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

[Inigima]

The idea that the right doesn't get enough hugs from the left is pathetic. The left has compromised with the right time and time again, only to have the right spit in our faces. Nothing save total capitulation will ever be enough for these people. We've played that game since at least the early '90s with nothing to show for it and I'm done with it.

It's difficult to take seriously the moral and ethical concerns of people who don't have those concerns anymore when their guy does it. The right no longer has any animating principles.

[Darzin]

Wow, I'm finding all this talk of civil war a little crazy. I mean the left lost an election and now you guys are talking about overthrowing the republic. Yeah Trump is a horribly incompetent president with no regard to rule of law. But so far the laws of our nation have restrained him from laws and orders he's passed. Also while Trump himself is undoubtedly no friend of the LGBT community he is not there biggest foe either. 10 years ago we had a president who campaigned to create a constitutional amendment to ban Gay marriage, today we have a republican president who is willing to let it stand as the law of the land. The LGB movement has essentially won. Trump will repeal some protections no doubt and that will certainly hurt people, but almost all of the protections he would repeal were enacted in the last eight years. 

Talking about civil war is just nuts, for one the liberals would lose *see the Spanish civil war, most of the military is conservative, for another you have no idea what would come out of that process. Most revolutions end with hardline authoritarian governments, not peaceful democracies. If you really can't stand it advocate for succession. But Trump is in the end a setback a major one, but one ultimately doomed by demographics, he's the last desperate gasp of a dying class and value system. A horrible one no doubt but his movement and the values he represents are doomed. The American system is not perfect, but from 1776 to now we have seen a steady increase in rights for all sections of society. I fail to see why that would stop now. Trump is one of a long line of failed reactionaries who tried to stop it. Can he cause some pain, or even a lot of pain, yes, but ultimately I have faith that our system will defeat his bigotry and confine it to the dustbin of history as we have with so many bigotries of the past.  

[Fez]

15 minutes ago, Darzin said:

But so far the laws of our nation have restrained him from laws and orders he's passed.

I am NOT calling for any sort of violent reaction. But I need to say that this is not really true. Some of his actions have been restrained, but so many more have not. We're not authoritarian, yet, but we are currently a kleptocracy. And the slow slide towards authoritarianism is fully underway on the right (attacking the media, supporting Trump's obstruction of justice, etc).

Can it be reversed? Of course. But complacency will lead us to one day waking up in a country where the rule of law really does mean something different.

[denstorebog]

10 minutes ago, Darzin said:

But Trump is in the end a setback a major one, but one ultimately doomed by demographics, he's the last desperate gasp of a dying class and value system. A horrible one no doubt but his movement and the values he represents are doomed.

I think a lot of this will depend on how the Republican party recalibrates in 2020 or 2024 once they're no longer forced to rally around their candidate. Is Trump the new norm for the party? Or will the end of his term(s) signal a desire to return to more moderate times for the right? Can the different factions of R even agree on this in the future, or will they fracture the same way the Democrats are slowly starting to?

If the right can largely support a candidate like Kasich whenever Trump is finished, or even a McCain- or Romney, sure, we can regard Trump as a roadbump along the way. But I feel that the Republican party is getting twisted into something that does not want to play by the rules anymore, whose hatred for liberals and RINOs overrides any desire for rule of law or bipartisan solutions. Trump's approval is still much larger than that of Congress, and as such is more of a representation of the party.

I don't have a lot of hope for meaningful cooperation between the increasingly polarized halves of the US in the future. And too many people are getting rich and powerful off of peddling hatred for the other half. Will it result in civil war down the line? No idea. But it certainly does seem like it will mean a downwards spiral of intensifying in-fighting between left and right.

[Darzin]

I think that's a fair assessment.  I hope that Republicans having a governing majority will release that pressure somewhat. Also if the Republican party becomes more nationalist I'm not sure that in itself is a bad thing the US has one of the more liberal immigration systems in the world, although our immigration system is beyond convoluted and messed up. The idea of reducing immigration is not in itself racist although Trump certainly is. That said that only works if they can also respect the system. Right now conservatives seem pretty paraniod about everything being rigged against them who know if the fever will break or not. 

