US Politics: Mueller....Mueller....Mueller...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Maybe an acknowledgement that following the rules and continued compromise is what got us here, rather than a way out of this fucking nightmare.

I respect the necessity of free speech in a democracy, the Republic is the most important thing in my life. But I cannot stand continuing to see the group of people actively trying to destroy it excused over and over again.

 

I don't want to suppress their vote, I just want them to stop suppressing everyone else's! They're a minority, Republicans are a minority. But they serve the wealthiest and have drastically outsized influence. I want one vote to count for one vote, for representation to be equal.

Scot.

The.

Republicans.

Are.

Actively.

Subverting.

Free.

Speech.

At their political rallies dissenters are violently attacked, at their offices reporters are violently attacked, and they speak openly of shooting reporters who contradict them.

I know that speech is being suppressed.  The answer to suppression of speech is not also seeking to suppress speech.  I'm well aware that Republicans are subverting the system.  How do you propose stop that?  If the answer is bloody revolution do you really think we will come back from that with anything but a different form of authoritarianism?  I'm frightened by everyone who wants to take the violent option outside the narrow scope of self-defense and the "fighting-words" doctrine.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Hasn't this already happened?  Several times?  Starting with the emoluments clause.

 

Zorral,

What the Trump Administration hasn't done yet is ignore direct court orders to "stop doing X".  I'm waiting for him to say "Chief Justice Roberts has issued his order... now let him enforce it."

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Here we go again. Saying that violence can and should be necessary tools at time is not saying that all law should go out the window.  I don't know what's so complicated about this.  I can approve of a nazi getting punched in the face when he's on camera discussed his genocidal agenda while also accepting that the puncher will receive consequences.  Like, this isn't even a complicated concept. 

I'm not advocating for any sort of dictator, left wing or otherwise.  I'm recognizing that things are all sorts of FUBAR.  No one is being arrested for death threats (only a scumbag or sympathizer would suggest that nazi propaganda isn't a death threat).  In fact, leaders of those people are now in the highest office and that highest office has  ordered that these same terrorist groups no longer be monitored as they once were.  This is not normal.  None of this is normal. 

I suggest we (meaning all of us who are concerned about these Neo-Nazi shitheads) need to put pressure on local and State level prosecutors to take action on these threats.  To enforce existing laws.  They are outside the nominal control of the Trump Administration.  As such if they are men and women of principle they should be willing to enforce existing laws.  

[Darzin]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Here we go again. Saying that violence can and should be necessary tools at time is not saying that all law should go out the window.  I don't know what's so complicated about this.  I can approve of a nazi getting punched in the face when he's on camera discussed his genocidal agenda while also accepting that the puncher will receive consequences.  Like, this isn't even a complicated concept. 

I'm not advocating for any sort of dictator, left wing or otherwise.  I'm recognizing that things are all sorts of FUBAR.  No one is being arrested for death threats (only a scumbag or sympathizer would suggest that nazi propaganda isn't a death threat).  In fact, leaders of those people are now in the highest office and that highest office has  ordered that these same terrorist groups no longer be monitored as they once were.  This is not normal.  None of this is normal. 

Right and I don't think political violence is appropriate in this case or almost any other. IF the US slides into full authoritarianism then maybe. But as long as we are a democracy with elections, no I don't think it's appropriate and Spencer is a nobody running a tin pot think tank. And the most powerful person in the Trump administration after Trump is a Jew. None of this is normal, true. But so far most of what Trump has done has been bog standard Republican boilerplate with dashes of incompetence and corruption. I don't think the Nazis are taking over just yet.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I know that speech is being suppressed.  The answer to suppression of speech is not also seeking to suppress speech.  I'm well aware that Republicans are subverting the system.  How do you propose stop that?  If the answer is bloody revolution do you really think we will come back from that with anything but a different form of authoritarianism?  I'm frightened by everyone who wants to take the violent option outside the narrow scope of self-defense and the "fighting-words" doctrine.
 

Scot, how legal was the Selma march? 

How legal was Rosa Parks ignoring her bus driver's statement?

How legal was putting a toe in a segregated pool?

Quote

I suggest we (meaning all of us who are concerned about these Neo-Nazi shitheads) need to put pressure on local and State level prosecutors to take action on these threats.  To enforce existing laws.  They are outside the nominal control of the Trump Administration.  As such if they are men and women of principle they should be willing to enforce existing laws

And time and  time over they have proven you to be a fool. Point of fact, they are specifically doing things to make it more easy for them to ignore local and state prosecutors. When people do stand up for what is right they are fired out of hand. 

