U.S. Politics: The (Debt) Ceiling's the Limit

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Back when Trump was basically a second rate reality TV star, I remember when the George W. Bush administration was wanting to do a real number on civil liberties. You had shady military tribunals, arguments about depriving criminal defendants access to exculpatory evidence or limiting discovery procedures, excuses made for water boarding, a refusal to classify combatants as pows or criminal defendants, so the set of rights with each classification would not attach, the Patriot Act, etc. And all this was done in the name of fighting “terrorism”. And I opposed it all. And I remember having many arguments with conservative sorts of people back then. They would say stuff, “why do you coddle terrorist?” And I generally said I don’t give damn if they are terrorist or alleged, I’m not about to agree to piss on civil liberties because of very suspect arguments.

I was a strong civil libertarian back then, And I remain one today, to include robust free speech rights. And not I’m not an absolutist. But, generally, when we get into regulating offensive speech, particularly speech in the public sphere, I’m going to remain much more resistant to it.

You want to ban  Nazis and explicit calls for ethnic cleansing and genocide, okay, I really don’t care. That’s probably not going to do much to chill speech (though, again, it depends on how the language is written or the judicial doctrine is implemented.)

But, when you get into wanting to make further content based regulations I get extremely worried. Unfortunately, some on the left think they can just remove all speech they find objectionable, without doing damage to speech they may want to hear later. It seems to me that they don’t ever think this stuff might backfire later.

It’s easy to say Milo should be banned because I don’t like what he says. But as they say, “hard cases often make bad laws.” Because you don’t end up writing one rule for people like Milo. You end up writing a rule for us all, that will have to be applied to us all. The rule will have to be applied in cases where the facts might be very different.

I disdain the Alt right. But the concept of what is the alt-right is a bit amorphous and who is part of the alt right and who is not can often be a matter of differing opinion. So writing rules here may prove to be a very difficult task.

And having stable rules for something like free speech is extremely important. People have to have a fairly clear idea of what they can and cannot say because rules subject to change at a moments notice or arbitrary can create a severe chilling effect.

Now it seems to me that some have great faith that regulating speech will be highly effective in combating all this white resentment crap. I’m extremely skeptical of this argument. I doubt it will change what many privately think or will say to another in private or will stop the low level signaling that some politicians engage in. And quite frankly, I want some of this nutty crap brought out into the open where it can be publicly refuted. Public refutations may not convince the “true believers” but it may convince those people who are open to reason.

And frankly, there are some on the left who think old civil libertarians like me are delusional. A lot of it , frankly, comes from some dubious post modernist thinking, whose epistemological stance and method I have no great love for. They think the old ideas about civil liberties are “just another narrative among many” or whatever. They have certainly had influence on how some on the left thinks about civil liberty issues and I will remain resistant to them, as I think they largely dreadful.

Anyway, this fight over the scope of civil liberties and free speech has been an issue that has been dividing the left for awhile. And it’s something that we are going to have to hash out.

And by the way, I’ve always hated Nazis. And I haven’t changed my mind about that. But there is more to this than that.

OGE,

Very well said sir on all points.

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/25/2017 at 6:31 PM, Sword of Doom said:

Yup. Milo is trash. It's hard to say whether or not he is an actual nazi or just a sympathizer given how blurred the lines are thanks to what he says. 

And in regards to the bold, fucking a. 


Speaking of that, for those that keep spouting off about Antifa. 

https://www.vox.com/2017/8/25/16189064/antifa-charlottesville-activism-mark-bray-interview?utm_campaign=vox.social&utm_medium=social&utm_content=voxdotcom&utm_source=facebook

 

Quote

When Hitler took his final control through the [1933] Enabling Act, it was approved by parliament.

Just wanted to say, fortunately there is no article 48 in the US constitution. That’s how Paul Hindenburg was able to sign a decree that gave Hitler absolute power.

And if Congress were to try something  like this at the Trumpster’s urging it would provide an extremely strong bases for a Jus Ad Bellum.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

And this shit happened because the Democrats fought for it. If you just "heard a couple of dems say a couple of things" you weren't paying attention. They were slamming this shit constantly

Yep,  and many people on this board were calling both Dems and Repubs to stifften their backbones. I think this was the most excited the Left has been since the Travel Ban. The barrel of the gun pointing at you kind of wakes you up.

