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.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Most of the people they punch don't think those things either.

We had a local who went to the Charlottesville march, have a quick peak at him.

Oh look he had Freikorps written on his shield, dudes who literally murdered political enemies of the nazis during the Weimar.

The GOP should probably sort out its candidates running for election in locations they didn't care about (i.e. anywhere they think they cannot win).

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/nazis-russell-walker-arthur-jones-republicans-illinois-north-carolina-virginia

Would be interesting to see if any nazis are running as democrats in places where the democrats think they have no chance of winning and so haven't put forth any candidates selected by the party itself.

Would also be interesting to see how many votes these people get.

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, maybe I'm just not understanding, but what makes this Antifa thing so bad that we need this law now? I mean, we've been cool with the KKK wearing hoods all this time, right?

There's been a few arrests prior based on anti-kkk laws from civil rights era, anti-fa now and the Guy Fawkes idiots a few years back.

So, if we already have laws on the books for dealing with masked people who commit violent acts, why do we need another law to do the same? Do those other laws not apply?

Anyway, moving on to Trump and NATO, if he's so worried about the US providing too much to NATO, he can always reduce our commitment and reduce the defense budget accordingly. Yeah, I couldn't keep a straight face while saying that.

In a way, I feel sorry for the European leaders, because they clearly despise Trump.

But it's not as though you can tell an American president to feth off...

So they suffer in silence...

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

YeOldSaltPotato wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
So, maybe I'm just not understanding, but what makes this Antifa thing so bad that we need this law now? I mean, we've been cool with the KKK wearing hoods all this time, right?

There's been a few arrests prior based on anti-kkk laws from civil rights era, anti-fa now and the Guy Fawkes idiots a few years back.

So, if we already have laws on the books for dealing with masked people who commit violent acts, why do we need another law to do the same? Do those other laws not apply?

Most of the laws are at state/local levels, not federal.

Cuda: my main issue with your arguments right now is that you are not finishing any of them. Instead you are just jumping from X to Y to Z. For me, when I try to address a point you make, you just counter with a different point. With the KKK as an example, you argued that they haven’t been relevant, I brought up an example of their relevance by pointing out how they littered a black town with KKK flyers, and you countered with “did the flyers beat people up”. That to me is the classic whembly style of arguing on here, because you can’t actually argue with someone if you can’t actually pin them down to an actual argument. I’m not even talking about ignoring rebuttals, which is also prevalent.

I try to see any argument I make through to the end. Sometimes the discussion flows organically, so the specific argument flows as well. But I really try to abstain from the “well X”, “actually X is...”, “but Y!!!” style of debating.

I also don’t care if we disagree on stuff. Plenty of people disagree and you can still have a good discussion without any Rule 1 violations. My beef is just the switching of the actual arguments and ignoring any rebuttals.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Anti-fa bears more resemblance to fascists than their opponents, in a stroke of irony.

Not remotely, no. Anti-Fascist Action does not, for example, advocate for ethnostates or the purging of the weak by the strong.

Here in the East Bay they do. Lots of talk about a 'technocracy' where an elite, educated, liberal caste (of which of course they expect to belong) would replace our current form of government in a benevolent dictatorship. We also have MEChA up here still (their numbers took a nosedive after 2003 and they got blamed for Schwarzenegger). Antifa is a nuisance out here as they tend to pop up to normally peaceful & successful protests and give their far-right opponents everything they could wish for - including beating up leftist protesters they consider to be 'fascist-aligned' (ie: moderates). The anti-trump protests were a good example - they could have affected real change but instead the Oakland ones got taken over by violence and the media focused on that instead of the message.

Far-Anything is always crazy and the Internet is all about comparing your moderates with the extreme of your 'opponents'.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Do you really think the KKK stopped killing people in 1929?

Did you forget the entire civil rights movement?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/31/usa.international

I mean the FBI started using The Mafia to find people. What the feth are you even on about? The KKK and other white nationalist organizations are terrorist groups and should be treated as such.

Sure. That doesn’t change the fact the KKK is an irrelevant group in today’s environment.

