U.S. Politics: A City Upon A Hill Has Lost It's Shine.

[Bonnot OG]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Kushner used private email to conduct White House business

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/24/jared-kushner-private-email-white-house-243071

Can the GOP every use "But Her Emails" as a rallying cry again?

Oh who am I kidding, they are the party of zero personal responsibility.  

As long as it's a white right white man, they don't give a fuck what happens and what they do.

[Zorral]

Shutting down Milo is NOT giving him a bullhorn.  Letting the white supremacists march in Charlottesville was giving them a bullhorn.

Instead of ragging back and forth about whether giving these a-holes space and time to spout out loud in public physical locations and digital ones gives them bull horns or not is silly.  Because it does. As Dante Nero learned after giving them both for years -- as he delinates via the alt right Proud Boys in the NPR This American Life Segment I put the url to many pages back, this morning.  Alas that it still isn't available to listen to until 7 PM est.  He's interacted for a very long time with these people, so he learned his lessons.  He used to think like those who believe shutting down these very very very dangerous people is worse than letting them talk.  Nope.  Because every time they do they recruit, big time.  You all know, right, that Charlottesville got lots of new young white male members?

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/626/white-haze

[denstorebog]

36 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Can't agree with that last bit at all. This is an embarrassment for Trump. He calls for a firing for "disrespecting" the flag and something on the order of 10 times the amount of players who were protesting prior join the protest? The league admonished him. Perhaps the most popular black man on the planet called him a bum. If he's not embarrassed, he's not watching TV or reading Twitter today.

Not to go in circles, but I'm curious about your use of the word 'embarassment' here. Embarassed in whose eyes?

He's not embarassed himself, that's for sure. Even if he was capable of feeling that, he actively wants this conflict. He wants more division between those who give a shit about standing for the anthem and those who don't, because that's what keeps him alive, politically. Trump has always been the most dangerous when locked in battle against someone, be it Hillary or McConnell or the NFL, because that's what makes his supporters stick around long after any hope of an Obamacare repeal or wall has dissipated.

And his supporters won't feel embarassed for him. They'll feel righteous anger on his behalf. If a bunch of black people spite Trump, that's not a finger in his eye, that's treason, and validation why they voted for Trump in the first place.

In fact, and I may be overly negative here, I wouldn't be surprised if this wins Trump a bit of approval (if there's any left to win, as he's probably hit his ceiling after the latest uptick). Because the narrative behind symbolic protests like these are a lot more difficult to understand to the politically challenged than simply 'black dudes decide to sit through the national anthem and thus disgrace our country'. A lot of those undecideds who kinda like Trump but also kinda find his methods annoying will be much more likely to latch on to the latter narrative than the former.

Again, I don't disagree that this action is justified. But I don't see how it's a victory in any way, more a moral necessity.

 

 

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, denstorebog said:

Not to go in circles, but I'm curious about your use of the word 'embarassment' here. Embarassed in whose eyes?

He's not embarassed himself, that's for sure. Even if he was capable of feeling that, he actively wants this conflict. He wants more division between those who give a shit about standing for the anthem and those who don't, because that's what keeps him alive, politically. Trump has always been the most dangerous when locked in battle against someone, be it Hillary or McConnell or the NFL, because that's what makes his supporters stick around long after any hope of an Obamacare repeal or wall has dissipated.

And his supporters won't feel embarassed for him. They'll feel righteous anger on his behalf. If a bunch of black people spite Trump, that's not a finger in his eye, that's treason, and validation why they voted for Trump in the first place.

In fact, and I may be overly negative here, I wouldn't be surprised if this wins Trump a bit of approval (if there's any left to win, as he's probably hit his ceiling after the latest uptick). Because the narratives behind symbolic protests like these are a lot more difficult to understand to the, ah, politically challenged, than 'black dudes choose to sit through the national anthem'. A lot of those undecideds who kinda like Trump but also kinda find him annoying will be much more likely to latch on to the latter narrative than the former.

Again, I don't disagree that this action is justified. But I don't see how it's a victory in any way, more a moral necessity.

 

 

Well said.  QFT

[Zorral]

What's the tragedy here is that our nation's government is failing.

The dorkdong in the White House is yelling to have athletes fired from playing a sport, but hasn't a word or a thought for Puerto Rico, which is in apocalypse.  It's all flooded. The dams are about to break.  There is no water and no food, no communications and no transportation.  But he hasn't a word to say to the people of Puerto Rico, much less a thought.  Florida, and even Houston -- that was all so last month.  Not to mention that the western part of the nation is burning.

These are also our big food suppliers, in case anyone hasn't noticed, which it seems he hasn't.  Of course.  We should be screaming at him.

FIRE HIM NOW!

If he'd been taken on as a manager of McDonald's he'd have fired the first day.  Hell, he wouldn't have even been hired.

