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

[Kalbear]

Graham-Cassidy vote postponed, won't happen before Sept 30th deadline.

[King Ned Stark]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sorry, you lost me here. What founders are being taken down?

What speech is being censored? 

I don't pay much attention to news anymore, and didn't vote in the last two elections, so it's possible that no statues of the Founders are under threat to be taken down?  Thought I read that somewhere, but don't remember where and will concede the point.

The Berkeley protests for that guy Milo (who I had never heard except for this forum).  It's silly, IMHO, to shout down, or refuse to let people speak ( if they are doing so lawfully) simply because you don't like their message.  Not only does it come across as intolerant, unproductive, and a possible threat to the 1st Amendment; but also makes it seem as if you are afraid of what they have to say.  Personally, when I was more into politics, I'd much rather have political discussions with people who disagreed with me, than people parroting back my same beliefs.

I agree with political points from democrats and republicans, and find it odd when people toe one line or the other 100%, but that seems to be just what most people do.

But my larger point, was that there are more important things going on than this anthem nonsense, it would have been wise to ignore Trump's comments and it would have been forgotten by the middle of this week, and find a better way to protest police brutality and lack of due process for minorities, rather than doing so in a way that many Americans will see as disrespectful to the armed forces.  And maybe that's why Trump dredged it up in the first place.

As I said, I'm not against the protests (and am not a fan of our militarized police forces who walk around with more gear than the guys who stormed Normandy), but if you want to win, or affect change, then don't do so in a way that equates crime by the police with the American flag.  

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, King Ned Stark said:

I don't pay much attention to news anymore, and didn't vote in the last two elections, so it's possible that no statues of the Founders are under threat to be taken down?  Thought I read that somewhere, but don't remember where and will concede the point.

They aren't. They haven't been. 

1 minute ago, King Ned Stark said:

The Berkeley protests for that guy Milo (who I had never heard except for this forum).  It's silly, IMHO, to shout down, or refuse to let people speak ( if they are doing so lawfully) simply because you don't like their message.  Not only does it come across as intolerant, unproductive, and a possible threat to the 1st Amendment; but also makes it seem as if you are afraid of what they have to say.  Personally, when I was more into politics, I'd much rather have political discussions with people who disagreed with me, than people parroting back my same beliefs.

Milo was threatening to out a transsexual student at the campus, after he had done it before at a prior event. 

3 months later he goes and does it, and the result is said student is harassed by thousands of people. 

Stopping his speech wasn't about stopping his viewpoint; it was about stopping him from attacking someone else.

1 minute ago, King Ned Stark said:

But my larger point, was that there are more important things going on than this anthem nonsense, it would have been wise to ignore Trump's comments and it would have been forgotten by the middle of this week, and find a better way to protest police brutality and lack of due process for minorities, rather than doing so in a way that many Americans will see as disrespectful to the armed forces.  And maybe that's why Trump dredged it up in the first place.

It's pretty difficult to ignore Trump's comments when he repeats them every single day and is the most powerful person in the world. I agree that it would have been better to do so - but this started because Trump got pissed off at something he saw on Fox News and wanted to fire up his base, and doubled down on it. 

1 minute ago, King Ned Stark said:

As I said, I'm not against the protests (and am not a fan of our militarized police forces who walk around with more gear than the guys who stormed Normandy), but if you want to win, or affect change, then don't do so in a way that equates crime by the police with the American flag.  

Except...it isn't crime by the police, and that's the problem that is being protested against. If police did this and were charged with murder and actually convicted, that'd be one thing - and likely a lot more palatable. Instead, police routinely kill black people and are found not guilty, despite having video evidence, witness reports, character experience. Heck, many times even after they are fired their union enters in and gets their job back. 

And the laws and system that allow this to happen are 100% about the American government. And that is what is being protested.

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

 

But my larger point, was that there are more important things going on than this anthem nonsense, it would have been wise to ignore Trump's comments and it would have been forgotten by the middle of this week, and find a better way to protest police brutality and lack of due process for minorities, rather than doing so in a way that many Americans will see as disrespectful to the armed forces.  And maybe that's why Trump dredged it up in the first place.

As I said, I'm not against the protests (and am not a fan of our militarized police forces who walk around with more gear than the guys who stormed Normandy), but if you want to win, or affect change, then don't do so in a way that equates crime by the police with the American flag.  