The notion that violence isn't an answer has a rebuttal: all of human history. 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I suggest we (meaning all of us who are concerned about these Neo-Nazi shitheads) need to put pressure on local and State level prosecutors to take action on these threats.  To enforce existing laws.  They are outside the nominal control of the Trump Administration.  As such if they are men and women of principle they should be willing to enforce existing laws.  

We're definitely in agreement there.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Darzin said:

Right and I don't think political violence is appropriate in this case or almost any other. IF the US slides into full authoritarianism then maybe. But as long as we are a democracy with elections, no I don't think it's appropriate and Spencer is a nobody running a tin pot think tank. And the most powerful person in the Trump administration after Trump is a Jew. None of this is normal, true. But so far most of what Trump has done has been bog standard Republican boilerplate with dashes of incompetence and corruption. I don't think the Nazis are taking over just yet.

I guess we're all just gonna ignore the Steven Bannon in the room????

[Darzin]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Scot, how legal was the Selma march? 

How legal was Rosa Parks ignoring her bus driver's statement?

How legal was putting a toe in a segregated pool?

Note that these are all non violent resistance against oppression. A little different then bashing your opponents heads in no?

 

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I suggest we (meaning all of us who are concerned about these Neo-Nazi shitheads) need to put pressure on local and State level prosecutors to take action on these threats.  To enforce existing laws.  They are outside the nominal control of the Trump Administration.  As such if they are men and women of principle they should be willing to enforce existing laws.  

This should be the model for creating change in a democracy.

[DireWolfSpirit]

11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I think Mr Clinton's campaign was right when saying "[It's] the economy, stupid." And Mrs Clinton's campaign was stupid in not realising there was an economic sub-text to this election, or in not realising the exact nature of the economic subtext.

If anything, I think sexism played more of a part on Clinton losing than BLM.

I do wonder if a credible analysis of the voting decisions in PA, MI and WI has been made to see what the major issue was.

Just looking at the OH exit poll I thought this question was quite significant:

As a rust belt native for over 2/3's of my life, currently living in Wisconsin and having been reared in Michigan, I couldnt agree more with the bolded above. I would also add that most of the Union workers I know were very upset with the pick of a Veep they associated with "Right to Work", the water was poisoned for many with that Kaine pick.

Clinton ran a tone deaf campaign towards what many of these workers saw as concerns, also the whole zenophobic, Wall talk was lapped up by the gullible. One only wonders how these people are rationalizing their actions now? They remind me of IraqWar cheerleaders, theyve suddenly gone quiet, in a few years none of them will take ownership or admit their role in bringing us this admin. Just as, magicallly very few admit they were for that war 10 yrs on when the costs were obvious. But I remember all their shortsighted rants very well.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Scot, how legal was the Selma march? 

How legal was Rosa Parks ignoring her bus driver's statement?

How legal was putting a toe in a segregated pool?

And time and  time over they have proven you to be a fool. Point of fact, they are specifically doing things to make it more easy for them to ignore local and state prosecutors. When people do stand up for what is right they are fired out of hand. 

The notion that violence isn't an answer has a rebuttal: all of human history. 

On the federal level because they serve at the Pleasure of the President, you are correct.  What I'm suggesting is putting pressure on local and State elected officials to act on harrassment and threats.  They cannot be dismissed by the President of the US.  Solicitors (our DAs) are elected and cannot be dismissed by the sitting Governor.  They answer to the people who elected them to office.  That's where we should put pressure on people who can act without fear of dismissal for taking principled actions. 

[Relic]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Just as, magicallly very few admit they were for that war 10 yrs on when the costs were obvious. But I remember all their shortsighted rants very well.

Some of those people actually have the nerve to get indignant when their support for the war gets brought up.  Experienced it a few times recently. 

[Darzin]

5 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I guess we're all just gonna ignore the Steven Bannon in the room????

And how much of what he wants has actually happened. 

Also violence is a slippery slope only advocate if you're going to win, and between urban hispters and good old boys in pickup trucks I know who i'd bet on.

[Inigima]

15 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Hasn't this already happened?  Several times?  Starting with the emoluments clause.

 

There is a qualitative difference between no order being issued -- no matter how much it should be -- and an order being issued and then ignored without consequence. They both represent lawlessness, but not in the same way. A court's power is not being flouted if a person is never brought before them.

The utter abdication of responsibility by this Republican Congress is a separate issue, and it's troubling, but not as troubling as the idea of Republicans attempting to do away with judicial review. Judicial review has been a cornerstone of the American system of government since 1803. Marbury v. Madison is the basis of more or less everything you think of as Constitutional law.

[Kalbear]

And the Nazis have started with easier targets in the US: Muslims and immigrants. How many Muslims are there in Trump's cabinet? 

