US Politics: Terminal America

[Kalbear]

Heh. Someone modded Wolfenstein to ask you if it's okay to shoot nazis. 

Quote

 

I've played Wolfenstein 3D at least a hundred times, and the catharsis remains satisfying over two decades later. With Dialogue 3-D, though, when I click "X" to blast the first Nazi firing shots at me, a dialogue box pops up.

"Has violent resistance ever solved anything?" it asks, along with a Yes or No option. The Nazi, by the way, is still pumping bullets into me. Thinking of the American Revolution and the French Revolution, I hesitantly click "yes." I fire off another shot at the Nazi, but then there was another popup:

"Wait, wait, isn't it important to protect their free speech as well?"

I try to click "yes," but Blazkowicz is already dead on the floor. 

 

 

[Sivin]

2 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 No, the implication is that the violence of the Antifa protests has accelerated the violence on the right. The whole Free Speech issue is one that I think is extremely important. Everyone has a right to protest. No one has the right to throw low grade explosives at people and smash ATMs and storefronts and other peoples heads.  

If some Nazis come to my school and tell students my personal information so that they can attack me, I'll throw a whole lot more than an oversized firecracker at their heads.

[HoodedCrow]

It's not lying, it's just the way he talks. It's not condoning violence, it's just singling people out  for strong arm removal.

It's not emolumments, but financial conflicts of interest is fine. I will release my tax returns. Pretend I'm not having huge debts paid for by political interests. Well no I won't release my tax returns. I can't because their being audited, again.

 It's okay to bring your grown daughter along to international meetings, where she receives contributions to a vague charity. Its okay that she hangs around the White House without an a real job. It's okay to put your son in law in charge of many government functions for which he has no experience and for him to contact foreign goernmements to avoid scrutiny. It's okay for him to leave out information on security forms that would get other people fired.

its okay to fire the head of the FBI because he did not swear personal  loyalty evidence to you. It's fine to try to direct justice investigation.

If you want to trash judges and their rulings as president of the United States it's okay. Laws are for suckers and if you are smart enough you can be above the law and avoid paying taxes by making bad business deals and going bankrupt at the right time. You don't have to pay people for their work that way. Make America great!

Grab people wherever you want, they will vote for you and make excuses for you. 

When you feel like it you just pretend that sources think the President was born somewhere else. A birth certificate isn't proof..

Palin got called out for violent speech that possibly led to Gabby Gifford getting shot. Giffords aide was killed. Trump, and Republicans are letting this stuff go weekly now.

Eliminate checks and balances. When in doubt think, "what would Putin do?"Get rid of opposition, hack the opposition, threaten the press, put out fake news, choose minority scapegoats. Get macho publicity stills. Choose religious minorities, poor people, minority sexual orientations and run with the hate speech.

Call down your long term allies and pretend it's in the national interests. Make public aggressive gestures. Give people stupid gorilla handshakes instead of making policy, your base will love that.

Go golfing on your property and have the public pay for your huge entourage.

 

 

 

[Kalbear]

53 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Agreed. Again, it's the difference between his potential versus what will actually happen. There have been some worrying signs for a president who's only been in office for a few months, but Trump will nonetheless find it difficult to top his predecessors. And because of his uh... unique style of leadership, Trump also has more weaknesses than many of them,

Also note that this is not simply 'grabbing power for themselves', and in that way it differentiates significantly from predecessors. Trump isn't attempting to grab any power by destroying the EPA. He's not attempting to grab any power by weakening US alliances. He's not even attempting to grab power by attacking the free press. Many of his moves have no personal power gain for them, and others don't have power in the office so much as personal enrichment. 

The difference is that prior presidents have attempted to gain further power to exert their political will. Trump appears to simply desire power so that he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants at whatever whim he has.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Heh. Someone modded Wolfenstein to ask you if it's okay to shoot nazis. 

Okay, that's kinda funny. 

[Fragile Bird]

Oh my. A man investigating working conditions at a factory in China producing Ivanka Trump goods has been arrested, and two others have disappeared. I wonder if this will become a controversy...