Trump Reportedly Ending DACA in Move That Will Not Upset White Supremacists At All

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/25/trump_to_end_daca_nbc_reports.html

 

 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 

It does to a degree contribute to his 15 minutes of fame, which in this case is, 14 minutes too long. 

This is still not a valid argument for opposing the mouthpieces for nazis.  It's a stupid argument. 

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Back when Trump was basically a second rate reality TV star, I remember when the George W. Bush administration was wanting to do a real number on civil liberties. You had shady military tribunals, arguments about depriving criminal defendants access to exculpatory evidence or limiting discovery procedures, excuses made for water boarding, a refusal to classify combatants as pows or criminal defendants, so the set of rights with each classification would not attach, the Patriot Act, etc. And all this was done in the name of fighting “terrorism”. And I opposed it all. And I remember having many arguments with conservative sorts of people back then. They would say stuff, “why do you coddle terrorist?” And I generally said I don’t give damn if they are terrorist or alleged, I’m not about to agree to piss on civil liberties because of very suspect arguments.

I was a strong civil libertarian back then, And I remain one today, to include robust free speech rights. And not I’m not an absolutist. But, generally, when we get into regulating offensive speech, particularly speech in the public sphere, I’m going to remain much more resistant to it.

You want to ban  Nazis and explicit calls for ethnic cleansing and genocide, okay, I really don’t care. That’s probably not going to do much to chill speech (though, again, it depends on how the language is written or the judicial doctrine is implemented.)

But, when you get into wanting to make further content based regulations I get extremely worried. Unfortunately, some on the left think they can just remove all speech they find objectionable, without doing damage to speech they may want to hear later. It seems to me that they don’t ever think this stuff might backfire later.

It’s easy to say Milo should be banned because I don’t like what he says. But as they say, “hard cases often make bad laws.” Because you don’t end up writing one rule for people like Milo. You end up writing a rule for us all, that will have to be applied to us all. The rule will have to be applied in cases where the facts might be very different.

I disdain the Alt right. But the concept of what is the alt-right is a bit amorphous and who is part of the alt right and who is not can often be a matter of differing opinion. So writing rules here may prove to be a very difficult task.

And having stable rules for something like free speech is extremely important. People have to have a fairly clear idea of what they can and cannot say because rules subject to change at a moments notice or arbitrary can create a severe chilling effect.

Now it seems to me that some have great faith that regulating speech will be highly effective in combating all this white resentment crap. I’m extremely skeptical of this argument. I doubt it will change what many privately think or will say to another in private or will stop the low level signaling that some politicians engage in. And quite frankly, I want some of this nutty crap brought out into the open where it can be publicly refuted. Public refutations may not convince the “true believers” but it may convince those people who are open to reason.

And frankly, there are some on the left who think old civil libertarians like me are delusional. A lot of it , frankly, comes from some dubious post modernist thinking, whose epistemological stance and method I have no great love for. They think the old ideas about civil liberties are “just another narrative among many” or whatever. They have certainly had influence on how some on the left thinks about civil liberty issues and I will remain resistant to them, as I think they largely dreadful.

Anyway, this fight over the scope of civil liberties and free speech has been an issue that has been dividing the left for awhile. And it’s something that we are going to have to hash out.

And by the way, I’ve always hated Nazis. And I haven’t changed my mind about that. But there is more to this than that.

Look, I used to be right where you were in thinking we had to give all groups of people all access to free speech if we all wanted to have it.  I've absolutely changed my mind.  I've come to understand that allowing speech that explicitly incites violence is harmful and we shouldn't be encouraging it.  It's helped get a white supremacist into the white house.  We have a serious problem.  Nazi recruitment events should not be given free reign.  

[Darkostar]

Yeah, ultimately we can debate semantics on whether dude is a Nazi or not till we're blue in the gills. The reality is that the stuff he spews actively contributes to an attitude that empowers people (nazis among them) to act with ill intent towards marginalised and scared people. So he's worth speaking out against. Which is not to say that he needs to be dunked on at every turn, but that when he tries to make waves you make them right back.

[Bonnot OG]

41 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

 

Just wanted to say, fortunately there is no article 48 in the US constitution. That’s how Paul Hindenburg was able to sign a decree that gave Hitler absolute power.

