Jump to content

U.S. Politics: There's Identity Politics, On Many Sides


Mr. Chatywin et al.

Recommended Posts

Quote

2. On corporations selling viagra. The Supreme Court has always recognized that commercial speech usually gets less protection than political speech. And I’m fine with that.

Advertising doesn't need protection -- it runs the show, via Google's (and Facebook's) digital dominance.  Josh Marshal breaks it down, bit by bit:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/a-serf-on-googles-farm

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

And you knew this was coming. In a while we'll get the stories about the FBI infiltrating Quakers and other groups they suspect of being left-wing terrorists.

FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks
Confidential documents call the anarchists that seek to counter white supremacists ‘domestic terrorists.’

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235

 

DREAMers with kids prepare for the worst
President Trump is expected to end DACA protection for immigrants this week.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/31/16228206/dreamers-daca-prepare

Yet the FBI has never called the KKK and their acts of violence terrorism, and they have a body count behind their acts of violence. I also love how countering white supremacy is a terrorist act. That 's about all the evidence you need right there to show this country is a country of white supremacists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

DREAMers with kids prepare for the worst
President Trump is expected to end DACA protection for immigrants this week.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/31/16228206/dreamers-daca-prepare

Surprised no one's mentioned this:

Quote

But Ryan, a supporter of immigration reform in the past, urged Trump on Friday not to end DACA. 

“I actually don't think he should do that, and I believe that this is something Congress has to fix,” Ryan told WCLO in Janesville, Wis.

You know Paul, if you want Congress to fix it, you got a pretty good day job to make that happen.  Looks like he's fine taking a backseat on that though:

Quote

The most striking move comes from Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), who announced he will try to force a vote on his bill extending DACA work permits by starting a discharge petition — a rare move for a member of the House majority party.

Discharge petitions are normally a tool used by the minority party — unsuccessfully, in most cases. In order to force a House floor vote, discharge petitions must get at least 218 signatures.

Coffman is convinced that a decision by Trump to end DACA would motivate enough Republicans who weren’t on board before to endorse his proposal.

...

Coffman would need to get all 194 House Democrats to sign his discharge petition in addition to at least 23 GOP colleagues.

Only 12 Republicans have co-sponsored the underlying bill he introduced with Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) earlier this year, titled the Bar Removal of Individuals who Dream and Grow our Economy (BRIDGE) Act. The legislation would only extend DACA protections for three years to give Congress time to enact a permanent solution. 

“If the Democrats hold firm, I believe I’ll have enough Republican votes to pass 218,” Coffman said.

...

Immigrant advocacy groups are also pushing for a longer-term fix to keep DACA instead of the three-year delay as outlined by the BRIDGE Act pushed by Coffman.

“We are glad that Coffman wants to force a vote on Dreamers. It's a gutsy move. But he's chosen the wrong vehicle. The BRIDGE Act is a temporary measure, and we want Congress to enact a permanent solution,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice. 

Sharry pointed to an alternative bill introduced by Curbelo in March that would establish a pathway for DACA recipients and other young immigrants to obtain legal status. 

Curbelo’s legislation is somewhat more stringent compared to the most recent version of the DREAM Act. Qualifying young immigrants would have to establish they came to the U.S. before the age of 16 and lived in the country continuously since at least 2012, compared to needing to enter the U.S. before the age of 18 and live here at least four years before the DREAM Act’s enactment. 

At this point, Curbelo’s bill has only 18 co-sponsors who are all Republicans.  

House GOP leaders haven’t offered support to help advance the bills offered to shield young immigrants from deportation. Ryan pledged to conservatives before taking on his current leadership post in 2015 that he would not allow a floor vote on any immigration reform bill unless a majority of Republicans supported it.

 

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

And you knew this was coming. In a while we'll get the stories about the FBI infiltrating Quakers and other groups they suspect of being left-wing terrorists.

FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks
Confidential documents call the anarchists that seek to counter white supremacists ‘domestic terrorists.’

