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

[IamMe90]

8 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's not logical at all. Unless there is an effectiveness test in the constitution for all federal laws. A shitty, ineffective law can still be constitutional I would think. Take the ACA, which most Republican politicians have judged to be shitty and ineffective but which has so far stood up to challenge on constitutional grounds. 

Well, not if the standard he mentioned is specific to the First Amendment. If that were the case, it would mean that ineffective laws are only unconstitutional insofar as they attempt to restrict First Amendment rights. To this point, I myself am ignorant. 

 

Edit: your example of the ACA, for instance, has nothing to do with free speech. So its constitutionality is not in question if it is ineffective, at least given the proposition I assumed. 

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

That's not logical at all. Unless there is an effectiveness test in the constitution for all federal laws. A shitty, ineffective law can still be constitutional I would think.

I don't know if it's the same in the USA as Australia, but in Australia a law is constitutional only to the extent of the inconsistency. It means that, in effect, the section of the law that contravenes the law is struck down but the rest still stands.

It's a stretch, but I think at best if the constitution can be used to prove that "soft" and "hard" money can't have laws applied differently, then such laws may be struck down.

Otherwise, yeah agreed, I can't see a law failing in court because it's not very good. To be honest, I think that most laws with loopholes have them by design.

[The guy from the Vale]

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

She's great. Thanks for the link.

Interesting the close ups on Trump's hand gestures. If he is actually using those gestures in that way, which appear simply natural and automatic, then he's a lot more cunning than I think a lot of people give him credit for. And of course thinking that a person is a buffoon and a fool who is actually cunning and smart is a big mistake for those who oppose that person.

Not that I'm saying one way or the other that Trump is or isn't using those hand gestures as code.

The question is what came first - Trump's hand gestures or the use of those as meme. Is Trump using them to telegraph to his audience that he's one of them, or have they picked up on his gestures and are using them amongst themselves?

 

ETA: As for your paranoia, I wouldn't go as far as you do. One point is usually not enough to identify fascists. Many non-fascist racists have bought into some of these tactics, and this one might believe this to be a "legitimate" response to his awfulness. It takes several of these points combined for me to come to such a conclusion, just because a single one of those doesn't mean anything on it's own.

[LongRider]

Sad!

Quote

Putin says Trump ‘not my bride, and I’m not his groom’

MOSCOW (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin has refrained from making any criticism of U.S. President Donald Trump.

Speaking at a news conference in China on Tuesday, Putin dismissed a question whether he was disappointed in Trump as “naive.”

In comments carried by Russian news agencies, Putin said Trump is “not my bride, and I’m not his groom.”

Asked how Russia would feel if Trump were impeached, Putin said it would be “absolutely wrong” for Russia to discuss domestic U.S. politics:

Russian officials cheered Trump when he was elected last year, and Putin praised him as someone who wanted to improve ties with Russia. However, further U.S. sanctions on Russia and the U.S. decision to close a Russian consulate have raised concerns that the two countries remain far apart.

Awwwww Trumpie, did you just get dumped?   

 

[LongRider]

Well, this could get interesting.  Popcorn please!

Quote

Russian politician says 'let's hit Trump with our Kompromat' on state TV

A Russian politician has threatened to "hit Donald Trump with our Kompromat" on state TV. 

Speaking on Russia-24, Nikita Isaev, leader of the far-right New Russia Movement, said the compromising material should be released in retaliation over the closure of several Russian diplomatic compounds across the US. 

When asked whether Russia has such material, Mr Isaev, who is also director of the Russian Institute of Contemporary Economics, replied: "Of course we have it!"

 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

On 9/1/2017 at 5:00 PM, dmc515 said:

That's some weird sense.  Right to carry laws should be based on the second amendment, not the first.  And the policy argument is based on the bollocks claim that RTC laws deter violent crime.

And yeah, when the whole guns in bars movement started I honestly thought it came from The Onion.

Hey, nothing can possiblie go wrong when you mix men, women, alcohol and guns, right?

[OldGimletEye]

On 9/5/2017 at 9:22 AM, Tywin et al. said:

Hey, nothing can possiblie go wrong when you mix men, women, alcohol and guns, right?

I’ve always thought that a bottle of cheap vodka or tequila and a fire arm always went great together. Like peanut butter and chocolate or something.

Seriously though, the guns in bars idea is one of the dumbest conservative ideas ever. And that is saying a lot.

[LongRider]

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Hey, nothing can possiblie go wrong when you mix men, women, alcohol and guns, right?

Ask Dick Chaney, he'd know. 

