US Politics: Opening Pandora's Box

[DunderMifflin]

I'll change it to 

I wonder if whigs were like "Where does Lord Longfellow find all this time to talk to the town crier!"

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

No. I don't think he's antisemitic. I think he's narcissistic, incompetent and has no understanding or empathy for the issues, nor will he address them as long as the people committing the crimes are people who support him. I don't think he has a clear understanding that he enables antisemitism, that he has to work to stop it and that just saying "I'll stop crime and I have a Jewish son in law" isn't enough. It's a horrible answer to a question that affects a lot of people in this country. He focused on himself and only himself (his win, his grandchildren) with the obligatory "everything will be ok" thrown in. This is not a good answer and not sure how you can defend it as a legitimate answer from the most powerful person in the world on the rising antisemitism in the USA.

In other news, this is the third straight press conference where Trump only called on conservative outlets and blogs. This is how you control the narrative and avoid real questions. 

Is there rising antisemitism in the US? Rising anti-Islamic sentiments I can believe. Rising anti-semitism? Really?

 

 

[Fez]

13 minutes ago, Commodore said:

meh, one at a time repeals are fine, but these agencies issue hundreds of rules every year (that will change w Trump), no way Congress can keep up repealing a few a month

need a big structural change like REINS Act

I'd prefer a functioning Republican White House that directed the agencies to modify or remove the regulations in question (well, really I'd rather keep the regulations; but Republicans are going to be conservative), rather than a sledgehammer approach like this. This is particularly important when it comes to more complex rules, where conservatives would want to keep one or more elements of the rule and only remove parts of it.

 

In other news, sounds like Puzder of all people is the Trump nominee who's toast.

Hard to know if Republicans consider Puzder's problems worse than say, Price's, or if this is the first sign of Republicans thinking Trump is weak enough to take concrete stands against.

 

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Ok, but I honestly don't understand the issue here. You don't honestly think he is anti-Semitic do you? I mean, Trump is a lot of things, a narcisist, egotist, a bit of a creep, and a whole bunch of other not-so-flattering descriptions would fit. But I see no evidence that he is anti-Semitic. How could he be? His grandchildren are Jewish.

I don't think that Trump is anti-Semitic.  But I do think that there are some very anti Semitic people and groups who were rooting for Trump and feel emboldened by his win.  At the very least Brietbart News publishes anti-semitic pieces,and now Steve Bannon is a key Trump advisor.  The question was in fact a great opportunity for Trump to say "I'm not with them, I don't support anti-Semitism and my White House will stand against it."  But he didn't say that, he instead gave us a non-sequitor about his election win, and how his family is Jewish. 

[Mexal]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Is there rising antisemitism in the US? Rising anti-Islamic sentiments I can believe. Rising anti-semitism? Really?

Yes. Google rise in antisemitism. You'll find some articles. It's not as bad as anti-Islamic sentiments but the same groups that are emboldened by Trump and hate Muslims also hate Jews.

Point is, he could have done what Maithanet suggested above and didn't.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Mexal said:

Yes. Google rise in antisemitism. You'll find some articles. It's not as bad as anti-Islamic sentiments but the same groups that are emboldened by Trump and hate Muslims also hate Jews.

Point is, he could have done what Maithanet suggested above and didn't.

I contest the accuracy of your statement that the same people who display anti-Islamic sentiments also display anti-Semitism. The motives involved in the two positions are very different.

[TheKitttenGuard]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I contest the accuracy of your statement that the same people who display anti-Islamic sentiments also display anti-Semitism. The motives involved in the two positions are very different.

If you are a Christian Supremacist than there is little difficultly in being both. This applies to Bannon more.

Trump is a person who believes in Stereotypes both on the positive and negative sides in the end. This though points more to his massive ignorance overall.

[Mexal]

6 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I contest the accuracy of your statement that the same people who display anti-Islamic sentiments also display anti-Semitism. The motives involved in the two positions are very different.

Ok if that's what you want to contest, fair enough. I should have said some. 