I am also concerned a bit by how liberals seem to have embraced total open borders, I've seen articles criticizing Trump for deporting people who are undocumented but have no criminal record. Sure Trump is bad and racist and bigoted against Muslims, and that is very very bad. But deporting people who have no visa is something every country does and I'm not sure how much sympathy should be offered to people who try to build a life in a country they have no legal right to be in.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 hours ago, MerenthaClone said:

Making him a mere member of society is explicitly one of the things the RWM is attempting to.  Doing so minimizes his actions and allows you to muddy the argument by getting ino a massive ethical discussion.  Please stop doing so.  

How is he anything other than a mere member of society? If he a fucking superhero? A God? He wasn't even elected at the point that he body slams Jacob's,.

 I'm not minimizing his actions. He should suffer the consequences of his illegal act the same way any citizen of this country charged with the same crime should.  

[Sivin]

9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

How is he anything other than a mere member of society? If he a fucking superhero? A God? He wasn't even elected at the point that he body slams Jacob's,.

 I'm not minimizing his actions. He should suffer the consequences of his illegal act the same way any citizen of this country charged with the same crime should.  

He won't, because he isn't a mere member of society. Consequences aren't for the rich, and certainly not for rich Republican strongmen.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, WinterFox said:

He won't, because he isn't a mere member of society. Consequences aren't for the rich, and certainly not for rich Republican strongmen.

You don't know that. Maybe we could wait for his court date to make that determination? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, MerenthaClone said:

Lets walk something right back because I am ridiculously tired of seeing people try to make Gianforte's actions more acceptable by comparing it to the actions of private citizens vs private citizens.  The argument about the role of violence within a civil society is one I do not have time to get in to right now. I suspect that the more you trust that the system will work in your favor, ie, the more white, rich, straight, cis, and male you are, the more likely you are to decry the use of violence while missing all of the violence done by said system in your favor, but again, not the point.  One does not have to agree with your statement that "you don't get to go around physically attacking those who disagree with you" to be able to say that "one does not attack members of the press performing their social role" and conversely, one can make the argument that Gianforte was absolutely wrong to attack Jacobs while also believing that violence does have a role in society.  

Making him a mere member of society is explicitly one of the things the RWM is attempting to.  Doing so minimizes his actions and allows you to muddy the argument by getting into a massive ethical discussion.  Please stop doing so.  

MC,

When is violence that is not in response to direct violence proper?  Jacobs had every right to respond to Gianforte's violence with violence because that would be self-defense.  Why is limiting violence to self-defense problematic?

[Sivin]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

You don't know that. Maybe we could wait for his court date to make that determination? 

There's that beautiful optimism again.

[Sivin]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

MC,

When is violence that is not in response to direct violence proper?  Jacobs had every right to respond to Gianforte's violence with violence because that would be self-defense.  Why is limiting violence to self-defense problematic?

If someone says "tonight I'm going to kill you, faggot" am I obliged to just walk away in your utopia?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

He won't, because he isn't a mere member of society. Consequences aren't for the rich, and certainly not for rich Republican strongmen.

I disagree.  He will suffer for his actions.  However, I don't think he will suffer much as the penalties that can be levied against Gianforte are fairly minor.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

If someone says "tonight I'm going to kill you, faggot" am I obliged to just walk away in your utopia?

WF,

It depends.  That's a direct threat (not protected speech).  It is also "fighting words".  Violent action against the person who made the direct threat may be allowable because of the "fighting words" used by that individual.  

That said it may not be particularly smart.  If the shithead who says that to you is trying to get you to attack him so that he can use the knife or firearm he has hidden then taking a swing at the guy may be a very poor idea, not because I wouldn't find it personally satisfying to see that asshole laid out, but because I don't want to see you get killed by one of these provocateurs.

[Sivin]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I disagree.  He will suffer for his actions.  However, I don't think he will suffer much as the penalties that can be levied against Gianforte are fairly minor.  

I'm sure a fifteen-hundred dollar fine will cause great suffering for the millionaire who became a new proto hero for the degenerates who now believe that the press can be assaulted on a whim.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

I'm sure a fifteen-hundred dollar fine will cause great suffering for the millionaire who became a new proto hero for the degenerates who now believe that the press can be assaulted on a whim.

I agree it's bullshit.  There is absolutely no defense, that isn't pure bullshit, for Gianforte's actions.