Being able to put a bunch of flyers out means nothing. Anybody can go to Kinkos and print up thousands of pamphlets.

Anti-fa is a far larger and more relevant group. They haven’t killed anybody it’s true, yet... But they have assaulted at least hundreds and they have just as vile an agenda. It’s only a matter of time imo till they do kill someone just for being a conservative individual.

The KKK is a terror group, but it’s a dying group. Anti-fa is a terror group on the rise. The latter is the more dangerous one. This law doesn’t really help, and is likely unconstitutional, though.

Out of any group in the US likely to commit another Night of the Longknives, my money is on Anti-fa.

So Trump wants European countrues to spend 4% of their GDP on the military. As few European countries are into military adventurism like the US, why would they need the kind of percentage spending the US has? Just throwing around numbers that sound flashy but are completely stupid considering most European nations.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 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.

Could? Maybe. But would? No. Russia isn't going to invade the Baltics anytime soon, let alone Poland. Not in the current situation. When Ukraine is gone, that is when the Baltics need to start getting anxious. Germany has all the time in the world to build up its forces gradually. And it needs to, if Europe wants to stop being reliant on the US for its security.
Alternatively, Germany could just make friends with Russia and eliminate the danger in a peaceful, friendly manner. But in the current political climate, I do not see that happening unfortunately. Too much polarisation.
For the US, I guess it would be great if Trump can finally get European countries to pay up for their own defense. The US does spend crazy amounts of money on its military budget. Maybe they can use the money saved to set up a better healthcare system for their own people? Wishful thinking, I know

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So Trump wants European countrues to spend 4% of their GDP on the military. As few European countries are into military adventurism like the US, why would they need the kind of percentage spending the US has? Just throwing around numbers that sound flashy but are completely stupid considering most European nations.

Deterrence against potential aggressors and peacekeeping missions. Taking the Netherlands as an example, with more money we could actually sustain small missions such as in Mali without it consuming all available equipment of virtually the entire Dutch military. With more money, they could have also prevented soldiers from dying due to them having to use ancient, ill-maintained equipment.

A certain ability to project military power is always good for the influence of a nation with its allies.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Anti-fa bears more resemblance to fascists than their opponents, in a stroke of irony.

Not remotely, no. Anti-Fascist Action does not, for example, advocate for ethnostates or the purging of the weak by the strong.

Here in the East Bay they do. Lots of talk about a 'technocracy' where an elite, educated, liberal caste (of which of course they expect to belong) would replace our current form of government in a benevolent dictatorship. We also have MEChA up here still (their numbers took a nosedive after 2003 and they got blamed for Schwarzenegger). Antifa is a nuisance out here as they tend to pop up to normally peaceful & successful protests and give their far-right opponents everything they could wish for - including beating up leftist protesters they consider to be 'fascist-aligned' (ie: moderates). The anti-trump protests were a good example - they could have affected real change but instead the Oakland ones got taken over by violence and the media focused on that instead of the message.

Far-Anything is always crazy and the Internet is all about comparing your moderates with the extreme of your 'opponents'.

Was MEChA ever taken seriously? I was at Berkeley in the late nineties and early 2000's, and they were treated with about as much respect as the guy who climbed the campanile and the kids who chained themselves to the ethnic studies building. Other than their "controversial" map and black eagle, both of which caused as much blowback as base-rallying, I can't remember anything they actually did.

If you want to compare numbers, it would be more accurate to compare antifa to the alt-right, not the collective of all leftist extremist against a single rightist hate group.

And thats ignoring the role the KKK continues to play.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The GOP should probably sort out its candidates running for election in locations they didn't care about (i.e. anywhere they think they cannot win).

https://www.vox.com/2018/7/9/17525860/nazis-russell-walker-arthur-jones-republicans-illinois-north-carolina-virginia

Would be interesting to see if any nazis are running as democrats in places where the democrats think they have no chance of winning and so haven't put forth any candidates selected by the party itself.

Would also be interesting to see how many votes these people get.

The article reads like its from the twilight zone..