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Republicans claim the regulation stigmatizes mental illness.

Bastards.

 

Worth nothing, five Democrats voted in favor as well: Donnelly, Heitkamp, King, Manchin, and Tester. Hard to know if they are just running scared, or if they think gun supporters care about this issue just as much as every other gun issue.

Look, this is a more complex issue than it appears at first glance. The ACLU is also against this regulation, and I know people who are activists in the mental illness community (and who are otherwise leftist and very anti-Trump) who have been saying for years that it DOES stigmatize people with mental illness. Many of the laws on this do not differentiate between precise diagnoses, which means you get people with conditions like anorexia and OCD where violence would never be an issue lumped in with the paranoid schizophrenics where violence is occasionally an issue -- and even the paranoid schizophrenics have rates of violence which are only marginally higher than the rate for the general population. A good argument can be made that focusing on "mental illness" in terms of guns is a distraction from the real dangers with them. It would be much better to prevent anyone who has ever been convicted of a violent crime from ever owning a gun rather than to focus on psychiatric diagnoses. 

[Jaxom 1974]

An interesting take...

Hard to disagree.

[Week]

20 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I don't think that Trump is anti-Semitic.  But I do think that there are some very anti Semitic people and groups who were rooting for Trump and feel emboldened by his win.  At the very least Brietbart News publishes anti-semitic pieces,and now Steve Bannon is a key Trump advisor.  The question was in fact a great opportunity for Trump to say "I'm not with them, I don't support anti-Semitism and my White House will stand against it."  But he didn't say that, he instead gave us a non-sequitor about his election win, and how his family is Jewish. 

Exactly. He shows himself to be agnostic to antisemitism which is tacit support of antisemitism elements. He likes a couple jewish people (his family), but does not feel the need to decry antisemitism when asked about it.

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Look, this is a more complex issue than it appears at first glance. The ACLU is also against this regulation, and I know people who are activists in the mental illness community who have been saying for years that it DOES stigmatize people with mental illness. Many of the laws on this do not differentiate between precise diagnoses, which means you get people with conditions like anorexia and OCD where violence would never be an issue lumped in with the paranoid schizophrenics where violence is occasionally an issue -- and even the paranoid schizophrenics have rates of violence which are only marginally higher than the rate for the general population. A good argument can be made that focusing on "mental illness" in terms of guns is a distraction from the real dangers with them. It would be much better to prevent anyone who has ever been convicted of a violent crime from ever owning a gun rather than to focus on psychiatric diagnoses. 

Sure, there are complexities to basically everything in life. And I fully understand the problem with grouping people with "milder" mental health conditions with people with SMI; after all, something like 25% of the country has a mental health disorder.

However, I think mental health disorders do reach a point where it becomes a public safety issue to not allow gun ownership; the same way many other freedoms (involuntary treatment is still a thing, and actually getting more widespread again in some states) can be restricted for certain people.

Focusing on violent felons would be even better; and if focused to make a trade I would take that instead. But that's not going to get implemented; and I don't favor seeing the few gun restrictions still in existence getting repealed.

[Happy Ent]

22 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I don't think that Trump is anti-Semitic.  But I do think that there are some very anti Semitic people and groups who were rooting for Trump and feel emboldened by his win.  At the very least Brietbart News publishes anti-semitic pieces,and now Steve Bannon is a key Trump advisor.  

This is one of the issues where I don’t follow the argument at all.

Breitbart is a Jewish publication, to the extent that this adjective makes sense at all. It was founded by a Jew, and some of the best-known writers or former writers (I’m thinking of Milo and Ben Shapiro) are Jews (the former only half, the latter very much). And note that this are not accidental Jews, they are inserting their Jewishness into their publishing activity.

Of course, Breitbart is a very conservative Jewish publication. But it is still very, very Jewish. Uncompromisingly Zionist. Strongly and explicitly in favour of Judeo–Christian values. Bannon, too, is all of this except for actually being a Jew.