[OldGimletEye]

On 9/5/2017 at 9:50 AM, Lew Theobald said:

Ultimately, either you subscribe to classic liberal values, or you don't.  I do, so I'm very grateful that the Supreme Court put a stop to this nonsense.

So since you believe in "classic liberal values" do you think getting on the gold standard is a good idea? Do you think the market will "correct itself" in all cases?

I don't this is as simple as you'd like to frame it. You can have some respect for classical liberalism, but recognize it didn't get everything quite right.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

26 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Ask Dick Chaney, he'd know. 

1. There were no women involved.

2. Everyone knows that one of the perks of being VP is that you can "accidentally" shoot your friend in the face.

[OldGimletEye]

On 9/5/2017 at 10:15 AM, Lew Theobald said:

Mr. OldGimletEye thinks that merely because I made a vague generalization, I must therefore be an absolutist, and he can straw-man me.  Nice try, but no.   You are changing the subject, so you can argue with a figment of your own imagination.  

Here is what you wrote:

Quote

Ultimately, either you subscribe to classic liberal values, or you don't.  I do, so I'm very grateful that the Supreme Court put a stop to this nonsense.

Now, this might be surprising, but I'm not a mind reader. Accordingly, I can only comment about what you wrote, not what you thought you meant to say.

The ordinary plain meaning of what you said is "subscribe to classic liberal values, or you don't". And I called you on that assertion. Now, if you want to give a clarification, fine, then do so. 

I'm not straw manning you. I pointing out the flaw in statement you made. Nice try on you for trying to deflect my point based on a statement you made.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

The only point I raised regarding hard-money restrictions is that Supreme Court case law does see them as a First Amendment issue affecting political speech, which means they have to pass "strict scrutiny".  This means that laws restricting such speech must be "narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest."

Great.  Maybe they pass the "strict scrutiny test".  Maybe we can leave them on the books then.  Personally, I very much doubt they are effective, but it's not something I came here to argue about.

The Court has upheld hard money caps on individual contributions (and the hard money ban on corporate and union contributions) since Buckley (1976).  As did so by ruling such limitations enhance the integrity of democracy, certainly passing strict scrutiny.

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

If you broaden the regulations to affect more and more and more political speech, till you have a board of censors telling people what they may or may not say before elections, then the law suddenly seems a lot less narrowly tailored.

You can't just tell me:  "Hard money regs are justified, so other restrictions must be justified too".  Firstly, I don't necessarily have to agree that hard-money restrictions are justified (and you certainly have not proved it).  Secondly, the constitutional analysis changes when you start discussing a much-less narrowly-tailored law.

...

Again, I have not argued against hard campaign finance reform.  I have merely mentioned, in passing, that an argument against them could be made, because hard campaign finance regs also affect political "speech" and need to pass the Supreme Court's "strict scrutiny" test.

You have continually evaded the basis of my original argument.  The issue with Citizens is not to suppress their speech in producing and propagating the Hillary movie.  It's that such a movie is a clear attempt to directly influence the campaign.  If Citizens United wants to do that - fine - then say so, become a traditional PAC, and be subject to the hard money restrictions.  Do not hide behind your classification as a 501 and blatantly violate the spirit of why those groups were classified as such and protected in the first place.  

You are patently wrong to say the regulations affect more and more political speech.  They merely were designed to call a spade a spade and campaign speech campaign speech.  And you don't seem to disagree with the argument that the Hillary movie has the same effect and influence as campaign advertising:

14 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

No, I'm not necessarily denying that they are "fundamentally similar to campaign advertising".  No, I am not necessarily denying that they can be called a "campaign expenditure".  That, to me, is neither here nor there.

It certainly is here and there, whether you wish to recognize it or not.  If you want to argue that even hard money regulations are unconstitutional, come out and say so.  If, alternatively, you want to argue that speech such as the Hillary movie is fundamentally different than campaign advertising - and that unlimited contributions (by both corporations and individuals) to now unregulated Super PACs do not influence campaigns in the exact same way hard money contributions do - then do so.  Because right now all you're doing is posing a baseless slippery slope argument, along with a vapid conflation and obfuscation of political speech and strict scrutiny.  Oh and this...

1 hour ago, Lew Theobald said:

To justify something like that, your "compelling reasons" must be pretty damned compelling.  But they aren't.  You just don't trust the public to come to what you view as the "right" conclusions, if certain potential influences are made available to them.  

Some people view the populace as sheeple, and want to pass laws that ensure that the sheeple are herded by responsible elite actors, and protected from bad influences.  Such attitudes may be very "progressive" but they are certainly not "liberal".

