U.S. Politics: It's Torture

[Swordfish]

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Kalbear said:

And to be clear: if your position is that it is never the case that violence is acceptable against anyone you oppose because it is immoral to you, cool beans. I don't agree, but sure.

If your position is that you should never strike first and only should use violence in self-defense, okay. Again, I don't agree, but sure, I got ya.

If your position is that you should never use violence against someone for simply saying something, I say: fuck that noise. 

 

i am offended by your use of the F word.  there are youngsters on this message baord.

By your logic, I am now morally (though not legally) justified if i want to punch you in the face ( I do not).

I'm honestly befuddled by the fact that people can't see why this kind of attitude is problematic.

 

 

17 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

I disagree. Private violence can also threaten free speech. Secularists in places like Bangladesh are frequently attacked and sometimes killed by Islamic fundamentalists for saying what they think. Regardless of what the state there does wrt religious expression those people still have their freedom of speech curtailed because of the violence of other private citizens. It isn't something only additional to free speech that the state punishes private citizens who respond violently to your speech.

 

Indeed.

 

17 hours ago, sifth said:

So letting people continue to preach hate and death is cool. However we should do nothing about it and just wait for them to attack first?

This is a false dichotomy.  the only two choices are not 'punch in the face or do nothing'.

Also, i don't think he was even really saying anything particularly provocative at the time.  He seemed to be giving an interview.

So there may be another little nuance here in that he seems to have been punched for things he has said in the past. Though that could be wrong since I haven't actually heard the audio.

 

14 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

My worry is simply this: while punching Nazis strikes me as the most enjoyable political pass-time ever, this has the potential to escalate. It's a short step from punching Nazis, to Nazis punching leftists, to both sides organising themselves, to Weimar-style street fighting. Once you go down the route of political violence, you don't know where you will end up.

No-one wants a re-run of the Spanish Civil War here.

I've always preferred the Spanish Inquisition.

 

7 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

I remain shocked that people here advocate the use of violence against political opponents. 

Not only because violence is wrong. But also because I don’t understand the rules behind this apparently principled application of violence.

If punching Nazi is acceptable, then it must me acceptable to punch Communists and Islamists, right? (If not, where is the line drawn? Are there certain totalitarian ideologies that are better than other? If yes, how do I decide? I’m really, honestly curious. 

yep.

 

I suppose it's not surprising, since the bar has been set at 'It's ok to send assassination squads into sovereign nations, and it's ok to asasinate by drone strike amercian and foreign citizens abroad.'

[Kalbear]

Awesome. The hands thing really does bother him. Here's the untouched Getty Images image side by side with the image hanging in the white house now.

 

[Happy Ent]

1 hour ago, Ser Reptitious said:

How would you feel about a Hamas person advocating that all Jews should be driven into the sea getting punched in the face?

I would not condone that.

[polishgenius]

49 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Awesome. The hands thing really does bother him. Here's the untouched Getty Images image side by side with the image hanging in the white house now.

 

I suggest that this thread, and US politics threads for the next four years, be moved to the Entertainment subforum.

[Martell Spy]

 

Quote

 

Yes, that was why I pointed out, that Obama admin "cooked" stats. Bush was pro illegal globalist (he supported amnesty) but he never excluded majority of illegals from the deportation threat. There's also difference between Obama's and Trump's EO - Trump's ones follow the spirit of law. They are issued to ensure increased and swift deportation of illegals. Obama on the other hand used them to subvert the existing immigration law. He gave illegals work permits, while it is clearly stated, that they can't be employed legally. And his announcement, that they are essentially safe from deportation encouraged many others to come in. He actually worked against every instance when local govt tried to help feds to identify and deport people. Only a blind cannot see the difference.

 

 

•  

What stats are cooked and where is there evidence of this?

