Jump to content

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


Yukle

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, dmc515 said:

By all accounts (including the Mother Jones reporter that posted the video below), it was predominately nonviolent.  But let's not ignore what will be running on a loop on Fox News at least until the midterms:

Doesn't seem clear who the victim was, but it does seem pretty clear the assailants are either antifa or at least people dressed like antifa.  The guy in the red t-shirt is Reveal host Al Letson:

So, is this the type of violence many here have argued is justified or should even be encouraged?  Because if so, I genuinely feel sorry for you.

 Yeah, I'm not 100% sure whether or not this is the same guy (Al Letson), but there was some very similar incidences to this taped at the second Berkeley event. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IamMe90 said:

This is literally the opposite of what you were constantly saying pre-election to justify support of Trump. Now that it's undeniable what a shit show president he is, it's interesting how quickly you've changed your tune. 

Trump will be variously anti-establishment and establishment depending on the discussion, and to be 'fair' to Althrion he's done that 2 step since pretty early on. I'd expect a 'I see no evidence of a shit-show' response now. Never made any sense, but not imo less sensible now than 5 months ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Aw, isn't that so cute!  Putting people who freak out next to people who work to prevent it like they're one in the same.

What is the point of this post? Why is it so bad?

By "freaking out," I mean raising the alarm, as some of us are doing in this thread. But if you want to talk about doing the work, I volunteer in local and federal elections. I co-founded a local political group. I go door-knocking, I help local offices keep their equipment working, I'm certified by the Board of Elections so I can register people to vote. I haven't punched any Nazis, but I live in Baltimore and there are none of their marches scheduled here as far as I know. What the fuck have you done that you're so comfortable shitting on everyone else? No, don't bother answering, I'm putting you on ignore before your posts destroy any more of my brain cells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:
Quote

A man who claimed that he was stabbed after being mistaken for a neo-Nazi now admits that he made the whole story up after accidentally stabbing himself.

Maybe one of his other personalities was talking to his neo-nazi personality before stabbing himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Altherion said:

There are two general categories. First, the courts can (and have) declare things the President orders unconstitutional. Second, most things the President can do generally require money and the only way he can get the money is to go to Congress. There are ways around these, but Trump has not tried to use them yet and there is no evidence that he will.

I'm trying not to be alarmist, and I agree that there's probably a limit to what kind of long game Trump himself can play. However, it is worth noting that a lot of the usual checks and balances are starting to stretch a little thin if you look at the big picture.

For example, while Congress is currently a shitshow with, ahem, varying levels of admiration for the prez, we could be looking at quite a consolidation of power there for Trump over the next years. Already, Tarkanian seems to be beating Heller and Ward seems to be beating Flake, while fucking Kid Rock has a shot at taking a seat and McConnell is down to ridiculously low approval. McCain is about to kick the bucket. The point being, a lot of the balances that have come from establishment R's obstructing Trumpist R's might suddenly be gone if Democrats don't pack a wallop in 2018, leaving a Senate which can and will start streamlining a lot of Trump's wet dreams.

Courts are nice. But there's a decent chance that the SC gets another arch-conservative before all this is said and done. Moreover, Trump is currently stacking the lower courts with a record number of record right-wingers who have absolutely no business being in the position of judging anyone else. After that it becomes kinda impossible to say what the standards are for the law of the land.

Intelligence agencies are usually a good stopgap. Well, Pompeo seems like he's politicizing the CIA in a pro-Trump direction pretty actively. Who knows where the FBI stands right now, given its scope.

The Justice Department, which the exception of Mueller's investigation, is a joke right now, but who knows if Mueller will ever be real foil to Trump, or if he'll just nail Manafort, Flynn and a couple other small fries.

My point is that we're looking at a lot of subtle changes in a lot of areas, and I haven't even gotten to the vilification of the opposition media or the empowerment of the police or Trump's seeming ability to turn any crowd of uniformed young men into chanting idiots. It's pretty fucking easy to claim that the sky isn't falling, but you can't really deny that if someone wanted to go all the way, this is exactly how laying the groundwork would look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also thought this was a well-measured discussion of the ethics of punching nazis.

Quote

In a related but more general sense, it is precisely the aim of fascistic groups to shift the basis of civic dialog, space and politics from law to violence. To put it another way, they are trying to shift the basis of society and power from law, voting, equality to force, violence and the domination of the most powerful. And in this case we mean power as expressed by the superior ability to wield violence. Once we’ve moved from one to the other, fascists have to a significant degree already won. The Nazis and white supremacists are literally trying to create a “both sides” situation. We should not help them.

Quote

 

Now, hearing this argument you might think I’m arguing for a bloodless “I may disagree with what you say but I’ll fight for your right to say it” argument. It’s not. I actually like seeing Nazis get punched. Nor do I think all views deserve a right of equal hearing in a democratic society. Philosophies that seek to destroy democracy and the rule of law don’t merit equal validation by a democracy. We grant them certain rights because doing so is consistent with a larger system of laws and rights that guarantees a civil society that is the antithesis of what they believe in. Put another way, Nazis deserve to get punched. A few sucker punches here and there probably send a salutary message. But it’s not always wise to give people what they deserve.