SHANGHAI - A man investigating working conditions at a Chinese company that produces Ivanka Trump-brand shoes has been arrested and two others are missing, the arrested man's wife and an advocacy group said Tuesday.

Hua Haifeng was accused of illegal surveillance, according to his wife, Deng Guilian, who said the police called her Tuesday afternoon. Deng said the caller told her she didn't need to know the details, only that she would not be able to see, speak with or receive money from her husband, the family's breadwinner.

China Labor Watch Executive Director Li Qiang said he lost contact with Hua Haifeng and the other two men, Li Zhao and Su Heng, over the weekend. By Tuesday, after dozens of unanswered calls, he had concluded: "They must be held either by the factory or the police to be unreachable."

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/men-probing-ivanka-trump-brands-in-china-arrested-missing/ar-BBBHtcR?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartanntp

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Held by the factory? That's fucking terrifying. Why do I envision that as being worse than being held by the cops? 

 Brings a whole new feel to "Help! I'm being held hostage in a fortune cookie factory".

[Altherion]

For people who want something political that has nothing to do with Trump, the Supreme Court released an interesting decision today:

Quote

The case involves the doctrine of “exhaustion,” under which a patent holder’s rights to enforce its patent ordinarily are “exhausted” with regard to any particular object at the moment the patent holder sells the object. As applied to this case, for example, Lexmark’s rights to control the use of its patented refillable print cartridges would be “exhausted” when it sells those cartridges to retail buyers, even if Lexmark conditions the sale on the promise that the buyer will not refill the cartridge. That, at any rate, is the argument of Impression Products, which makes a business out of refilling Lexmark cartridges in violation of those agreements. Lexmark’s argument, by contrast, supported by a quarter-century of Federal Circuit precedent, is that modern commerce requires that innovators have the flexibility to devise contracting structures that segment the market into separate sectors, each of which gets a different price commensurate with the uses to which products will be put in that sector.

The Federal Circuit had ruled in favor of Lexmark (i.e. arguing that refilling the cartridges is illegal), but the Supreme Court was nearly unanimous in favor of the exhaustion doctrine. The vote was 7-1 with Ginsburg being the lone dissenter and even then only in the case of foreign transactions.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Trump's administration is certainly a threat to US institutions. Whether or not it will be a success is another question entirely, but half of his cabinet has said, by design, it is meant to destroy the US administrative system. The system in a lot of ways is fighting back against it, but there are a LOT of signs that it is under attack:

• Not appointing several HUNDRED open positions in the government, including all attorneys for each state
• Removal of the FBI director while an ongoing investigation into the administration is taking place
• Ignoring requests from house and senate committees for information
• dismantling of several government organizations
• several executive orders that at least attempted to go over the legally allowed system
• ignoring of emoluments clause entirely, and when told to comply saying 'it's just too hard'
• deleting of government records and correspondence
• full-on attacks of press
• encouraging of private violence
• encouraging countries to pay for benefits given (such as Saudi Arabia and China)
• openly disparaging existing long-term alliances
• openly spreading state secrets
• openly spreading other allies' secrets
• creating a voting commission to likely cause voting rights to be rescinded

Now, it's certainly an open question as to whether or not this attack will succeed or whether the Republic will remain resilient enough; I tend to think it's already hosed, others do not. But it's certainly a threat.

Just came across this tonight. Sam Harris's latest podcast with Timothy Snyder on his NY Times #1 Bestseller (in the non-fiction category) The Road to Tyranny. I'm only about halfway through it, but it is really entertaining thus far.

 

 

[Fragile Bird]

I heard someone on CNN tonight talk about how Russia is targeting Italy, because Italy once had the biggest Communist party in Europe, and often elected Communist party politicians to their parliament.

And Trump has not appointed an ambassador to Italy, so there is no one on hand in Rome to talk to.

[S John]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

And Trump has not appointed an ambassador to Italy, so there is no one on hand in Rome to talk to.

Wow, we still need an ambassador to Italy?  Alright, fine.  I'll do it.

[Sivin]

57 minutes ago, S John said:

Wow, we still need an ambassador to Italy?  Alright, fine.  I'll do it.