You use the term Emperor for Obama extremely loosely. It's kind of a shock that the socialist Muslim Emperor Obama didn't redistribute some wealth while he was playing fast and loose with the constitution. Emperors aren't held back by courts. The courts had some powers to reign in Obama or any President. It gets rather difficult when you talk about a court ordering an Executive to enforce something. I'm not a law scholar, but I do know Presidents have vast authority in the area of immigration enforcement. Likely Kennedy and the SC would have held up the orders if Obama had been President long enough for the court battles to play out.

It appears you just don't like our system, or don't like how it played out in this one instance.  But you're quite happy that Trump has similar broad powers. Unlike you though, I don't question that Trump has them or think that it makes him an Emperor. I just disagree with how he is using those powers.

At any rate Republican Presidents extend Executive authority during their terms all the time, and sometimes in rather frightening ways. And most conservatives cheer this. I would hope you'd keep that paranoia about the President's powers being like an Emperor's during the potentially destructive administration, but I won't hold my breath. Trump appears very fond of Executive orders. Which means very soon the conservative cheer squad will love them again.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

I suggest that this thread, and US politics threads for the next four years, be moved to the Entertainment subforum.

apparently this isn't accurate, and WaPo breaks down why.

I'm still amused that it could be though. 

[Martell Spy]

Major newspaper editorial boards blast Trump's border 'war'

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-mexico-border-wall-nyt-wall-street-journal-washington-post-234257

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

apparently this isn't accurate, and WaPo breaks down why.

I'm still amused that it could be though. 

The Washington Post did a breakdown of why this shouldn't be moved to the "Entertainment subforum"?
 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The Washington Post did a breakdown of why this shouldn't be moved to the "Entertainment subforum"?
 

They did. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They did. 

Wow, we're in the big time folks.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Wow, we're in the big time folks.

Trump took the idea that he should fix the quote feature seriously. 

[Zorral]

In a conversation with a friend, she observed wryly, that despite having been so deeply disappointed in what we used to call the major news media in the last 30 + years, she's now giving money to NPR (who are so pusillanimous much of the time I have urges to break my radio), and taking out subscriptions to the WaPo and the NYT, for the print editions.

I am pretty much in agreement with this (not that it matters what I think!) that this is a time when many, many of are going back to print -- for lots of reasons. For one thing, it takes street thugs to block print news media. Shades of ye olden days of the samizat!

Just wait until little hands gets what he wants, which he has said more than once, and just this week, which is shut down large portions of the internet, particularly social media and news sites (this will not of course include Faux, Breitbart, etc.). He says he's going to meet with Gates about it. 

Now, denying the USA its right to fb and twitter and netflix and amazon and gaming, etc.? USA will tear down the tower of doom with its own bare hands! Deny USA its right to post its cute grandchildren on fb and twitter, talk t them f2f on skype, deny the USA's even cuter kittycats their youtube stardom, deny the US Matchdotcom,  reddit and tv on its phones everywhere all the time, its podcasts about spooky murders that never happened and constant selfies of selfs with foods? Not to mention SHOPPING? That will make a revolution you betcha! 

Of course, this is the only way little hands and his handlers can deal with little hands own addiction to twitter -- make it go away so he can't use it. 

It will be good for print newspapers though -- lemonade, silver linings, everybody's disaster is somebody else's good luck and etc.!  

[Swordfish]

3 hours ago, protar said:

The conference was a load of fluff basically. May pretty much refused to talk about trump's...problematic (to say the least) policies, even when directly asked to.

She may have the right of it.  I don't think that Trump has any particularly deep seated moral imperatives in any of his policies, he seems to mostly want to have his ring kissed, but I suspect that once you've kissed it, he can be influenced.

it may be significantly more effective to deal with him that way than to confront him directly.  That's why it may have also been a mistake for democratic members of congress to skip the inauguration.  i don't think this is the time to put principal ahead of pragmatism.

But of course that's pure speculation on my part.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

7 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

i don't think this is the time to put principal ahead of pragmatism.

You know, I am usually a huge proponent of moral relativism and pragmatism, but there were so many red lines crossed by President Orange Blow Hard, and some things are simply non-negotiable. You can have your pick of why you want no part in that thing's inaugaration. Being opposed to racism, fascism, sexism. Any of those three boxes check. And I wouldn't want to normalize it by pretending IT was a normal president. It is not.