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235

 

Saw that earlier.  It should be noted that the investigations mentioned in the article all appear to have commenced before Trump took office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sword of Doom said:

Yet the FBI has never called the KKK and their acts of violence terrorism, and they have a body count behind their acts of violence. I also love how countering white supremacy is a terrorist act. That 's about all the evidence you need right there to show this country is a country of white supremacists.

 

Out of curiosity, why do members of Antifa  wear masks ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

 

Out of curiosity, why do members of Antifa  wear masks ?

LMGTFY

Quote

 

A black bloc is a name given to groups of protesters who wear black clothing, scarves, sunglasses, ski masks, motorcycle helmets with padding, or other face-concealing and face-protecting items.[1][2] The clothing is used to conceal marchers' identities, and hinder criminal prosecution, by making it difficult to distinguish between participants. It is also used to protect their faces and eyes from items, such as pepper-spray, which law enforcement often use. The tactic allows the group to appear as one large unified mass.[3] Black bloc participants are often associated with anarchism and they use multiple forms of violence when they gather at a protest.

The tactic was developed in the 1980s in the European autonomist movement's protests against squatter evictions, nuclear power and restrictions on abortion, as well as other influences.[1] Black blocs gained broader media attention outside Europe during the 1999 Seattle WTO protests, when a black bloc damaged property of GAP, Starbucks, Old Navy, and other multinational retail locations in downtown Seattle.[1][4]

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Honestly, I'm tempted to get stoned and watch that show. I didn't think that much kitch was possible. I cut out like halfway through that link because of sensory overload. I think my life will hereafter be divided into Before and After that experience. I don't know yet whether to curse or thank you. I'm considering a beard. I'm considering a bear. I'm considering Zoroastrianism. 

Heh, that's a bit of a blast from the past.  The show was way ahead of its time in at least one sense: the bear Ben's seeming ability to communicate.  His vocabulary consisted of two different sounds.  One starting lower and rising in pitch like a question and the other starting normal and lowering in pitch a bit like a statement.  Grizzly Adams could have whole conversations with Ben that way.  He was basically Groot long before Groot!:P

And on the political front, I am embarrassed to announce that Trump will be visiting my town next week.  I don't know what coming to Bismarck, North Dakota to talk about "tax reform" is going to accomplish but...there it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could have sworn somebody mentioned to me that Trump had declared this (?) Sunday a new national holiday, a 'day of prayer.'   Maybe it was fake news, though.

 

And then there is this bit of bizarreness :

 

(one must, of course, distinguish between 'Trump' and 'Trump Administration.'

 

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/after-harvey-the-trump-administration-reconsiders-flood-rules-it-just-rolled-back/ar-AAr6mu7?li=BBnb7Kz

A couple of weeks ago President Trump scrapped Obama-era rules, intended to reduce the risks posed by flooding, that established new construction standards for roads, housing and other infrastructure projects that receive federal dollars.

 

 

Trump derided these restrictions, which were written in response to growing concerns over the impact of climate change, and other federal rules as useless red tape holding back the economy.

“This overregulated permitting process is a massive, self-­inflicted wound on our country — it’s disgraceful — denying our people much-needed investments in their community,” he said in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York during an event to tout his infrastructure policies.

But now, in the wake of the massive flooding and destruction caused by Hurricane Harvey along the Gulf Coast, the Trump administration is considering whether to issue similar requirements to build higher in flood-prone areas as the government prepares to spend billions of dollars in response to the storm.

This potential policy shift underscores the extent to which the reality of this week’s storm has collided with Trump officials’ push to upend President Barack Obama’s policies and represents a striking acknowledgment by an administration skeptical of climate change that the government must factor changing weather into some of its major infrastructure policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smoke Spotted Coming Out of San Francisco Russian Consulate

 http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/01/politics/russia-consulate-san-francisco-smoke/index.html

 

Firefighters turned away. Residents of the building tell them this was just them using the fireplace. Temperatures in S.F. today hit an all time high of about 106 degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who lives and works in San Francisco, and who is used to the nearly perpetually cool weather, I can attest to the fact that it was really really hot today, even right near the Pacific. Why the fuck would someone use a fireplace?

Oh right.  Never mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sword of Doom said:

The two main reasons. To avoid getting doxxed by nazis and white supremacists, and to avoid the cops identifying them. 



