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

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not arguing either.

I'm arguing that nonviolence is a great goal that is also incredibly hard to do and also has a number of fairly big failures that aren't particularly well-addressed (such as, say, the actual rise of Nazi Germany). 

I'm arguing that nonviolent movements often worked because they had violence as an alternative; Civil Rights and MLK worked because it was seen as a much better alternative than the race riots that had been going on, as an example. 

I'm arguing that preaching nonviolence is really easy when you're not the one that is going to get their head bashed in. If John Lewis wants to preach nonviolence out there and start doing major organizations of marches, I'll be first in line to march with him, but random people who aren't going to go to marches, aren't going to put their bodies in the line of fire and are watching people get beaten are the chickens in the breakfast survey here. And I'm not going to criticize those who are actually out there protesting and putting their lives on the line for not being moral enough for my tastes. 

Finally, I'm arguing that it isn't clear how counterproductive violent resistance is. 

It's really weird for me to see arguments against non-violence citing the rise of the Nazis when that exact rise was one of the major motivations for the rise of the non-violent movement itself. Gandhi started it much earlier, but he MLK and others all openly credited the world's experience with the Nazi rise as a main reason it gained so much post WWII momentum.

Because, I guess unlike many today who think of the Nazis after their rise...a pretty indelible image, i grant you...the people of the post-war age remember the environments in Spain, Italy and Germany before the fascist became the respective governments. They remember the dangerous rise of a new violent political ideology that threatened to break the social structure, and who didn't mind breaking a few heads to get it done. Yeah, the communists.

And they likewise remember the counter movement that sprang up to take the fight to the communists, to not be pushed around and not sit idly by as their counties were torn apart. You know who I mean, right? The fascists.

Because that's exactly how the fascist movements go started, by saying 'enough is enough, forget waiting for the system to stop these thugs, the system is rigged and so right thinking people need to step up and meet violence with violence.[/i]

Mussolini admitted that in the beginning, that's pretty much all he had, the determination to resist communism and the willingness to get his hands dirty doing it. He kind of patched an overall ethos together as he went along, and though he never really zeroed in on a Mein Kampf kind of mission statement, he did enough that it could eventually be said to stand for some things instead of just against others. 

The same pattern was repeated elsewhere, to a degree modelled after Mussolini, at least in terms of idealogical street violence and propaganda. And the generations who grew up having seen that pattern or heard if from their parents understood what happens when X's violence is legitimized simply because they oppose Y and everyone knows how dangerous Y is. Common people get so scared by the constant violence that they either pick the side that seems strongest and help push to victory (and presumably peace) or they surrender political power to government strong men as the price to pay for order. Sooooo many people without any fascist sympathies effectively became part of the fascist army this way (and likewise communist). And as clear a distinction that you or I might make between the ideologies of fascism and opposing fascism, if their actions are increasingly hard to distinguish from one another...or, worse, if the fascists can often be portrayed as the victims (and their whole ideology is centered on that idea) you might win some battles, but you're giving them a shot at winning a war they have no business even being in. I say not doing that is the better idea. 

 

Edit for obvious alternative: if a Nazi marches up and down a square and nobody's there, does he make a sound?

Double-blind: they're not marching to make sounds, they're marching hoping it becomes a confrontation. How hard is that to understand?

[James Arryn]

52 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well you guys are smart enough to realize you shouldn't start wars when hockey sticks are your best weapons and you guys have to continuously wash syrup off of your fingers. 

Only an idiot washes golden liquid mana from heaven off their fingers. Lick, you bloody Visigoth, you.

[Bonnot OG]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Does he have the ability to pull votes from across the whole State to be elected?  God forbid he win he's 85 would he complete a full term?

 

I have no clue. Nor would I ever assume he doesn't given how the scumbag in the white house is in the white house and he shouldn't be. 

2 hours ago, Morpheus said:

Trump just defended pardoning Arpaio and blasted Obama for commuting Chelsea Mannig's sentence. Part of a whole Whataboutism gag.

He also admitted he pardoned that sack of shit during a hurricane for the ratings. He's just such a scummy individual.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

I have no clue. Nor would I ever assume he doesn't given how the scumbag in the white house is in the white house and he shouldn't be. 

He also admitted he pardoned that sack of shit during a hurricane for the ratings. He's just such a scummy individual.

No argument on that score Trump is a terrible terrible POTUS.

[GAROVORKIN]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No argument on that score Trump is a terrible terrible POTUS.

 

Oh he's doing just fine . Thanks to Trump were number one again  ! 

 

Garovorkin hopes nobody sees him adjusting  his trusty rose colored virtual reality googles.