I also think that in cases where the police either refuse to protect or are unable to protect the victims of fascist intimidation and violence that there should be defense groups that do so. That is defensive violence in specific situations. And more generally that only presupposes the breakdown of the state and its basic responsibilities which it should be our main goal to avoid.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

By "freaking out," I mean raising the alarm, as some of us are doing in this thread.

Freaking out on this thread usually goes from "my god there's no checks on Trump" (as if we've never endured unified gov't before) to "we are descending into authoritarianism/dystopia/etc.!" to "I wonder if we're even going to have an election in 2020?"  We already got to step 2 of that last page.  So yeah, the point is you don't need to freak out like this in order to fight against the very disturbing actions of this administration and the GOP at large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

. . . . But if you want to talk about doing the work, I volunteer in local and federal elections. I co-founded a local political group. I go door-knocking, I help local offices keep their equipment working, I'm certified by the Board of Elections so I can register people to vote. I haven't punched any Nazis, but I live in Baltimore and there are none of their marches scheduled here as far as I know. What the fuck have you done that you're so comfortable shitting on everyone else? No, don't bother answering, I'm putting you on ignore before your posts destroy any more of my brain cells.

I praise you, with great praise.  Just in case -- that is not a snark, but sincere gratitude.  Especially for doing this in one of my favorite, yet more tortured, cities, which needs all the people of your kind it can get. (As do we all, everywhere we are.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta say, this is my favorite article of the day - Republicans don't know who to talk to at White House:

Quote

With Reince Priebus and Stephen Bannon both out, Republicans on Capitol Hill are asking who they can talk to at the White House ahead of a crucial, difficult stretch in the legislative calendar.

...

“There is great respect for John Kelly but no real belief that anyone else can effectively carry out the Trump agenda until Kelly replaces Bannon with a conservative leader,” one House GOP lawmaker told The Hill.

Another House Republican added: “Kelly is definitely a huge force, but I don’t know him.”

...

Some names being discussed as possible Bannon replacements include former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.); former Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), who in May was ousted as president of the Heritage Foundation; and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who served as chairman of both the Freedom Caucus and Republican Study Committee.

LOL.  Tapping Gingrich as your top strategist and liaison is like adding dynamite to C4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Freaking out on this thread usually goes from "my god there's no checks on Trump" (as if we've never endured unified gov't before) to "we are descending into authoritarianism/dystopia/etc.!" to "I wonder if we're even going to have an election in 2020?"  We already got to step 2 of that last page.  So yeah, the point is you don't need to freak out like this in order to fight against the very disturbing actions of this administration and the GOP at large.

Yes there will be an election 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Yes there will be an election 2020.

Sure there will.

Will it be fair and free? Will there be massive voter suppression, and use of things like Russian hacking to suppress  Democratic candidates? Check this out for an idea of what a plausible take on the 2020 election will look like.

Quote

Anyway, doesn’t everybody do it? On the eve of the 2018 congressional elections, WikiLeaks released years of investment statements by prominent congressional Democrats indicating that they had long earned above-market returns. As the air filled with allegations of insider trading and crony capitalism, the public subsided into weary cynicism. The Republicans held both houses of Congress that November, and Trump loyalists shouldered aside the pre-Trump leadership.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

. As one shrewd observer told me on a recent visit, “The benefit of controlling a modern state is less the power to persecute the innocent, more the power to protect the guilty.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As one shrewd observer told me on a recent visit, “The benefit of controlling a modern state is less the power to persecute the innocent, more the power to protect the guilty.”

 

Yeah, I buy that as Trump's MO moreso than wanting to pull off some sort of authoritarian coup. He's a kleptocrat. I think more than anything else he wants to replenish his depleted coffers, pay off some Russian debt, then get out without being prosecuted for any of it. I suppose if things got so hot for him on the punishment end, he then at that point might consider the authoritarian option in order to avoid it, but I believe his main motivator here is simply money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

Kal, I'm struggling here. The article you like is like almost point by point what I've been saying for days and you've been just not having it. 

I'm not sure what is the struggle. The article still fails to address the most salient point - which is that it's easy to preach nonviolence, but hard to do so when people are going to be violent towards you. It handwaves this by saying that defensive people should be there if the state won't help, but don't let the state get to that point - which happily ignores how we are already there

I think that's the real disconnect - the perception of how bad things actually are. Some people think that this isn't that far and we're pretty okay aside from a few issues that can be dealt with. Others, like myself, see things getting far worse, and a real lack of use of government accountability to protect the innocent and pursue the guilty. 

I also think that this article overstates the effectiveness of violence in improving fascist outcomes. It isn't always great, but it isn't always bad. 

Charlottesville was a good example of violence and preparation for violence being entirely the right thing. Berkeley this weekend was an example of it going horribly wrong. I can and must recognize both, and realize that both should be considered as strategies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...