How that adds up to antisemitism is beyond me. Unless you cherry-pick, in which case I can easily taint the entire Left as antisemitic. And then some. In fact, and I say this with a straight face, I am confident that there is a more honest case to be made for the Left being antisemitic that Breitbart being it. Both in cherry-pickable quotes and in the open and honest antisemitism of the uglier of their followers.

But I’m happy to learn more. I admit that I’ve only ever read Milo and Shapiro on Breitbart, and some pieces of the original Andrew. And I am on the record as saying that I haven’t figured out Bannon at all, so I’m eager to learn. 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

I don't really agree. How is Flynn being blackmailed? The IC knew this was bullshit since it happened. Yates told Trump after the VP went to bat for him and lied to the American public. And this was leaked 3 weeks AFTER the administration was informed and did nothing but allow Flynn to continue doing his job in the most highly classified intelligence briefings. Not sure how the IC is blackmailing anyone here. There is a very clear chain of events that lead to the leak.

Okay, here's what the blackmail would have looked like from the Russians:

do what we tell you to do, or we'll release the information that you lied.

Here's what it looked like from our situation now:

Come clean with POTUS and the rest of the staff including Pence, or we'll release the information that you lied.

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

Lets also be clear that the only classified information that was leaked was that Flynn's conversation with the Russian Ambassador included talk about sanctions and there is a transcript available. No transcripts were released, nothing about how they got the information (i.e. what IC programs were used) and no real specifics. In addition, the IC isn't working for the US government because the IC doesn't trust the US government.

That last part is massively problematic. Did you elect anyone in the IC? Again, turn this on its head with respect to partisanship - if a Democrat was elected and the IC didn't trust them, wouldn't that be a massive issue? 

Again, I think their mistrust is entirely justified and warranted, and it still is a massive problem even though it's likely warranted. The intelligence community is not part of the checks and balances on our government and almost definitely shouldn't be. 

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

That is a direct issue with Trump, the way he has engaged with them, the people he puts in charge and his constant denial that Russia has done anything wrong. I get your point that's an issue, but I don't think blaming the IC for it is the right perspective. It's up to the President to solve this issue and instead of doing that, he exacerbates it by chastising the IC in public, defending the people with clear ties to Russia, defending Putin and ignoring Russian activity (in Russia, Ukraine and here). It's a two way street here. The IC's first allegiance isn't to the President of the USA but to defend the Constitution of the US, at least I believe that's how their oath goes. Maybe I'm wrong. 

Their oath is to also obey the law, and violating the Espionage Act is pretty well against that oath - and we've seen that it does not matter what exculpatory reasons you might have are as far as violation of the Espionage Act.

I absolutely think that Trump is massively in the wrong here and did everything completely stupidly and dangerously. When apprised of Flynn's lies he needed to do a lot more. He ignored it. When pressed, he continued the lie knowing that it was untrue. This potentially jeopardized the security of the US by allowing someone with high security clearance who was compromised to continue looking in on details. That is a massive issue. 

And NONE OF IT changes the fact that the iC dictating which government officials stay and go is not a good thing for any democracy. 

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

I'll say that I do agree with you that there should be an investigation into the leaks but not at the expense of investigating Trump and his administration's ties to Russia, now and during the campaign. It's much more important to find out if the most powerful person in the world is compromised then who feels it's necessary to let the public know that shady shit is being swept under the rug and the administration is lying to the public about said shady shit.

Again, all of it can be done. One does not have to do one or the other. Both things can be wrong at the same time and both things should bother you. 

[Kalbear]

27 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Yes. Google rise in antisemitism. You'll find some articles. It's not as bad as anti-Islamic sentiments but the same groups that are emboldened by Trump and hate Muslims also hate Jews.

Point is, he could have done what Maithanet suggested above and didn't.

As an example, Jewish community centers throughout the US have been hit with wave after wave of bomb threats. Another place that I know of has had 60 calls of threats since Trump was elected - which was more than the previous 8 years combined.