There are always more important things going on.  Someone is always going to decide that another thing is more important.  Also, people will always be saying that there are better ways to protest or bring awareness to something.  This is getting old.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, denstorebog said:

Yeah, almost certainly. Voters and politicians alike.

I saw the video where Green announced the impeachment article from the floor. Seemed very theatrical and bombastic. Not the way to go about this at all.

Sports is where you might see it the most. Take @DanteGabriel and @Week for example (apologies if you don’t like being used as examples). They are both very liberal guys who hate Trump and huge Patriots fans. When the Pats’ owner, Robert Kraft, coach, Bill Belichick and star player, Tom Brady, all came out in sport of Trump they buried them. And when people throw that in their face and say that makes them de facto Trump supporters they quickly rally back to the Pats’ side. It’s pretty understandable. That’s how tribalism works.

[King Ned Stark]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

They aren't. They haven't been. 

Milo was threatening to out a transsexual student at the campus, after he had done it before at a prior event. 

3 months later he goes and does it, and the result is said student is harassed by thousands of people. 

Stopping his speech wasn't about stopping his viewpoint; it was about stopping him from attacking someone else.

It's pretty difficult to ignore Trump's comments when he repeats them every single day and is the most powerful person in the world. I agree that it would have been better to do so - but this started because Trump got pissed off at something he saw on Fox News and wanted to fire up his base, and doubled down on it. 

Except...it isn't crime by the police, and that's the problem that is being protested against. If police did this and were charged with murder and actually convicted, that'd be one thing - and likely a lot more palatable. Instead, police routinely kill black people and are found not guilty, despite having video evidence, witness reports, character experience. Heck, many times even after they are fired their union enters in and gets their job back. 

And the laws and system that allow this to happen are 100% about the American government. And that is what is being protested.

Your first point, I'll take your word on it.

2nd point, ah, okay, that's fair enough.  As I said, I don't know the first thing about Milo, just thought he was some conservative talking head.  I think a citizens right to privacy is as important as their right to free speech.

3rd, that's kind of what I was getting at, but the NFL players responded in a predictable manner, and now Roesthlisberger (sp?) is questioning if he did the right thing.  And the ex-ranger is apologizing for standing (if it's okay for one man, or 52, to be absent from the anthem then surely it's okay for one veteran to salute it.   I'm not saying the movement isn't worth fighting for, but fight in a smart way, not a predictable one.  This will likely cause more problems for the NFL than it does for Trump, and the original message that Kaepernick tried to get across will be lost.  Kneeling for the anthem will be about standing against Trump, and Trump will say it's not patriotic to do so. Like how in chess you try not to respond to your opponents move, but make them respond to yours.  But point taken with Trump being very powerful and having unlimited access to the media.

Yeah, I meant it's still a crime whether they're convicted or not, I think the police in this country have evolved into something quite frightening.  But how do you fight them?  It has to be lawfully, but they are enforcers of the law, virtually police themselves, with connections to lawyers, judges, and gov. offficials.  I agree they need to be reined in, and I myself understand the anthem kneel protest (I argued with 2 guys at work yesterday why it was perfectly acceptable to do).  However, I think a lot of Americans won't make the right connection that anthem protest = fight for equality and due process, but will think anthem protest = disrepect the the country, flag, and armed forces. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

Yeah, I meant it's still a crime whether they're convicted or not, I think the police in this country have evolved into something quite frightening.  But how do you fight them?  It has to be lawfully, but they are enforcers of the law, virtually police themselves, with connections to lawyers, judges, and gov. offficials.  I agree they need to be reined in, and I myself understand the anthem kneel protest (I argued with 2 guys at work yesterday why it was perfectly acceptable to do).  However, I think a lot of Americans won't make the right connection that anthem protest = fight for equality and due process, but will think anthem protest = disrepect the the country, flag, and armed forces. 

How is taking a knee during the anthem unlawful? No one is, right now, proposing anything unlawful to be done. Though it is being pointed out that if you suppress peaceful, nonviolent protest, you're not gonna like the alternative. 

[Ormond]

The best thing about this football players kneeling during the national anthem controversy is how many people who might normally be considered heroes by Trump's base are supporting the players' right to protest.