And if Congress were to try something  like this at the Trumpster’s urging it would provide an extremely strong bases for a Jus Ad Bellum.

And who is gonna fight that war? The military that votes heavily republican and very much supports Trump? The whiny centrists that can't even get off their asses and defend the marginalized from rallying Nazis and cry about their right to free speech when they rightfully get socked in the mouth for trying to intimidate communities?


Trump has officially signed his attack on the transgender community.

His agents are harassing immigrants fleeing a hurricane.

He's demanding info on anyone visiting anti-Trump sites.

He's defending Nazis and white supremacists.

And yet the republicans still stand by him, because his policies are their policies. If you think they just wont go right along with seizing power you're naive. They already do this with gerrymandering and voter ID laws. That's why they win, they re-write the rules or completely disregard the rules and try to do so with loopholes. 



First they came for everyone not white, straight, cis, able-bodied, neurotypical and male. But I didn't care because I am cis, I am white, I am straight, I'm not disabled, I am male. That is what some of this board subscribes to, whether they intend to or not. 

 

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/25/2017 at 7:45 PM, Sword of Doom said:

snip

It's true the officer corp tends to lean Republican. Also a lot senior ones did balk when Trump said he could order them to do torture. Also,I don't think it's as prevalent in the enlisted ranks. 

Also, I'm not sure what you want us to do at this juncture? Start shooting up the place? It may come to that. But, I'll wait before doing anything rash. I wouldn't want to create any Iraq situations or anything.

 

[GAROVORKIN]

30 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

This is still not a valid argument for opposing the mouthpieces for nazis.  It's a stupid argument. 

Look, I used to be right where you were in thinking we had to give all groups of people all access to free speech if we all wanted to have it.  I've absolutely changed my mind.  I've come to understand that allowing speech that explicitly incites violence is harmful and we shouldn't be encouraging it.  It's helped get a white supremacist into the white house.  We have a serious problem.  Nazi recruitment events should not be given free reign.  

You seem to consider anyone whose point of view is not in sync with yours to be not valid  . No matter.

 

 I  think you'll  find the Supreme Court  would not  agree with your interpretation of the First amendment.  You might want to   take the time and read up the court's  ruling on the  case  Matel vs Tam.  You might find their ruling to be of interest here.

[A True Kaniggit]

5 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It's true the officer corp tends to lean Republican. Also a lot senior ones did balk when Trump said he could order them to do torture. Also,I don't think it's as prevalent in the enlisted ranks.

 

Yeah, it's always been a really weird hypocrisy that so many Republicans in the military can't seem to see. One of the reasons they say they're Republican is because they don't want America to become socialist, while being part of what is probably the most socialist organisation in the country.

[OldGimletEye]

On 8/25/2017 at 8:08 PM, A True Kaniggit said:

One of the reasons they say they're Republican is because they don't want America to become socialist, while being part of what is probably the most socialist organisation in the country.

LOL. This is a big irony isn't it? Conservatives always claim to love the armed forces, but when it comes down to it, it is one of the most socialist institutions in the country.

[LongRider]

Organizers cancel right-wing rallies in San Francisco and Berkeley this weekend

Quote

Organizers of two right-wing rallies scheduled for this weekend in San Francisco and Berkeley abruptly called off their events on Friday afternoon, after weeks of blowback from local residents and elected officials.

But questions remained about whether protesters would show up anyway, and some local leaders said they still worried violence could erupt.

The anticlimactic turnaround started at 3 p.m. on Friday, when Joey Gibson, the founder of the conservative group Patriot Prayer and the organizer of a rally schedule for Saturday in San Francisco’s Crissy Field, started a Facebook Live broadcast to announce his event wouldn’t go forward. Gibson said that he believed that “tons of extremists” would be coming to his event and that it could become dangerous.

Agree with the bolded, however Gibson, they are all with you. 

Quote

A few hours later, the organizer of a “No to Marxism in America” rally scheduled for Sunday in Berkeley’s Civic Center Park said in a rambling statement to the San Francisco Chronicle that her event was also off.

“I am asking the people to not attend this event Sunday,” Amber Cummings, the organizer, wrote. “I will be attending the event alone. I stress I DO NOT WANT ANYONE COMING.”