Hey, if anyone's gonna read that cheeto's dementia laden txts to the PM of the birthplace of fascism it's gonna be me!

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, S John said:

Wow, we still need an ambassador to Italy?  Alright, fine.  I'll do it.

Are you a registered Republican? Go for it! Such a beautiful city!

But if Putin asked for the position to stay vacant, it'll probably be filled with a Trump supporter.

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

Every President would like to have more power and exert more influence over the other branches of government. My point was that Trump has not actually done anything yet. At most, he has spoken of doing something that has already been done in American history. There is very little new about his purported anti-democratic actions (squabbles with Congress, attacks on the press, restructuring of executive agencies, etc.). Even if, for example, the Supreme Court tells him his executive order on immigration is unconstitutional and he tells the Supreme Court that they have no authority to make that call, that still wouldn't be new (Jackson got there first).

What is up with you and Jackson?  Does he give you a half-chub or something?  I assume you're referring to Worcester v Georgia (1832).  Yeah, that has very little to do with the current process of how the court evaluates EOs - in large part because EOs were not a normalized process of policymaking until FDR.  If he refused to abide by a court decision on a salient EO, the ramifications would be far different than they were in 18 fucking 32.  That comparison is ludicrous.

Quote

Almost every President has tried to grab more power to himself; that's how the executive branch wound up so much larger and more powerful than it originally was.

The first part of that sentence is true, the second is not.  The executive branch has persistently grown out of necessity - and has frustrated each GOP president in trying to control and/or reign it in since Nixon (with the arguable exception of Bush I).  Regardless, there is a vast difference between the power of the executive branch and the power of the president.  Many of the latter have had a hard time learning that, and it seems you have too.

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The difference is that prior presidents have attempted to gain further power to exert their political will. Trump appears to simply desire power so that he can do whatever he wants whenever he wants at whatever whim he has.

I'm sorry, been rewatching Dexter, so I couldn't help but think of this:

My take is Trump wants to "win."  From his eyes, I'm sure that means being successful in some tangible manner, or at least some manner in which his advisors can sell as tangible.  Of course, he also enjoys making money on the side, but I think the previous sentence describes his "policy agenda" such as it is.  And obviously it has been frustrated, which is why we keep on getting leaks and reports of his Miguel Prado-esque belligerence from the staff.

[mormont]

11 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I do not believe ME is offering a statement condoning, justifying, or "normalizing" the actions of the Republicans.  I believe he is saying their actions are foreseeable based upon the earlier actions of antifa protesters.  

Again, and I apologise but this is important, these two sentences are contradictory (and the first is jumbling up three different things as if they were synonymous).

The latter sentence says, in effect, 'I believe he is normalising the actions of the Republicans'. That is what 'normalising' means: to present something as within the range of expected responses, and therefore normal.

That is not the same as condoning it, which may be where the confusion lies here. And it's not justifying it either, but it's certainly starting along that road.

It's very, very simple. If you want to condemn violence by either side, do so. Condemn it on its own terms, without reference to other actions. The minute you start saying 'this was foreseeable', you're normalising. If something is truly not normal, if it's beyond the pale, however you want to put that, it should be condemned without qualification. If you start qualifying, you've started normalising.

[Which Tyler]

Well, I think we've been given our next thread title:

 

 

https://i.imgur.com/kNp9H3r.png

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Again, and I apologise but this is important, these two sentences are contradictory (and the first is jumbling up three different things as if they were synonymous).

The latter sentence says, in effect, 'I believe he is normalising the actions of the Republicans'. That is what 'normalising' means: to present something as within the range of expected responses, and therefore normal.

That is not the same as condoning it, which may be where the confusion lies here. And it's not justifying it either, but it's certainly starting along that road.

It's very, very simple. If you want to condemn violence by either side, do so. Condemn it on its own terms, without reference to other actions. The minute you start saying 'this was foreseeable', you're normalising. If something is truly not normal, if it's beyond the pale, however you want to put that, it should be condemned without qualification. If you start qualifying, you've started normalising.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion.  That said I do not believe predicting that Republicans would use Antifa demonstrations and actions as justification for their actions means you are "normalizing" their actions in the sense that such actions should be commonplace .  It means simply that in that context the actions are predictable.  Being predictable doesn't make the action "normal" and certainly doesn't make the action acceptable.