The question was not whether or not Trump was antisemitic - it was what he was planning to do about the rise in antisemitism. And apparently his answer is to relitigate his campaign and then say that his rich son in law and grandchildren are doing fine. This is akin to asking how you're going to deal with the homelessness issues in DC by saying that none of the congresspeople are homeless. 

[Happy Ent]

27 minutes ago, Mexal said:

[T]he same groups that are emboldened by Trump and hate Muslims also hate Jews.

That is a grotesque statement.

One of the very few positive things that I can see in the Trump/Bannon-administration is their very open distaste towards Islam. I share this completely. Islam is a terrible, terrible set of ideas. In particular, it is at variance with Judeo–Christian values as enshrined, for instance, in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Trump/Bannon are strongly fuelled by this worldview, as is most of the Islamic world. (See the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights.) This is not something they make up, it’s something Muslims “make up.” (In fact, neither sides makes it up, it’s a straightforward conclusion open to any informed observer.)

Judeo–Christian values are incompatible with Islam. So say 45 Islamic countries. And so say Trump and Bannon. (I say so as well. I may be wrong and would be happy to change my mind on this, since I don’t normally enjoy being of a mind with either of these people.) In particular, a strong stance against Islam is entirely compatible with philosemitism. (I self-identify as a philo-semite of alost ludicrous proportions.)

Are there people who hate Jews and Arabs equally? Sure. Find me some, I’ll debate them. But it’s a stupid mode of discourse to engage with positions that nobody holds that you can argue with.

[TheKitttenGuard]

2 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

This is one of the issues where I don’t follow the argument at all.

Breitbart is a Jewish publication, to the extent that this adjective makes sense at all. It was founded by a Jew, and some of the best-known writers or former writers (I’m thinking of Milo and Ben Shapiro) are Jews (the former only half, the latter very much). And note that this are not accidental Jews, they are inserting their Jewishness into their publishing activity.

Of course, Breitbart is a very conservative Jewish publication. But it is still very, very Jewish. Uncompromisingly Zionist. Strongly and explicitly in favour of Judeo–Christian values. Bannon, too, is all of this except for actually being a Jew.

How that adds up to antisemitism is beyond me. Unless you cherry-pick, in which case I can easily taint the entire Left as antisemitic. And then some. In fact, and I say this with a straight face, I am confident that there is a more honest case to be made for the Left being antisemitic that Breitbart being it. Both in cherry-pickable quotes and in the open and honest antisemitism of the uglier of their followers.

But I’m happy to learn more. I admit that I’ve only ever read Milo and Shapiro on Breitbart, and some pieces of the original Andrew. And I am on the record as saying that I haven’t figured out Bannon at all, so I’m eager to learn. 

You can ultra-Zionist and Anti-Semitic the two are in no way mutually exclusive. One of the strongest criticism of Zionism is that is accepting of the an Anti-Semitic premise related to the mere presence of Jews is reason for Anti-Semitism.

I personally find Judeo-Christian value a weasley and slimy means of supporting many abhorrent ideas that are based in books from the Torah. Consider the many histories of European Nationalism emphasis on Christianity makes it especially duplicitous B.S.

 

[Maithanet]

9 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

This is one of the issues where I don’t follow the argument at all.

Breitbart is a Jewish publication, to the extent that this adjective makes sense at all. It was founded by a Jew, and some of the best-known writers or former writers (I’m thinking of Milo and Ben Shapiro) are Jews (the former only half, the latter very much). And note that this are not accidental Jews, they are inserting their Jewishness into their publishing activity.

Of course, Breitbart is a very conservative Jewish publication. But it is still very, very Jewish. Uncompromisingly Zionist. Strongly and explicitly in favour of Judeo–Christian values. Bannon, too, is all of this except for actually being a Jew.

How that adds up to antisemitism is beyond me. Unless you cherry-pick, in which case I can easily taint the entire Left as antisemitic. And then some. In fact, and I say this with a straight face, I am confident that there is a more honest case to be made for the Left being antisemitic that Breitbart being it. Both in cherry-pickable quotes and in the open and honest antisemitism of the uglier of their followers.