When you get Dale Earnhardt Jr. and the widow of Pat Tillman both supporting this, along with many football team owners and sportscasters, a few of those who have knee-jerk reactions against the protest are going to learn something. And a few is much better than none.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/26/553712302/pat-tillmans-widow-pushes-back-on-trump-nfl-tweet

http://time.com/4955774/nascar-trump-protest-dale-earnhardt-jr/

P.S. And you can add to the above Michael Hayden, former general and CIA director who probably is way, way far from being any darling of the left:

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/352419-michael-hayden-in-trump-versus-nfl-standing-up-for-free-speech

[DMC]

6 hours ago, Ormond said:

Could you please give this person's name so that I can look her research up somewhere I can access for free? At this point in my life I can't afford to subscribe to the Washington Post online.

 

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The person's name is Chenoweth. 

And yeah, I call shenanigans on that study, since the major reason to stay nonviolent is that the dictator doesn't use massive violence to stop it, which they tend to have in abundance. 

Yes, her name is Erica Chenoweth (although it should be mentioned she's had collaborators, primarily Maria Stephan), here's her website.  

First of all, there isn't a single "study," she's been researching and publishing on the topic for a decade now.  Most interesting is her work compiling a dataset ("NAVCO 2.0") on 250 nonviolent and violent movements for regime change, anti-occupation, and secession from 1945 to 2006 (assuming that's been or is being updated).  Here's an article about it (you need JSTOR access, couldn't find a pdf just floating online, sorry).

Secondly, that's a rather ridiculous reason to call shenanigans.  First, I'm not sure how you're defining "massive violence," but it sounds like what you're referring to would leave any researcher with an incredibly limited unit of analysis.  Second, the nonviolent campaigns do often encounter violence to stop it.  From the above article (pg. 416, footnote 4):

Quote

Some might argue that 'nonviolent conflict' is a better term for what we call a 'nonviolent campaign'. The problem with using 'nonviolent conflict' is that it connotes nonviolent action on both sides, often prompting the observer to think that neither side used violence. But most nonviolent campaigns in our dataset are met with severe violence and repression. Thus we refer to nonviolent 'campaigns' because this is more clearly associated with unilateral nonviolent action, regardless of the adversary's response.

 

[King Ned Stark]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

How is taking a knee during the anthem unlawful? No one is, right now, proposing anything unlawful to be done. Though it is being pointed out that if you suppress peaceful, nonviolent protest, you're not gonna like the alternative. 

Thought I was clear that I know it's a lawful display of protest (the line about opposing the authorities lawfully was just thrown in), I just think the message is too easy to subvert into something it's not meant to be when you protest the anthem and flag because of the actions of the police.

Like I said, boycotting the game until the police presence as security was removed would seem more apt.  It puts the fans, ownership, and maybe Trump in more of a bind

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, King Ned Stark said:

Right or wrong, most Americans will still see kneeling, or being absent, for the national anthem as disrespectful of the U.S. military, and all the veterans who have served their country.  

Most white Americas and that’s because they’re deflecting, both consciously and unconsciously.  Most of white America is still not ready to sit down and have a honest conversation about race, racial injustice, police brutality and the systemic racism and permeates throughout the judicial system, so it’s a lot easier to plug their ears, stomp their feet and scream, “You hate the military, you unpatriotic thugs.” Just look at what Huckabee-Sanders said yesterday. She said the protests are about disrespecting the military and not about police brutality, which is a stunningly ignorant argument.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Secondly, that's a rather ridiculous reason to call shenanigans.  First, I'm not sure how you're defining "massive violence," but it sounds like what you're referring to would leave any researcher with an incredibly limited unit of analysis.  Second, the nonviolent campaigns do often encounter violence to stop it.  From the above article (pg. 416, footnote 4):

 

I understand that. The difference between using a nonviolent protest to overthrow a dictatorial government with the violent arms that they can bring to bear and often do vs. using nonviolent or violent protest in a democracy with the intent of causing societal change is pretty large. I agree that the data set is small and often contradictory, which is why I don't oppose using violence as a rule for pragmatic reasons; there are many examples in the US and in other places where violence worked perfectly well to affect change. 

Mostly, I don't begrudge those who are willing to put their bodies on the line whatever form of protest they deem best, because they're the ones with skin in the game. 

[denstorebog]

Oh, okay. What the fuck is this, now?

President Trump’s Homeland Security Department will begin collecting social media information on all immigrants, including legal permanent residents and naturalized citizens.

[Kalbear]

In actual US political news, Bob Corker of Tennessee is retiring for next year. This is an unlikely get for Democrats, but it's now at least on the table whereas before it was almost a certainty that it wouldn't work. 

https://twitter.com/mcollinsNEWS/status/912765142202486786

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I understand that.

