US Politics: Sioux suing suits

[Horza]

2 minutes ago, Triskan said:

 

Fuck Trump.

Wrong thread, chimpo. Here we talk about the full panoply of pathologies afflicting the Republic.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On 30.9.2016 at 4:53 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

I guess at election time no one wants to be seen to be voting against 9/11 families, well almost no one. Seems like there is almost a case to be made that legislation with populist appeal should not go through congress for at least 6 months leading up to an election.

I reckon if this vote was held on 9/11/16 in my date format (hint 9 November), there probably wouldn't be a veto-busting majority.

On a related note, if the Saudi Arabia govt can be proven to have substantially contributed to 9/11 does that not mean it was an act of war and not an act of terrorism? Surely, if Saudi Arabia's govt is guilty of an act of war against the USA then there must be substantial remedies the USA can enforce without telling individual survivors they have to sue Saudi Arabia. Why isn't the US govt seizing some assets, and withdrawing diplomats, and imposing sanctions, and denying entry visas and lots of other stuff?

Seems like this legislation is really just a smokescreen to obscure what the US govt should actually be doing to Saudi Arabia for attacking the USA. Or the Saudi govt never actually did anything, and this law isn't going to achieve anything for 9/11 families and will only get on the nerves of the Saudis. Either way, it seems like it's a pretty shitty and weak arsed move by Congress.

Nah, as far as I understand it, the issue the White House has/had, is that this law cuts both ways. And thus the US goverment/or army members might find themselves in court. So this can get pretty "entertaining" when Assad is taking the US to the courts, over their support of terror organisations (weapon deliveries to different combat groups), and providing training for those terrorists.

Not to mention, that the Iraqis might find some actions of the US army during Dubya's war on error somewhat legally questionable. 

Of course the Republicans played chicken with the senate Democrats, and hoped they would back Obama's veto, and spin it in the upcoming election as Democrats vs. 9-11 victims. But that's not how it played out. So get some popcorn and enjoy the comedy show.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 30/09/2016 at 5:12 PM, Shryke said:

Was it the SA government though? I was pretty sure it wasn't the government directly but just someone in the (rather large) royal family or something.

That's the thing. There isn't enough evidence, at least not that is available to the public as a basis for mounting a law suit, to be able to pin anything on the Saudi govt and there is indirect evidence that members of the Royal family supported Al Qaeda in some ways. And after all these years if the Feds and CIA haven't uncovered a smoking gun that could trigger private law suits it's likely none exists or it does exist, the Feds know about it, but it is too damning on some US people / the govt for it to ever be made public.

[Paladin of Ice]

A terrorist militia plot to kill Somali Americans was broken up

Three members of a Kansas militia group were charged Friday with plotting to bomb an apartment complex that’s home to Somali immigrants in the western Kansas meatpacking town of Garden City, a thwarted attack prosecutors say was planned for the day after the November election.

The arrests were the culmination of an eight-month FBI investigation that took agents “deep into a hidden culture of hatred and violence,” Acting U.S. Attorney Tom Beall said.

A complaint unsealed Friday charges Curtis Wayne Allen, 49; Patrick Eugene Stein, 47; and Gavin Wayne Wright, 49, with conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction. Their first court appearance is Monday.

All three men are currently in the Sedgwick County jail on one count of conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction, reports CBS affiliate KWCH.

If convicted, all three could face life in prison.
...
The men are members of a small militia group that calls itself “the Crusaders,” and whose members espouse sovereign citizen, anti-government, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant extremist beliefs, according to the complaint.

The complaint alleges group members chose the target based on their hatred for Muslims, people of Somali descent and immigrants - and out of a desire to inspire other militia groups and “wake people up.”

The FBI began a domestic terrorism investigation of the group in February, and a confidential source attended its meetings in southwestern Kansas.

In a June meeting, Stein brought up the Orlando nightclub shooting, and proposed carrying out a similar attack against Muslim refugees in Garden City, according to the complaint.

They ultimately decided to target the apartment complex because of the number of Somalis who lived there and the fact that one of the apartments was used as a mosque. The complex houses about 120 Somali residents, Beall said.
The complaint said that Stein discussed the explosives used in the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City by Timothy Mc Veigh.