Oh the drama!

Quote

Bay Area residents had planned multiple counter-protests in San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley over the weekend. The announcement of the cancellations came just hours after a “unite against hate” rally in San Francisco’s Civic Center Plaza.

Correlation does not prove causation, but interesting none the less.  

[LongRider]

Jerrymandering is under siege in Texas:
 

Quote

AUSTIN, TEXAS — 

Texas' voter ID law is shelved again after a judge who once compared the requirements to a "poll tax" on minorities also rejected a newly weakened version that was backed by the Trump administration.

That was followed by a separate federal court on Thursday ordering Texas to partially redraw its Statehouse maps after finding racial gerrymandering in four counties. Texas has now lost three voting rights rulings this month, and the decisions are set to impact the 2018 elections and potentially reverberate to voting rights battles elsewhere in the U.S.

A wee bit of hope there. 

[Darkostar]

Multiple reports saying Gorka out at the White House.

Arpaio pardoned.

Memo about implementing the trans ban in the military approved.

Busy Friday afternoon.

[Shryke]

43 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

This is still not a valid argument for opposing the mouthpieces for nazis.  It's a stupid argument. 

Look, I used to be right where you were in thinking we had to give all groups of people all access to free speech if we all wanted to have it.  I've absolutely changed my mind.  I've come to understand that allowing speech that explicitly incites violence is harmful and we shouldn't be encouraging it.  It's helped get a white supremacist into the white house.  We have a serious problem.  Nazi recruitment events should not be given free reign.  

Inciting violence is I think not the core problem, although there are issues with that.

The greater threat is allowing speech that is itself a threat to the system that allows that speech in the first place. A free democratic society can foster political movements that will destroy that free and democratic society if you let them. Free speech is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.

You start confusing the two and you end up with white supremacists running your country and subverting the democratic process because, hey, turns out they openly want to implement a herrenvolk democracy.

[LongRider]

I just read about Arpaio, still nauseous.  

[Mauvka]

2 hours ago, felice said:

End patenting of medicine so alternative suppliers can be found if one drug company tries to overcharge?

I think this would run into problems because the process of getting a drug to market really does cost millions of dollars. 

 

However, if the NIH were to run a program where they would front the costs of putting on clinical trials in exchange for a licensing agreement that stipulated reasonable price controls (and profit sharing to keep the program solvent), then we might have a noncoercive method to put price pressure on the medical system.  

Because if there is a government sponsored drug for 1/100th the price on the market, that would put real pressure on pharma.  And so much of basic research is already paid for by the public. 

[Bonnot OG]

Trump is a white supremacist. So are his supporters. End of story. Sticking up for nazis and white supremacists and pardoning that bag of shit? 

[Morpheus]

Trump letting racists and bigots of all stripes know that their boy still loves them, fuck that "unity" shit. 

And next week he can go to Texas to read prepared statements and garner that sweet Presidential praise.

Fuck everything.

[Dr. Pepper]

24 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

You seem to consider anyone whose point of view is not in sync with yours to be not valid  . No matter.

 

 I  think you'll  find the Supreme Court  would not  agree with your interpretation of the First amendment.  You might want to   take the time and read up the court's  ruling on the  case  Matel vs Tam.  You might find their ruling to be of interest here.

Sigh.  No, I haven't been arguing that a conservative approach to, say, health care or education are not valid points of view.

We're talking about naziism.  Nazis.  NAZI.  We're talking about a group of people seeking to commit genocide against other groups of people.  This is not a valid ideology that should be protected by free speech no more than active pedophilia is a balid ideology that should be protected by free speech.  

3 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Inciting violence is I think not the core problem, although there are issues with that.

The greater threat is allowing speech that is itself a threat to the system that allows that speech in the first place. A free democratic society can foster political movements that will destroy that free and democratic society if you let them. Free speech is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.

You start confusing the two and you end up with white supremacists running your country and subverting the democratic process because, hey, turns out they openly want to implement a herrenvolk democracy.

Yes, you're absolutely correct.  This is a superior way of viewing this issue and serves as a more valid argument. 

[Mexal]

Timing is everything. Want to pardon a racist? Do it during a cat 4 hurricane. Ultimate distraction.