...Which is ludicrously pathetic in ignoring the fact I trust the public to recognize campaign advertisements as such and you are the one that wants to perpetuate the gross disparity of campaign influence enjoyed by the wealthy under the guise of defending political speech.

[Morpheus]

Racist Keebler just announced the DACA decision, 6 months wind down as reported. In addition to stroking Trump, he actually said of people under DACA protection, "they took er jerbs!"

[Rippounet]

One of the latest (perhaps the latest) tweet from the thing:

Quote

I am allowing Japan & South Korea to buy a substantially increased amount of highly sophisticated military equipment from the United States.

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

If you trust the public to recognize campaign advertisements, then who cares how much is spent on them?  Why does the problem need to be fixed by giving the government the power to suppress wide swaths of political speech (a power that, we all know, they would NEVER EVER EVER dream of abusing).

So, then you do believe hard money restrictions are unconstitutional.  Glad we cleared that up.

[OldGimletEye]

21 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Racist Keebler just announced the DACA decision, 6 months wind down as reported. In addition to stroking Trump, he actually said of people under DACA protection, "they took er jerbs!"

There has been plenty of research on the impact of immigration on native American wages, starting with David Card's paper about the Mariel boat lift. 
The majority of academic conclusion about immigrants' impact on native wages is that is very small to nonexistent, at least over the historic ranges of immigration that the US has allowed. So Sessions is saying something that is not generally accepted in the academic research on this isssue.
But, aside, from the wage issue, the removal of these people is both cruel and horrific.

[DMC]

Just now, Lew Theobald said:

LOL!  You really do want to hold both sides of this conversation.  

No, I want you to actually address my argument.  I'll take "If you trust the public to recognize campaign advertisements, then who cares how much is spent on them?" as close enough considering its clear implications.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

So Sessions is saying something that is not generally accepted in the academic research on this isssue.

I'm shocked! 

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

I'm shocked! 

I know, you might want to sit down for awhile. LOL.

[Zorral]

Shutting down some "free" political speech 

https://slate.com/technology/2017/08/the-alt-right-wants-to-build-its-own-internet.html

An informative and long article -- here's a grab from it:

Quote

 

What’s new about that latest group of bans is that, rather than Facebook, OkCupid, or Airbnb revoking individual and group accounts, the internet’s gatekeepers are now kicking out whole organizations. The Gab removal, for instance, made an entire platform essentially unavailable to Android app users (Apple had already rejected Gab). Though Gab is still accessible through web browsers, a social media startup without an iPhone or Android app has a massive disadvantage. But Gab already had a plan in motion.

A week earlier, following the firing of Google memo writer James Damore, Gab announced the advent of a new movement. “Enough is enough,” read the Gab-makers’ Medium post from Aug. 10, two days before the Unite the Right rally. “The time is now for patriots and free thinkers inside and outside of Silicon Valley to organize, communicate in a safe way, and start building,” the post read, calling for the formation of a new group called the “Free Speech Tech Alliance,” which would build an alternative infrastructure where the alt-right wouldn’t be burdened by the social-justice priorities and liberal values of Silicon Valley—nor by the arguably monopolistic powers of the major nodes of the information economy, like Facebook, Google, Apple, and their peers. Gab, and a growing number of its compatriots in the “alt-tech” movement, want to build their own internet, one that can be a haven for hate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The early iterations of whatever Gab’s movement produces may very well be funded by its builders, many of whom purportedly have high-paying jobs in Silicon Valley. Andrew Anglin, the publisher of the Daily Stormer, told Mother Jones in March that the majority of his site’s traffic comes from Santa Clara County, in the heart of Silicon Valley. “The average alt-right-ist,” the white supremacist Richard Spencer told the magazine, “is probably a 28-year-old tech-savvy guy working in IT.”

Utsav Sanduja, the chief operating officer of Gab, described the “Free Speech Tech Alliance” to me as “a group of 100 engineers plus from Silicon Valley who are working with us behind the scenes to create an alternative infrastructure.” The movement’s goal is to own its own servers and run its own web hosting, domain registrar, DDoS protection software, cloud storage services, and encryption technology, not to mention social networks like Gab and other “free-speech”–centric alternatives, like a YouTube replacement called PewTube. Sanduja claims Gab has received “hundreds of applications” to join the alliance, which he says is purposefully being kept small in order to protect the identities of its members who fear losing their jobs at Silicon Valley companies. Though it’s unclear where exactly they work, at least a handful are on Google’s campus, Sanduja claims.

 

There's much more.