The men, who were arrested in Liberal on Friday morning, performed surveillance of the apartment building and prepared a manifesto, Beall said.

In a profanity-laced conference call that law enforcement monitored, Stein said the only way “this country’s ever going to get turned around is it will be a bloodbath,” according to the complaint.

I hope Christian leaders will lead the way in denouncing this plot as much as they implore Muslims to denounce groups like Daesh and Al-Queada.

 

White Supremacists planning to play a larger role in politics after election due to Trump's popularity

Throughout Donald Trump’s candidacy, there’s been a heated debate about whether support for his campaign is about economic anxiety or racism. But if you ask people who identify as white nationalists and white supremacists what Trump’s campaign is about, there’s no mincing words: It’s totally about racism.

A new report by Mother Jones takes a look at the far right’s role in the 2016 election, documenting how outright racists, white supremacists, and white nationalists have discussed and received Trump’s candidacy. Generally, these people seem to describe Trump in glowing terms, Mother Jones found:

Trump "may be the last hope for a president who would be good for white people," remarked Jared Taylor, who runs a white nationalist website called American Renaissance and once founded a think tank dedicated to "scientifically" proving white superiority. Taylor told us that Trump was the first presidential candidate from a major party ever to earn his support because Trump "is talking about policies that would slow the dispossession of whites. That is something that is very important to me and to all racially conscious white people."

Trump fever quickly spread: Other extremists new to presidential politics openly endorsed Trump, including Don Black, a former grand dragon of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and founder of the neo-Nazi site Stormfront; Rocky Suhayda, chair of the American Nazi Party; and Rachel Pendergraft, a national organizer for the Knights Party, the successor to David Duke's Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Richard Spencer, an emerging leader among a new generation of white nationalists known as the "alt right," declared that Trump "loves white people." As Sarah Posner and David Neiwert explained at Mother Jones, to these Trump backers, what the media has largely treated as gaffes — Trump retweeting white nationalists, Trump describing Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and criminals — are real signals approving of their racist causes. One white supremacist wrote, “Our Glorious Leader and ULTIMATE SAVIOR has gone full-wink-wink-wink to his most aggressive supporters.”

This type of messaging from Trump, Mother Jones found, has apparently made white nationalists much more confident. For them, Trump has begun to soften the greater public to racist messages.

“The success of the Trump campaign just proves that our views resonate with millions,” said Rachel Pendergraft, a national organizer for the Knights Party, which succeeded David Duke’s Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. “They may not be ready for the Ku Klux Klan yet, but as anti-white hatred escalates, they will.”

And they’re going to keep pushing their same racist messages after the election:

Many white nationalists and their fellow travelers have been saying they are poised to build on Trump's presidential campaign. Pendergraft and Taylor each told us that win or lose, Trump's run has brought into view a tremendous dissatisfaction among white Americans. "Those feelings will not go away," Taylor said. He envisions alt-right candidates for school board, city council, and mayor. "I feel my job will be done when at the PTA meeting a woman gets up and says, 'Well of course there aren't as many blacks in the AP courses, because they just do not have the same average IQ,' and nobody objects."

 

This isn't something that can be overlooked, or assumed to be taken care of because one election is won. These people have to continue to be resoundingly defeated over and over again until they see no hope of success, and it's on all of us to remember that, and not to go back to sleep after a single election.

 

[Ariadne23]

21 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

A terrorist militia plot to kill Somali Americans was broken up

 

 

I'm sure we'll hear the call for white people to be the government's eyes and ears on activity like this any moment now.

[MerenthaClone]

7 hours ago, Ariadne23 said:

I'm sure we'll hear the call for white people to be the government's eyes and ears on activity like this any moment now.

Ages ago (2009?) DHS put out a report saying that right-wing christian extremism was the biggest threat for domestic terrorism in the US.  The GOP shut down the DHS division responsible for monitoring that situation.  

[Swordfish]

On 10/15/2016 at 7:32 PM, Ariadne23 said:

I'm sure we'll hear the call for white people to be the government's eyes and ears on activity like this any moment now.