It is predictable that a drunk may get into a bar fight... that doesn't make getting into a bar fight "normal" and certainly doesn't make getting into a bar fight acceptable.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

The latter sentence says, in effect, 'I believe he is normalising the actions of the Republicans'. That is what 'normalising' means: to present something as within the range of expected responses, and therefore normal.

No, that's not what normalizing is, at least in the Foucault definition you seem to be going for.  In that way, normalizing is - in descending order - rationalization, enabling, acquiescence, abiding, or tolerating.  If "normalizing" simply means something "in the range of expected responses," then all political analysts are fucked...

2 hours ago, mormont said:

That is not the same as condoning it, which may be where the confusion lies here. And it's not justifying it either, but it's certainly starting along that road.

Ok.  To the bolded, why?  And how?  You have not presented any coherent logic for this assertion.

2 hours ago, mormont said:

The minute you start saying 'this was foreseeable', you're normalising. If something is truly not normal, if it's beyond the pale, however you want to put that, it should be condemned without qualification. If you start qualifying, you've started normalising.

Again, the bolded is a problem.  So, if I was a Jew during the Weimar Republic, and thought it was "foreseeable" to leave Germany, am I normalizing the national socialists?  Yes, that's a ridiculous comparison, but so is this attempt you have at accusing ME and I guess Scot for employing a false equivalency when they never did.  

From what I can tell, ME's greatest sin was making the banal point that escalation by one side leads to escalation by the other - which he then went out of his way to qualify as a disproportionate comparison.  How this became an indictment on his motives is not supported by the posts made in this thread.  Then again, I expect this argument goes beyond that, so I'm sure I've stepped in shit here.  But from an outside observer this seems like a vendetta.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

dmc,

Thank you.

[mormont]

54 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

No, that's not what normalizing is, at least in the Foucault definition you seem to be going for.  In that way, normalizing is - in descending order - rationalization, enabling, acquiescence, abiding, or tolerating.  If "normalizing" simply means something "in the range of expected responses," then all political analysts are fucked...

Rationalising is certainly covered, yes. Enabling, acquiescing, abiding, tolerating... no, these aren't covered by ME's comment, but it does start down the road towards all of these things.

Again, this is not complicated. If you truly want to avoid normalising something, condemn it without qualifying your condemnation in any way.

54 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Ok.  To the bolded, why?  And how?  You have not presented any coherent logic for this assertion.

If you insert something into a sentence where a justification would normally go - say, for example, after the word 'but' - you are obviously in danger of justifying the thing you're talking about, even if you didn't intend to. This is particularly true if the thing you are inserting can be seen as provoking the thing you're condemning, as is the case here. 

54 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Again, the bolded is a problem.  So, if I was a Jew during the Weimar Republic, and thought it was "foreseeable" to leave Germany, am I normalizing the national socialists?

Er... this is, I'm afraid, not the same thing at all. How could you be 'normalising' the Nazis by talking about what you would do and why? You would need to be talking about why they were doing things that caused you to leave.

If you were saying 'it's foreseeable that the Nazis would take my business because after all, some Jews have militantly protested the Republic's policies' then yes, that would be comparable and yes, you would be normalising their actions.

54 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

But from an outside observer this seems like a vendetta.

It's certainly not that, nor do I think he has 'sinned'. I've even pointed out that he may be right, that this sort of reaction may be normal, and that I'm not qualified to judge that.

What I've tried to do is make ME and Scot understand what I think it is people mean when they worry about 'normalising' the actions of Republicans. It's not some sort of code for 'you secretly approve of this behaviour'. It's not meant to suggest that they are condoning it or that they are intentionally doing something harmful. It's about moving the conversation in the direction of presenting an abnormal reaction (which it is fair to say would by definition not be expected) as being within the range of expected reactions.

With that, however, I'm out.