Interesting indeed to see how far they can go.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Out of any group in the US likely to commit another Night of the Longknives, my money is on Anti-fa.

What with their iron clad grip on politics and complete lack of consequences, I clearly see where you're coming from.

Or we could remember that the current occupant of the white house has repeatedly encouraged violence from his supporters and claimed to be willing to pay their legal bills as a result of such action. He hasn't been as good as his word, but some of his supporters have been.

I know some anti-fa folks from back before fascists were injected back into the main stream. They're not particularly scary individuals, mostly grad students and academics who I have to admit called the angle of US politics a few decades ago. Saying this having argued with them that we could roll things back after 9/11's freak out finished. Turns out I underestimated fear and fox news.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
Here in the East Bay they do. Lots of talk about a 'technocracy' where an elite, educated, liberal caste (of which of course they expect to belong) would replace our current form of government in a benevolent dictatorship.

That sounds, to me, like rich people who are lying to themselves about which side of the fascist/antifascist divide they actually come down on.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Anti-fa bears more resemblance to fascists than their opponents, in a stroke of irony.

Not remotely, no. Anti-Fascist Action does not, for example, advocate for ethnostates or the purging of the weak by the strong. Since they're majority anarchists they don't view society as a harmonious thing disrupted by outside malicious forces. They don't put people in racial hierarchies. They don't want to control women to ensure that more white babies are born. Etc etc.

That AFA takes the fight to the fascists is not actually a sign of fascism. That's pure and raw liberalism talking.

Antifa does use the same methods as the fascists though. Being the commie I am, I hang around a lot with leftist groups which also include a lot of Antifa people. In my opinion, they are too radical. They too often lower themselves to the level of the fascists they fight. A classical case of "he who fights monsters..."
That said, I'd take Antifa over the KKK or neonazis any day of the week. Comparing Antifa with fascists is pretty outrageous. They may use the same methods, but for good, rather than evil purposes (e.g. to end racism rather than to propagate it).

Also, antifascists who would advocate for dictatorship are not true antifascists.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So Trump wants European countrues to spend 4% of their GDP on the military. As few European countries are into military adventurism like the US, why would they need the kind of percentage spending the US has? Just throwing around numbers that sound flashy but are completely stupid considering most European nations.

Deterrence against potential aggressors and peacekeeping missions. Taking the Netherlands as an example, with more money we could actually sustain small missions such as in Mali without it consuming all available equipment of virtually the entire Dutch military. With more money, they could have also prevented soldiers from dying due to them having to use ancient, ill-maintained equipment.

A certain ability to project military power is always good for the influence of a nation with its allies.

NATO is the detterent, all of us working together, 2% is more than enough for that. Peacekeeping is always a multinational effort, you don't need 4% for that. The Netherlands spends too little, but 4% is way overboard. 25 billion would be more than Israel spends. 4% is more than any other country is spending beyond Russia and the US that has been at war since 2001 (and even the US dips below 4%).

Why would countries like the Netherlands and Belgium need to project power for influence with its allies, if its going to cooperate with said allies in the first place? You never need 4% for that, the larger part of Europe went to Afghanistan and Iraq without having to spend 4%

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Antifa does use the same methods as the fascists though..

Everyone who has ever wielded a rifle has used the same method. Antifa and nazis are similar only from a horribly reductionist point of view. "They fight those they consider their enemies" can apply to a lot of people and does not contain any value judgement so it's about as useful for anything as the observation that multiple different organisations are all joined by people who wear shoes.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Do you really think the KKK stopped killing people in 1929?

Did you forget the entire civil rights movement?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/31/usa.international

I mean the FBI started using The Mafia to find people. What the feth are you even on about? The KKK and other white nationalist organizations are terrorist groups and should be treated as such.

Sure. That doesn’t change the fact the KKK is an irrelevant group in today’s environment.

Being able to put a bunch of flyers out means nothing. Anybody can go to Kinkos and print up thousands of pamphlets.

Anti-fa is a far larger and more relevant group. They haven’t killed anybody it’s true, yet... But they have assaulted at least hundreds and they have just as vile an agenda. It’s only a matter of time imo till they do kill someone just for being a conservative individual.

