There's no evidence that the glass bottle was a makeshift explosive, and Rosealma was not arrested or charged with using an explosive during the riot.

Your claim was that "liberals filling glass jugs full of explosives and tossing them into a crowd".

That part is listed as FALSE.
And really, Snopes doesn't actually state that "Antifa threw explosives at that event".

The Washington Post reported that there were small explosions (most likely firecrackers) during the riot, but explosives were absent from a list of weapons that were confiscated by police compiled by Mercury News:

Oh and just so we're 100% up front:

Although the post portrays Damigo as a veteran heroically intervening to prevent violence, his past is more complicated than that. He is the founder of a white supremacist group called Identity Evropa (which he was promoting at the event) and has served jail time for armed robbery.

**A Town Called Malus**

cuda1179 wrote:
A Town Called Malus wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
Let us not also forget liberals filling glass jugs full of explosives and tossing them into a crowd.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/antifa-protestor-punch-m80/

r.

Snopes only states it can't be proven that one specific individual at one protest did that. The very same article even states that Antifa threw explosives at that event.

In addition to this photograph, the claim that Rosealma was using an explosive device made out of a glass bottle may originate in a video featuring an interview with the anti-fascist protester that shows at least one explosion during the rally, but it’s unclear what exactly it was or who set it off.

Reporter Tim Pool, who took this video, said in the interview that M80s were being thrown into the crowd — but not that they were being stuffed inside glass bottles, which would create a far more dangerous weapon.
The Washington Post reported that there were small explosions (most likely firecrackers) during the riot, but explosives were absent from a list of weapons that were confiscated by police compiled by Mercury News:

In its Saturday statement, police said officers tried to protect people and their free speech rights — despite organizers’ lack of a permit — by prohibiting potential weapons, limiting park entry and exit, and sharing citation and arrest risks for rule violations. They put up a plastic barricade in an attempt to keep the opposing sides apart and collected anything that could be used as a weapon. Police had banned metal pipes, baseball or softball bats, lumber or wood of any size, poles, bricks, rocks, glass bottles, pepper spray and other objects.

Despite their efforts, police said officers confiscated pepper and bear spray, knives and mace, an ax handle and a concrete-filled can at Saturday’s protest, and that city staff cleaning the park before the rally found a replica gun.

**cuda1179**

Kanluwen wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:

That being said, banning masks from people intent on harming others isn't a terrible idea, and I don't care what side politically the offenders fall on.

That being said, police should also be banned from obscuring/hiding their badge numbers, names, and they have no business having anything obscuring their faces.
And hey maybe we should ban polos, MAGA hats, and other items specifically associated with one group.

Because that's the point of this law. It's not to "ban masks from people intent on harming others"(because again, they're not always the ones starting crap--but you really should know this)--it's to target specific groups involved with protests. It's also overly broad to the point where someone wearing a scarf could be considered 'obscuring their face' during a protest, violent or not.

I'll agree with you that cops should have badges and names on full display. 100% with you there. However, I'm going to give them a pass on masks when it comes to gas masks and riot helmets.

I've never seen a polo or a MAGA hat used to help someone become anonymous to prevent arrests. If you look at Antifas websites, they specifically organize to do just that. They were masks and organize groups to impede police so masked assailants can disappear into a crowd.

**d-usa**

Your donkey-caves can beat up my donkey-caves isn’t really a good argument for anyone involved.