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Notone said:

You know, I am usually a huge proponent of moral relativism and pragmatism, but there were so many red lines crossed by President Orange Blow Hard, and some things are simply non-negotiable. You can have your pick of why you want no part in that thing's inaugaration. Being opposed to racism, fascism, sexism. Any of those three boxes check. And I wouldn't want to normalize it by pretending IT was a normal president. It is not.

 

That's certainly one way to look at it.  i don't totally disagree.

But what if that kind of action (and of course the cynic in me can't help but believe a lot of that posturing was more about pandering to the base than any real moral outrage) sets back their effectiveness at battling those exact issues?  

i think ti DOES make a difference that he does not seem to be particularly invested intellectually, ethically, etc in any of those positions, at least form a policy perspective.  They seem to be a means to an end for him.

Who knows, really though....

[A Horse Named Stranger]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

i think ti DOES make a difference that he does not seem to be particularly invested intellectually, ethically, etc in any of those positions, at least form a policy perspective.

Well, if you look at the outcome of policies, does make a difference whether IT believes in those policies (or is intellectually invested in those as you put it) or if just enacts the stuff Bannon or Coulter or whoever whispers in its ear.

9 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

But what if that kind of action (and of course the cynic in me can't help but believe a lot of that posturing was more about pandering to the base than any real moral outrage) sets back their effectiveness at battling those exact issues?  

Well, we are arriving at an optics argument. I think attending its inaugaration makes it look it was a normal president. And a huge presence lends the appearence of some kinda normalization. But that's just my take on it.

[Martell Spy]

Quote

In a conversation with a friend, she observed wryly, that despite having been so deeply disappointed in what we used to call the major news media in the last 30 + years, she's now giving money to NPR (who are so pusillanimous much of the time I have urges to break my radio), and taking out subscriptions to the WaPo and the NYT, for the print editions.

Yeah, I'm going to shake some coins loose for a NYT online subscription in direct response to the assault on the truth this week.

Teachout says emoluments suit could result in more financial disclosure for Trump

http://www.politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2017/01/teachout-explains-emoluments-suit-against-trump-109117

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Notone said:

Well, if you look at the outcome of policies, does make a difference whether IT believes in those policies (or is intellectually invested in those as you put it) or if just enacts the stuff Bannon or Coulter or whoever whispers in its ear.

well, of course,  That's my entire point.  The way to influence him is to get in his ear.  Skipping the inauguration doesn't get you there, it does the opposite.

Quote

Well, we are arriving at an optics argument. I think attending its inaugaration makes it look it was a normal president. And a huge presence lends the appearence of some kinda normalization. But that's just my take on it.

Again, I don't disagree there would be some impact there.  I'm just suggesting that that price may be worth it if it means more effective resistance to bannon et al.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

apparently this isn't accurate, and WaPo breaks down why.

I'm still amused that it could be though. 

You're fake news Kal!

31 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I don't think that Trump has any particularly deep seated moral imperatives in any of his policies, he seems to mostly want to have his ring kissed, but I suspect that once you've kissed it, he can be influenced.

Agreed. He's shown no sign of actually studying up on much of anything, and basically just parrots what people who are nice to him tell him. 

2 hours ago, polishgenius said:

I suggest that this thread, and US politics threads for the next four years, be moved to the Entertainment subforum.

All this would be rather funny if it was all a satirical movie, but alas, we're not so fortunate. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

10 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

well, of course,  That's my entire point.  The way to influence him is to get in his ear.  Skipping the inauguration doesn't get you there, it does the opposite.

That's working under the assumption you get to whisper in its ear. And I really don't see where you'd get that idea. Why would it abandon Bannon and listen to some hippie shit about human rights and stuff? 

No, not going to happen. I don't think so.

About the cost-utility analysis point. Well, the quesiton boils down to on how much value you put on your soul/conscience/whatever you want to call it.