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, WinterFox said:

Thinker already posited that his father and others like him are 'politically limited', suggesting that they'll never support ideals that aren't antithetical to decency. I happen to agree, thus there is no recourse with these disgusting advocates of advocates of oppression and social disharmony. ThinkerX's father will never vote for a progressive, and always for the candidate who wants, at a minimum, to strip away my rights if not my life. 

The emphasis is different.  You approach this - and apparently much else - from a hard ideological position.  My father - and quite a few other conservatives - are practical sorts, placing the emphasis on 'what works in the real world.' This is how Trump won their vote - Trump presented himself as an outsider who knew how to fix things, and they fell for the deception.  However, the 'practicality' aspect of their psych remains.

 

1 hour ago, WinterFox said:

 

 

You want me to break sugar cone with Richard Spencer, is that it? I have to treat an ideology that demands mass murder against persecuted peoples as my intellectual and civil equal while he denounces me? Am I to treat Ben Shapiro likewise and ignore that he has made his name by insinuating that I should be in an asylum? I'm sure both men and their rabid supporters will be thoughtful and attentive in our discussions, and that I won't be putting my life in jeopardy by exposing myself to their homicidal rhetoric. 

By advocating dialogue you are insinuating that both sides have valid points of view and compromise is possible. 

I say no, sir. There is no valid point of view hidden in the tenets of national socialism, white supremacists do not possess a grievance of merit we could agree on, and losers that support demagogues preaching vitriol and hate will never be amenable to peace and reason. 

 

 

Here, your 'one stroke fits all' ideology comes to the fore.  'Conservative,' contrary to the ideology you present, does not automatically mean 'racist' or 'Nazi.'  Nor does it mean automatically demonization of those with different sexual orientations - apart from the zealots, religious and otherwise, most conservatives do not care about such things.  No few conservatives, again, a majority or nearly so, loathe the current batch of Nazi's.  A majority, though, probably are racist to some degree or another. 

 

So, if you don't wish to speak with Spencer, then don't. His views are in the minority among conservatives anyhow.  A small minority.  You probably could find multiple points of agreement or compromise with the other conservatives if you tried.  Full agreement can wait.  One step at a time. Did you read the article I linked to? 

 

 

Hmm, that is what they want to do to me so... nah. I'd be cool with those 62 million being represented proportionally for a start. But wait, they'll never agree to that. I'd be partially sated if it was made illegal to hold rallies for terrorist groups and promote genocidal ideologies. Also to ban the distribution of personal information of private citizens for harassment purposes.

Given their distribution and the way representative politics work, conservatives would still have a good shot at a Senate majority.

As to making the racist rallies illegal, I strongly sympathize, yet I also acknowledge that suppression ultimately fails in the long term.  Witness the breakup of the USSR, which also suppressed dissident movements and provinces, only to have them assert bloody independence when binding communist authority collapsed.

 

 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, denstorebog said:

Not to go in circles, but I'm curious about your use of the word 'embarassment' here. Embarassed in whose eyes?

He's not embarassed himself, that's for sure. Even if he was capable of feeling that, he actively wants this conflict. He wants more division between those who give a shit about standing for the anthem and those who don't, because that's what keeps him alive, politically. Trump has always been the most dangerous when locked in battle against someone, be it Hillary or McConnell or the NFL, because that's what makes his supporters stick around long after any hope of an Obamacare repeal or wall has dissipated.

And his supporters won't feel embarassed for him. They'll feel righteous anger on his behalf. If a bunch of black people spite Trump, that's not a finger in his eye, that's treason, and validation why they voted for Trump in the first place.

In fact, and I may be overly negative here, I wouldn't be surprised if this doesn't win Trump a bit of approval (if there's any left to win, as he's probably hit his ceiling after the latest uptick). Because the motivations behind symbolic protests are a lot more difficult to understand than 'black dudes choose to sit through the national anthem'. A lot of those undecideds who kinda like Trump but also kinda find him annoying will be much more likely to latch on to the latter message than the former.

Again, I don't disagree that this action is justified. But I don't see how it's a victory in any way, more a moral necessity.

More than anything else, he wants approval methinks. It's the reason he said what he said down in Alabama. He knew that the crowd there would give him adulation for saying it. The NFL is a playground of billionaires. People who he sees as peers. People whose approval he seeks. I think he also seeks the adulation of high profile players. He's shown this with his stroking of Brady. I have to believe that this bothers him. That he finds it embarrassing.

 I agree that it does little or nothing to reduce support among his base. I'm not making that claim. And of course this turn of events is nowhere near as important as stopping this abortion of a repeal and replace act or really any substantial political issue. I think moral victory suits it well. That is more or less what I think this is. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, ThinkerX said:

So, if you don't wish to speak with Spencer, then don't. His views are in the minority among conservatives anyhow.  A small minority.  You probably could find multiple points of agreement or compromise with the other conservatives if you tried.  Full agreement can wait.  One step at a time. Did you read the article I linked to? 

To take that one step further, Spencer doesn't consider himself to be a Conservative. He and Bannon and the other frontmen of the Alt Right want to replace the old guard Conservatives. They see themselves as the death of old school Conservatism. 