[Sivin]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

WF,

It depends.  That's a direct threat (not protected speech).  It is also "fighting words".  Violent action against the person who made the direct threat may be allowable because of the "fighting words" used by that individual.  

That said it may not be particularly smart.  If the shithead who says that to you is trying to get you to attack him so that he can use the knife or firearm he has hidden then taking a swing at the guy may be a very poor idea not because I wouldn't find it personally satisfying to see that asshole laid out but because I don't want to see you get killed by one of these provocateurs.

So should I just go home, lock the door, and live in fear?

But now that we've established a situation in which violence can be forgiven, is a group of skinheads that read the same hate-media as the CoC chanting "liquidate the faggots, kill all the jews" not a direct threat?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

So should I just go home, lock the door, and live in fear?

But now that we've established a situation in which violence can be forgiven, is a group of skinheads that read the same hate-media as the CoC chanting "liquidate the faggots, kill all the jews" not a direct threat?

I didn't say you should go home a live in fear.  I said taking a swing at someone who is ready for a fight and who is attempting to goad you into fighting is probably not a terribly good idea for the reason that there is likely a reason they are trying to provoke you.  Doing what your enemy expects is generally a bad thing to do.  

As to your second point.  That isn't protected speech and threats to kill anyone should have legal consequences.  Threats of violence in South Carolina can carry up to a jail term of two years and allows the person suffering those threats to sue the person making the threats for actual and punitive damages.  Legal fees and those damages can be trebled by the Court.   The people who say those things should absolutely be punished to the full extent allowed by law.

[Dr. Pepper]

17 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

So should I just go home, lock the door, and live in fear?

But now that we've established a situation in which violence can be forgiven, is a group of skinheads that read the same hate-media as the CoC chanting "liquidate the faggots, kill all the jews" not a direct threat?

Oh no ma'am.  You should talk to that nazi gently.  You certainly shouldn't punch him in the face when he's wearing a blazer while discussing on camera how they grow their genocidal movement.  When they're marching you to the camps, well at least you'll know that you didn't meet violence with violence and because you were so peaceful, things will eventually work out splendidly!  Why, I'd say you're being too hysterical for thinking normalizing nazis is terrifying. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Oh no ma'am.  You should talk to that nazi gently.  You certainly shouldn't punch him in the face when he's wearing a blazer while discussing on camera how they grow their genocidal movement.  When they're marching you to the camps, well at least you'll know that you didn't meet violence with violence and because you were so peaceful, things will eventually work out splendidly!  Why, I'd say you're being too hysterical for thinking normalizing nazis is terrifying. 

That's not what I said.  

When someone makes death threats they should be prosecuted to the full extent allowed by law.  Saying people shouldn't take the law into their own hands, or that they shouldn't allow themselves to be goaded into a fight, that the person doing the goading likely wants and is attempting to provoke, is not "normalizing" Nazis.

[Sivin]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I didn't say you should go home a live in fear.  I said taking a swing at someone who is ready for a fight and who is attempting to goad you into fighting is probably not a terribly good idea for the reason that there is likely a reason they are trying to provoke you.  Doing what your enemy expects is generally a bad thing to do.  

As to your second point.  That isn't protected speech and threats to kill anyone should have legal consequences.  Threats of violence in South Carolina can carry up to a jail term of two years and allows the person suffering those threats to sue the person making the threats for actual and punitive damages.  Legal fees and those damages can be trebled by the Court.   The people who say those things should absolutely be punished to the full extent allowed by law.

The full extent of the law!?! Scot, you just made my eyes roll so severely that I'm pretty sure I just saw where my Itchy and Scratchy attachable eraser disappeared to.

The law is literally attempting in every Republican held state to rewrite itself so that a judge need not even hear my petition because he can't handle the gayness in his presence.

6 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Oh no ma'am.  You should talk to that nazi gently.  You certainly shouldn't punch him in the face when he's wearing a blazer while discussing on camera how they grow their genocidal movement.  When they're marching you to the camps, well at least you'll know that you didn't meet violence with violence and because you were so peaceful, things will eventually work out splendidly!  Why, I'd say you're being too hysterical for thinking normalizing nazis is terrifying. 

Listen, free speech is too important! We can't have any kind of response to active calls for genocide, lest we make the callers feel unwelcome! Their free speech needs to be respected while their political leaders blatantly seek to remove protections for said free speech from the dirty left.