The KKK is a terror group, but it’s a dying group. Anti-fa is a terror group on the rise. The latter is the more dangerous one. This law doesn’t really help, and is likely unconstitutional, though.

Out of any group in the US likely to commit another Night of the Longknives, my money is on Anti-fa.

So you are betting against history that the violent terrorist group will stop being a violent terrorist group?

Wow, I wish I lived in that kind of fairytale world. Everything must be bright and happy there.....

ITT:

" The KKK hasn’t been relevant for the better part of a century"

Actually, here's these facts showing they are active in 22 states and more than half those groups started in the last three years.

"..."

"..."

"..."

"But the KKK are an irrelevant group"

 feeder wrote:
ITT:

" The KKK hasn’t been relevant for the better part of a century"

Actually, here's these facts showing they are active in 22 states and more than half those groups started in the last three years.

"..."

"..."

"..."

"But the KKK are an irrelevant group"

Yeah its kinda sad really that people ignored that when I posted it. Plus it only goes to reaffirm that while not all republicans are facists, white supremecists, neo nazis, all of those groups vote republican

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Why would countries like the Netherlands and Belgium need to project power for influence with its allies, if its going to cooperate with said allies in the first place? You never need 4% for that, the larger part of Europe went to Afghanistan and Iraq without having to spend 4%

Even more important would be to have a look at what that 2% (or 4%) actually buys. The Baltic states meet the demands, but they barely surpass six million citizens in total. IIRC they barely have any fighter craft, for instance, being totally dependent on NATO for that, and it does make sense that small countries can't be expected to have all the toys. Wasting money on something expensive they'll never have need for (or the ability to support/use) shouldn't be more important than providing things they can use and volunteer for NATO. They've had quite a lot of their soldiers take part in Afghanistan operations, for example, supporting the US (and in many cases it can be good to have someone from a less well-known country speak to locals).

So the 2% should perhaps be more specific. The US already has aircraft carriers, nukes and tanks. Smaller members should perhaps focus more on working together (some do ofc) and providing something the US doesn't.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Why would countries like the Netherlands and Belgium need to project power for influence with its allies, if its going to cooperate with said allies in the first place? You never need 4% for that, the larger part of Europe went to Afghanistan and Iraq without having to spend 4%

Even more important would be to have a look at what that 2% (or 4%) actually buys. The Baltic states meet the demands, but they barely surpass six million citizens in total. IIRC they barely have any fighter craft, for instance, being totally dependent on NATO for that, and it does make sense that small countries can't be expected to have all the toys. Wasting money on something expensive they'll never have need for (or the ability to support/use) shouldn't be more important than providing things they can use and volunteer for NATO. They've had quite a lot of their soldiers take part in Afghanistan operations, for example, supporting the US (and in many cases it can be good to have someone from a less well-known country speak to locals).

So the 2% should perhaps be more specific. The US already has aircraft carriers, nukes and tanks. Smaller members should perhaps focus more on working together (some do ofc) and providing something the US doesn't.

There was an interesting article with an Estonian military officer talking about when Russia invades (he used the words when not if). Even if only half what he says will happen there will be a lot of Russian soldiers going home in body bags (not that that isn't happening already)

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Also, show me ONE instance of AR-15 toting protestor harming someone with it.

Show us one instance of a mask wearing protester harming someone with it.

As I noted above, its being used as a tool to aid in preventing those that commit violent act from facing any consequences.

So, the mask is not harming anyone.

I'm sorry, but you should not ban clothing on the basis that it can make the police's job harder after the person has committed a crime. Are you next going to ban all hooded clothes and hats as they can make identification more difficult? What about banning all gloves as they prevent fingerprints and as such can be used as a tool to aid in preventing those that commit violent act from facing any consequences?

That's not a good argument. Anti mask laws we're put in place because terrorists used them to intimidate and hide when the committed crimes (you know like hanging people or blowing up churches).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So Trump wants European countrues to spend 4% of their GDP on the military. As few European countries are into military adventurism like the US, why would they need the kind of percentage spending the US has? Just throwing around numbers that sound flashy but are completely stupid considering most European nations.