But I’m happy to learn more. I admit that I’ve only ever read Milo and Shapiro on Breitbart, and some pieces of the original Andrew. And I am on the record as saying that I haven’t figured out Bannon at all, so I’m eager to learn. 

I don't read Brietbart, so I will admit that I'm just taking other people's opinions on the subject.  A quick search was able to come up with some statements that I certainly consider anti-semitic about various Jewish Elitists and how they are ruining the world.  If you think that they are in fact railing against mainstream Jewish elitists to support their uncompromisingly conservative/zionist views, then I guess that's possible.  I'm not going to go trolling the depths of Brietbart's many articles to form my own opinion. 

[OldGimletEye]

42 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'd prefer a functioning Republican White House that directed the agencies to modify or remove the regulations in question (well, really I'd rather keep the regulations; but Republicans are going to be conservative), rather than a sledgehammer approach like this. This is particularly important when it comes to more complex rules, where conservatives would want to keep one or more elements of the rule and only remove parts of it.

Yeah, I'm sure this so called REINS act is being sold as being both growth enhancing  (and yet again another conservative initiative that probably won't pan out they way conservatives claim) and for "freedom" (brought to you, of course, by the crowd that thinks judiciary should become a subordinate branch of Donald Trump).
Granted, I am not extremely, well versed on this issue. But, given some of the conservative nuttery on other issues, I'm smelling a rat.
It seems to me that the best "structural change" right about now, would be the utter annihilation of current form of the Republican Party.

[Week]

15 minutes ago, Happy Ent said:

But I’m happy to learn more. I admit that I’ve only ever read Milo and Shapiro on Breitbart, and some pieces of the original Andrew. And I am on the record as saying that I haven’t figured out Bannon at all, so I’m eager to learn. 

Re: Shapiro and Breitfart - 

Quote

In May 2016 New York Magazine reported: "Shapiro...has increasingly found himself targeted by the so-called alt-right movement, a loose conglomeration of online personalities — many if not most of them anonymous — currently devoted to tweeting and posting their support for Donald Trump and attacking those who disagree, often in racist and anti-Semitic ways. They have been denigrating Shapiro as a “pussy,” a “cuck," a “Jew” and a “kike.”"^[54]

In an article in National Review, Shapiro wrote: "I’ve experienced more pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism since coming out against Trump’s candidacy than at any other time in my political career. Trump supporters have threatened me and other Jews who hold my viewpoint. They’ve blown up my e-mail inbox with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. They greeted the birth of my second child by calling for me, my wife, and two children to be thrown into a gas chamber."^[55]

An article in The Washington Post quoted an Anti-Defamation League report that "focused in particular on the anti-Semitic tweets aimed at journalists, frequently those whose writing about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has displeased a large contingent of Twitter users who band together to attack these journalists online. The words most commonly found in the bios of the people who post these anti-Semitic attacks? “Trump,” “nationalist,” conservative,” “American” and “white...The target of the most anti-Semitic tweets, by far, was Ben Shapiro, a conservative writer who formerly worked for Breitbart and who does not support Trump." ^[56] Shapiro stated "I’m honored because being targeted by mouth-breathing idiots is a compliment – you know you’re doing something right if people who tweet pictures of gas chambers on the day of your child’s birth find you unacceptable as a human being." ^[57] He also said: "As the fellow who receives hook-nosed Jew memes more than any other journalist on the planet, I don’t believe that people ought to be suspended or banned from Twitter or Facebook for posting vile garbage, so long as it isn’t openly advocating violence. I make a habit of retweeting these pieces of human feces in order to mock their stupidity and to expose the fact that people like this exist." ^[57]

Note, we've previously discussed Bannon referencing Breitbart as the home of the alt-right. Similar to Trump, Breitbart may not be wholly antisemitic, but it turns a blind eye its existence among its supporters.