Uh..  There was a CI.  That's how they prevented it.  So......  Yeah.......  

Nice try though....

[Ariadne23]

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Uh..  There was a CI.  That's how they prevented it.  So......  Yeah.......  

Nice try though....

Was a reference to the last debate. 

[Mexal]

McCain promises that the Senate will be united against any nominee for SCOTUS that Clinton nominates.

Quote

Later in the interview, McCain used the opportunity to make the case for fellow Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, who is locked in a close battle to retain his Senate seat in Pennsylvania. McCain promised that Republicans would be "united against any Supreme Court nominee" put forth by Clinton.

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

Democrats really need to win the Senate back if they want any chance of actually having a full SCOTUS. This unprecedented obstruction is still under reported and absolutely disgusting.

[Altherion]

That's really interesting. Of course, there's a pretty good chance that the Democrats will win the Senate which would make it moot, but if not, we might see a legislative power grab for a change (rather than an executive one). It's not entirely unheard of: in the middle of the 19th century (e.g. after the death of John McKinley in 1852), the Senate would occasionally refuse to accept Supreme Court nominations from a particular President. However, this has not been seen in recent history; a specific nominee may be rejected or ignored, but they'd eventually find common ground.

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Ariadne23 said:

Was a reference to the last debate. 

I know what it was a reference to.  

I'm just saying, in this case there were white people acting as the eyes and ears of the government to prevent this.  Which sort of takes the wind out of the sails of the jab you were trying to make, no?

[Swordfish]

59 minutes ago, Altherion said:

That's really interesting. Of course, there's a pretty good chance that the Democrats will win the Senate which would make it moot, but if not, we might see a legislative power grab for a change (rather than an executive one). It's not entirely unheard of: in the middle of the 19th century (e.g. after the death of John McKinley in 1852), the Senate would occasionally refuse to accept Supreme Court nominations from a particular President. However, this has not been seen in recent history; a specific nominee may be rejected or ignored, but they'd eventually find common ground.

 

Which is exactly what will happen here. 

 

[Mexal]

33 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Which is exactly what will happen here. 

Will it? It seems to be that McCain is claiming otherwise.

[Swordfish]

34 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Will it? It seems to be that McCain is claiming otherwise.

So what.  Politicians make dumb claims all the time.

[Mexal]

Just now, Swordfish said:

So what.  Politicians make dumb claims all the time.

Yes, but these same politicians have left the SCOTUS understaffed for the last 10 months. That shows intent and now they're signaling that intent is to continue. Not sure how you can take someone's words, who's backed up their words with their actions and then say "Yea but politicians wouldn't do that!"

[Mexal]

double post

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Yes, but these same politicians have left the SCOTUS understaffed for the last 10 months. That shows intent and now they're signaling that intent is to continue. Not sure how you can take someone's words, who's backed up their words with their actions and then say "Yea but politicians wouldn't do that!"

A major relief then that I didn't say "Yea but politicians wouldn't do that!" then, huh?

[Mexal]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

A major relief then that I didn't say "Yea but politicians wouldn't do that!" then, huh?

Sorry. Let me be clear then. Saying "politicians make dumb claims all the time" while ignoring the fact that they said this same stupid shit and backed it up with actions.

Wasting my time here as usual.

[Swordfish]

2 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Sorry. Let me be clear then. Saying "politicians make dumb claims all the time" while ignoring the fact that they said this same stupid shit and backed it up with actions.

Wasting my time here as usual.

So you're taking McCain at his word that they will block Hilary's nominations, but not taking the GOP at it's word that it wanted to wait until after the election to vote on a candidate?

I wonder why that is? 

 

[Mexal]

Just now, Swordfish said:

So you're taking McCain at his word that they will block Hilary's nominations, but not taking the GOP at it's word that it wanted to wait until after the election to vote on a candidate?

I wonder why that is? 

Because one was said today by a big pro establishment member of the Republican party and the other was said 10 months ago as a way to justify blocking the nomination. Pretty clear why I believe McCain's words today and why I would be frustrated by that.