So when we leave Russia doesn't eat you. Time for the US to go. Russia is not a major threat to us.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Why would countries like the Netherlands and Belgium need to project power for influence with its allies, if its going to cooperate with said allies in the first place? You never need 4% for that, the larger part of Europe went to Afghanistan and Iraq without having to spend 4%

Even more important would be to have a look at what that 2% (or 4%) actually buys. The Baltic states meet the demands, but they barely surpass six million citizens in total. IIRC they barely have any fighter craft, for instance, being totally dependent on NATO for that, and it does make sense that small countries can't be expected to have all the toys. Wasting money on something expensive they'll never have need for (or the ability to support/use) shouldn't be more important than providing things they can use and volunteer for NATO. They've had quite a lot of their soldiers take part in Afghanistan operations, for example, supporting the US (and in many cases it can be good to have someone from a less well-known country speak to locals).

So the 2% should perhaps be more specific. The US already has aircraft carriers, nukes and tanks. Smaller members should perhaps focus more on working together (some do ofc) and providing something the US doesn't.

True, more European integration could help in this regard. But arbitrary numbers are useless. The Netherlands could up it to 5% tomorrow by hiring every unemployed person and have them sweep streets in uniform. I doubt that would make anyone happy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So Trump wants European countrues to spend 4% of their GDP on the military. As few European countries are into military adventurism like the US, why would they need the kind of percentage spending the US has? Just throwing around numbers that sound flashy but are completely stupid considering most European nations.

So when we leave Russia doesn't eat you. Time for the US to go. Russia is not a major threat to us.

But you never need 4% for that, its an incredibly silly number to throw out. Europe can do that without an arbitrary norm of 4%. Just for laughs, if every European state would invest 4% we would outspend Russia ten times over and even give the US a run on total budget. The question being why? Why does Europe need to spend such ungodly amounts of money when it barely involves itself in operations overseas?

I am fine with you spending nothing, once we leave.

Maybe Europe should just get on Twitter and complain about having the worst defense deals in history, and tell the US that they are going to pay whatever they want.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So Trump wants European countrues to spend 4% of their GDP on the military. As few European countries are into military adventurism like the US, why would they need the kind of percentage spending the US has? Just throwing around numbers that sound flashy but are completely stupid considering most European nations.

So when we leave Russia doesn't eat you. Time for the US to go. Russia is not a major threat to us.

But you never need 4% for that, its an incredibly silly number to throw out. Europe can do that without an arbitrary norm of 4%. Just for laughs, if every European state would invest 4% we would outspend Russia ten times over and even give the US a run on total budget. The question being why? Why does Europe need to spend such ungodly amounts of money when it barely involves itself in operations overseas?

Maybe because the US is tired of being treated as a “strap on” for the rest of Europe?

I don’t fully agree with frazzled isolationist views... but I see where he’s coming from.

Trump’s 4% figure is a weee bit silly... but the context is simply “ y’all need to do better “. And he’s right... y’all do. This is not meant to disparage current efforts...just a friendly reminder that the 2% target has been promised numerous times and that the eta frequently pushed back.

 Ustrello wrote:
Plus it only goes to reaffirm that while not all republicans are facists, white supremecists, neo nazis, all of those groups vote republican

I don't think the vast majority of conservatives are racists, sexist, whatever.

But it does make me sad that they voted for, and will defend someone, who is openly racist and sexist and embodies everything they say they hated about Clinton.

At that point, just stop pretending its about actual personality issues. Just admit that it boils down to "I will vote for a corpse as long as he's anti-abortion" and "borders" rather than integrity, trust, honestly, etc.

But for many, politics is this:


language warning.
Reds8n

http://extrafabulouscomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/sports.png

 Frazzled wrote:
I am fine with you spending nothing, once we leave.

I think we can agree that as of now most of Europe spends too little. But 4% is just silly, the US didn't even spend 4% last year, while being involved in multiple wars.