And the same is true in reverse. Traditional Conservatives disavow the Alt Right. 

There is an important distinction to be made between these groups. 

[Dr. Pepper]

Traditional conservatives do not disavow Neo Nazis in anything other than a few bites of lip service.  Please try to remember that they elected the nazi champion for president and have made no moves at trying to remove him from office.  

[Bonnot OG]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Traditional conservatives do not disavow Neo Nazis in anything other than a few bites of lip service.  Please try to remember that they elected the nazi champion for president and have made no moves at trying to remove him from office.  

Yup, which is why I say fuck all Trump supporters. 

So UC Berkeley spent 800K on Milo's 15 minute photo opt. That's $53,000 a minute.  That's the price of enabling an abusive pedophile apologist white supremacist and overall bigoted  scumbag.

[Ormond]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

More than anything else, he wants approval methinks. It's the reason he said what he said down in Alabama. He knew that the crowd there would give him adulation for saying it. The NFL is a playground of billionaires. People who he sees as peers. People whose approval he seeks. I think he also seeks the adulation of high profile players. He's shown this with his stroking of Brady. I have to believe that this bothers him. That he finds it embarrassing.

 I agree that it does little or nothing to reduce support among his base. I'm not making that claim. And of course this turn of events is nowhere near as important as stopping this abortion of a repeal and replace act or really any substantial political issue. I think moral victory suits it well. That is more or less what I think this is. 

There are different kinds of "embarrassment" I guess. Trump may be "upset" that some of the NFL owners and players who previously supported him have publicly disagreed with him on this -- but usually when we say some feels embarrassed, we mean they feel ashamed, and I don't think Trump has the capacity to feel shame.

However, I am not as pessimistic about the affect of this on the general public. I think this sort of thing helps to cement the qualms of those who voted for Trump but are not completely wedded to him and have already been embarrassed by him, which is good for Democratic electoral prospects. And this will really give many people some exposure to the more complex arguments about protest and constitutional rights which they have never thought about before. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 minutes ago, Ormond said:

There are different kinds of "embarrassment" I guess. Trump may be "upset" that some of the NFL owners and players who previously supported him have publicly disagreed with him on this -- but usually when we say some feels embarrassed, we mean they feel ashamed, and I don't think Trump has the capacity to feel shame.

Yeah, I agree with that bit. I don't think he's capable of feeling shame in the traditional human sense. It's a blow to his ego. And I'm not sure there's anything that is more important to him than that.

[Shryke]

23 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Traditional conservatives do not disavow Neo Nazis in anything other than a few bites of lip service.  Please try to remember that they elected the nazi champion for president and have made no moves at trying to remove him from office.  

The conservative voters of America voted for Trump. They love them that white supremacy.

The southern strategy was effective for a reason after all.

[The Anti-Targ]

Does the US flag code restrict freedom of speech?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301

Quote

(b)Conduct During Playing.—During a rendition of the national anthem—

(1)when the flag is displayed—

(A) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note;

 

(B) members of the Armed Forces and veterans who are present but not in uniform may render the military salute in the manner provided for individuals in uniform; and

 

(C) all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and

 

(2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

(C)  and (2) are the clauses of interest, as they apply generally to all people rather than just military people. The law being written with "should" rather than "must" or "shall" means you are not technically breaking the law if you do something other than what's written, therefore freedom of speech is not being restricted. But these clauses do create an imposition and a social convention, which opens up people who do something other than follow the instructions to being attacked (at least verbally) and pressured to conform.

Seems pretty close to restricting free speech, in one of the most important ways in which free speech needs to be protected, i.e. how you express your patriotism.

This sort of thing should be taken out of the US code and put somewhere that is solely an etiquette guide, but has no force of law or social condemnation for not applying it.

[The guy from the Vale]

Hitting close to home for some of the discussions going on at this time...

 

 

[LongRider]

 

[kairparavel]

Re: flag code 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 

/Loving all these protests

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, denstorebog said:

And his supporters won't feel embarassed for him. They'll feel righteous anger on his behalf. If a bunch of black people spite Trump, that's not a finger in his eye, that's treason, and validation why they voted for Trump in the first place.

In fact, and I may be overly negative here, I wouldn't be surprised if this wins Trump a bit of approval (if there's any left to win, as he's probably hit his ceiling after the latest uptick). Because the narrative behind symbolic protests like these are a lot more difficult to understand to the politically challenged than simply 'black dudes decide to sit through the national anthem and thus disgrace our country'. A lot of those undecideds who kinda like Trump but also kinda find his methods annoying will be much more likely to latch on to the latter narrative than the former.

I think this is correct, except that the symbolism here is crystal clear: this is a bunch of millionaires who are not disrespecting Trump, they're disrespecting America and their billionaire employers allow them to do it on national television.

[kairparavel]

Georgia Tech cheerleader took a knee yesterday.