 

Wearing masks might  prove to be a problematic practice for the left because  the public tends to distrust people who conceal their identities in public . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Wearing masks will  prove to be a problematic practice for the left. The public tends to distrust people who conceal their identities in public

Yeah, because a torch-wearing mob with swastika flags yelling "jews will not replace us" is so much more trustworthy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/1/2017 at 3:59 PM, Rippounet said:

But no one said the government should be the one deciding what is or isn't the truth.

One of the things I just wanted to clear up is that I’m not a real big fan of the “money as speech” concept. I get the conservative argument of how giving money to certain actors can promote speech.

But, in my view, the “money as speech” concept is just analytically unworkable. I mean if giving of money == speech, then I want a refund of taxes I’ve paid. Because often the government has done things I don’t approve of and doesn’t represent what I believe in. I don’t approve of torture. So, I want a refund of the part I paid for the persons’ time that committed the act. I don’t approve of the shit Trump does and says. So I want a refund for the part I’m paying for his presidential salary. I don’t approve the shit Paul Ryan says, etc. etc. 

Of course a lot of arguments depend on defining the meaning of terms. When I think of “speech” I think of it as speaking, writing, and symbolic acts mainly. Accordingly, I’m not a fan of the giving of money speech concept and am generally fine with regulating spending money on ads, lobbying and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

One of the things I just wanted to clear up is that I’m not a real big fan of the “money as speech” concept. I get the conservative argument of how giving money to certain actors can promote speech.

But, in my view, the “money as speech” concept is just analytically unworkable. I mean if giving of money == speech, then I want a refund of taxes I’ve paid. Because often the government has done things I don’t approve of and doesn’t represent what I believe in. I don’t approve of torture. So, I want a refund of the part I paid for the persons’ time that committed the act. I don’t approve of the shit Trump does and says. So I want a refund for the part I’m paying for his presidential salary. I don’t approve the shit Paul Ryan says, etc. etc. 

Of course a lot of arguments depend on defining the meaning of terms. When I think of “speech” I think of it as speaking, writing, and symbolic acts mainly. Accordingly, I’m not a fan of the giving of money speech concept and am generally fine with regulating spending money on ads, lobbying and so forth.

The money as speech, corps as people, is an outgrowth, one might think, of the 3/5th people are money clause in the Constitution.  

Money, and its only money that talks, therefore rules.  So Virginia (and the slave states) ruled the White House and the federal government -- and the electoral college -- for decades and decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zorral,

10 minutes ago, Zorral said:

The money as speech, corps as people, is an outgrowth, one might think, of the 3/5th people are money clause in the Constitution.  

Money, and its only money that talks, therefore rules.  So Virginia (and the slave states) ruled the White House and the federal government -- and the electoral college -- for decades and decades.

Corporations have always been considered people since their invention in the middle ages.  That's why they are calling "corporations". What is new is allowing the direct rights of shareholders to flow through to corporations without causeing a loss of protection for the shareholders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, polishgenius said:

...so? They're moving out tomorrow. Of course they've got stuff to get rid of.

By burning it.  Indoors.  On a day that was over 100F, close to 40C in an ordinarily cool city.  Not throwing it away or recycling or getting it hauled away or composting (lol) or shredding it.

Of course I'm not up on standard consulate procedure.  Could be normal.  Just didn't seem normal to me - the burning that is.

Maybe they were taking a cue from Wildlings and avoiding things re-animating as a horde of blue-eyed zombies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wethers said:

By burning it.  Not throwing it away or recycling or getting it hauled away or shredding it.

Of course I'm not up on standard consulate procedure.  Could be normal.  Just didn't seem normal to me.


It's not normal as far as I know but neither is it immediately indicative of dealings any dodgier than you'd standardly expect from an embassy. Every consulate in the world is going to have stuff in it that they don't necessarily want their host government to get their hands on. Some of it may well be things that they know that they theoretically shouldn't, but equally much of it will be their own sensitive information that they don't want getting out. They might choose less old-school theatrical ways to get rid of it than chucking it in the fire, but they'll have it.

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...