Just now, Darzin said:

Note that these are all non violent resistance against oppression. A little different then bashing your opponents heads in no?

There were also bombings, riots, killings, targetings, armed people in the streets. Those were certainly nonviolent, but those weren't the only ones, and arguably those weren't the things that drove LBJ to sign anything. 

My point is that telling people to 'enforce the law' when the law itself is hugely unjust is a perfectly entitled piece of bullshit. What is being pointed out is that the law itself is oppressive most of the time. The system, the standards, who is targeted and why, who is given legal status and who isn't. Appealing to 'just enforce the law more' doesn't help when part of the problem is that the law is horrible, as written and especially as practiced.

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

On the federal level because they serve at the Pleasure of the President, you are correct.  What I'm suggesting is putting pressure on local and State elected officials to act on harrassment and threats.  They cannot be dismissed by the President of the US.  Solicitors (our DAs) are elected and cannot be dismissed by the sitting Governor.  They answer to the people who elected them to office.  That's where we should put pressure on people who can act without fear of dismissal for taking principled actions. 

Local and state elected officials ignored this shit too, left and right, particularly in places like Texas. They got fired by local and state officials. And as I pointed out, it took Federal threat of force to enforce the actual law against states which did not want to desegregate; how would appealing to local and states help there? Did appealing to local enforcement help in Arpaio's district? In Clarke's?

The problem isn't Federal. The problem is that a whole lot of local and state forces are really, really bad. That there is also no counterbalance against them at the federal level is a problem and makes it worse, but when you're specifically wanting to fight against the injustice of the legal system telling people to just appeal to prosecutors is a special kind of nothingburger.

[Sivin]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Zorral,

What the Trump Administration hasn't done yet is ignore direct court orders to "stop doing X".  I'm waiting for him to say "Chief Justice Roberts has issued his order... now let him enforce it."

You'll be waiting forever. Those are too many words for him to put together at once.

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I suggest we (meaning all of us who are concerned about these Neo-Nazi shitheads) need to put pressure on local and State level prosecutors to take action on these threats.  To enforce existing laws.  They are outside the nominal control of the Trump Administration.  As such if they are men and women of principle they should be willing to enforce existing laws.  

Scot. Are officials who claim dissenting constituents are harassing them by attending town halls and working to pointlessly discriminate against the vulnerable really men and women you think to have principals?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

You'll be waiting forever. Those are too many words for him to put together at once.

Scot. Are officials who claim dissenting constituents are harassing them by attending town halls and working to pointlessly discriminate against the vulnerable really men and women you think to have principals?

No.  Those people lack principles.  They are not everyone holding elected or political office.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Scot, how legal was the Selma march? 

How legal was Rosa Parks ignoring her bus driver's statement?

How legal was putting a toe in a segregated pool?

 

The notion that violence isn't an answer has a rebuttal: all of human history. 

As Darzin posited above, using non-violent protests as an example to prop up a defense for violent response to speech that you don't agree with is suspect at best.

 

To the bolded bit, the vast majority of that human history consisted of tribes exercising a might makes right policy over their less potent neighbors. 

 

[Darzin]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

Wow.  So nazis are good old boys now. 

I need to stop engaging with the sympathizers.  Someone else can have that job.  It disgusts me too much.

 

I am an urban hipster lol I'm everything those people despise. I voted for Bernie and Hillary. And I'm telling you if violence gets out of hand the liberals will lose. In the Spanish civil war the republic was in the right it didn't stop them losing to the fascists.  

[Kalbear]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

As Darzin posited above, using non-violent protests as an example to prop up a defense for violent response to speech that you don't agree with is suspect at best.

That was in response to saying that one should just hope the legal system works and trust in the people to uphold the law. I'm sorry I wasn't more precise. It wasn't in defense of violence; the Vietnam riots are significantly better in that regard.

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

To the bolded bit, the vast majority of that human history consisted of tribes exercising a might makes right policy over their less potent neighbors. 

And it was still pretty effective, wasn't it? More to the point, getting heavy political change has almost never happened without a major actual violent conflict, and you can count the nonviolent transitions of power on one hand. 

[Darzin]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

That was in response to saying that one should just hope the legal system works and trust in the people to uphold the law. I'm sorry I wasn't more precise. It wasn't in defense of violence; the Vietnam riots are significantly better in that regard.

And it was still pretty effective, wasn't it? More to the point, getting heavy political change has almost never happened without a major actual violent conflict, and you can count the nonviolent transitions of power on one hand. 

I would say the gay, women's and civ rights, movements are all pertinent examples of non violent change.