Ok, then there's no reason to impugn her work.

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The difference between using a nonviolent protest to overthrow a dictatorial government with the violent arms that they can bring to bear and often do vs. using nonviolent or violent protest in a democracy with the intent of causing societal change is pretty large.

Obviously - I originally said as much.

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I agree that the data set is small and often contradictory, which is why I don't oppose using violence as a rule for pragmatic reasons; there are many examples in the US and in other places where violence worked perfectly well to affect change. 

I don't believe there are "many" examples of violent protest being used, let alone working, in democracies.  If there were, perhaps someone could construct a systematic dataset, but as we agree the dataset as of now would be far too small.

[Kalbear]

Just now, dmc515 said:

Ok, then there's no reason to impugn her work.

Oh! Sorry, I wasn't meaning to impugn her work. I was meaning to impugn your use of it to compare the two situations. 

Just now, dmc515 said:

I don't believe there are "many" examples of violent protest being used, let alone working, in democracies.  If there were, perhaps someone could construct a systematic dataset, but as we agree the dataset as of now would be far too small.

There are a surprisingly large amount of them in the US. Especially around the Vietnam war, which protest was often quite violent and not simply sit-ins and things like that. Add to that the Civil Rights violence and riots that happened at the same time as the MLK marches and you have a lot of examples of violence in US protesting which at least kept the protesting going.

As far as preventing fascism, we have examples of it working and not working both. 

I think we're all clear that if you can do nonviolent protests which also cause the protesters to die or suffer you'll have more sympathy for that cause - but again, who among you are willing to die for that cause?

[Ormond]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There are a surprisingly large amount of them in the US. Especially around the Vietnam war, which protest was often quite violent and not simply sit-ins and things like that. Add to that the Civil Rights violence and riots that happened at the same time as the MLK marches and you have a lot of examples of violence in US protesting which at least kept the protesting going.

As far as preventing fascism, we have examples of it working and not working both. 

I think we're all clear that if you can do nonviolent protests which also cause the protesters to die or suffer you'll have more sympathy for that cause - but again, who among you are willing to die for that cause?

As someone who was alive during the Vietnam war and its protests, I certainly don't remember the violent protests against that war as having been "effective." My interpretation would be that the violent protests actually prolonged America's involvement in that war rather than getting people to seriously consider any arguments against it by the protestors. Do you have any actual research that shows otherwise?

[TrueMetis]

Question. How is kneeling, being pretty much second only to full on prostration as a show of respect, disrespecting anything?

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Ormond said:

As someone who was alive during the Vietnam war and its protests, I certainly don't remember the violent protests against that war as having been "effective." My interpretation would be that the violent protests actually prolonged America's involvement in that war rather than getting people to seriously consider any arguments against it by the protestors. Do you have any actual research that shows otherwise?

That's probably fair. We do have a lot of research that shows that the violent protests caused people to be aware of the war for a lot longer. That being said, the protests almost certainly caused LBJ to not continue to be POTUS and set the stage for Nixon to come in, and it even more likely caused Nixon to win in a landslide in 1972 given McGovern's main position was entirely antiwar. 

But it's hard to separate out the protests of nonviolence or violence particularly well, though Nixon certainly used the violent ones and the riots as an excuse to be a 'law and order' POTUS. 

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Oh! Sorry, I wasn't meaning to impugn her work. I was meaning to impugn your use of it to compare the two situations. 

K, sure, like I said from the get-go - of course toppling dictators is different than the issue at hand.  However, I think there's two things we can glean from her theories and findings.  One, if nonviolent campaigns are more successful when facing violent suppression from a regime, one would think we could continue to give this a try in a (somewhat) democratic setting.  Two, and more importantly, is Chenoweth's reasoning for the success of nonviolent campaigns - based on strategic considerations - can easily be applied to the current situation. 

26 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think we're all clear that if you can do nonviolent protests which also cause the protesters to die or suffer you'll have more sympathy for that cause - but again, who among you are willing to die for that cause?

No one was has argued against the right of self-defense, and the reasons put forth for the success of nonviolent protest has little to do with the protesters' suffering and/or death.

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But it's hard to separate out the protests of nonviolence or violence particularly well

Right, which makes these examples from the Civil Rights/Vietnam era very dubious.  I guess one way you could look at is focus on the groups that advocated violence vs. one's that didn't, and go from there, but I don't think we're able to say much of anything about the success of violent protests from this era.