Jump to content

US Politics: Terminal America


Sivin

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

Ok, if you guys are going to maintain that the right is always excused for each new outrage because 'there were lefties too!' Without acknowledging the difference between individual actors and political agents then we have nothing more to discuss.

Yeah, you know I think you are right. There's nothing left to discuss, seeing as how I've made that point in every single fucking post I've written on the subject. Thanks for airing that out WF. It really needed to be said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

 

Ok, if you guys are going to maintain that the right is always excused for each new outrage because 'there were lefties too!' Without acknowledging the difference between individual actors and political agents then we have nothing more to discuss.

In no way shape or form am I saying "the right is excused for" anything.  Republicans are emulating the fucking Brown Shirts by bringing"private milita" to one of their rallies.  You, ma'am, are attributing ideas to me I have not and am not attempting to express.  All I'm saying is that the Republicans are using Antifa protesters as an excuse to attempt to justify their latest outrage and that their use of this excuse was foreseeable.  

I'm saying nothing more than that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In no way shape or form am I saying "the right is excused for" anything.  Republicans are emulating the fucking Brown Shirts by bringing"private milita" to one of their rallies.  You, ma'am, are attributing ideas to me I have not and am not attempting to express.  All I'm saying is that the Republicans are using Antifa protesters as an excuse to attempt to justify their latest outrage and that their use of this excuse was foreseeable.  

I'm saying nothing more than that.  

And the implication, however much you might not be saying it, is that it is the responsibility of antifa to not have protested, lest it cause escalation.  And you might not be saying that, but many, many others are, and the arguments start in the same way. Forgive me if separating the people who present one argument and stop there and the people who present the same argument and leave an implication hanging in the air is sometimes difficult.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But is Trump really a threat to American institutions? Up until now, he has not even gone as far as previous Presidents (e.g. Andrew "the genocide" Jackson). Trump has not challenged the right of the courts to block his orders or taken any measures to coerce Congress. Everything he has done is within the rules of the system. Furthermore, he may not have held elective office prior to the Presidency, but Trump is no sans-culotte: he is the billionaire son of a multi-millionaire father and has moved among the highest political tier his entire life. There are elements of his base which aspire to what could be described as a variant of neo-fascism, but Trump himself is just a populist whose message was surprisingly well received and who is now struggling with the system (with predictable results).

Well, I guess this answers the question of whether you'd feel like you made a mistake in thinking that Hillary would be worse for the country than Trump simply because she'd...somehow back Wall Street more than the president who put out a tax platform so horrendous and favoring the rich that even the reddest of Republicans are balking.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

And the implication, however much you might not be saying it, is that it is the responsibility of antifa to not have protested, lest it cause escalation.  And you might not be saying that, but many, many others are, and the arguments start in the same way. Forgive me if separating the people who present one argument and stop there and the people who present the same argument and leave an implication hanging in the air is sometimes difficult.

 

No.

The Republicans are responsible for their choices regardless of the excuses they offer as bullshit justification.  That the excuse is predictable in no way makes it valid.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

And the implication, however much you might not be saying it, is that it is the responsibility of antifa to not have protested, lest it cause escalation.  And you might not be saying that, but many, many others are, and the arguments start in the same way. Forgive me if separating the people who present one argument and stop there and the people who present the same argument and leave an implication hanging in the air is sometimes difficult.

 No, the implication is that the violence of the Antifa protests has accelerated the violence on the right. The whole Free Speech issue is one that I think is extremely important. Everyone has a right to protest. No one has the right to throw low grade explosives at people and smash ATMs and storefronts and other peoples heads.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But is Trump really a threat to American institutions? Up until now, he has not even gone as far as previous Presidents (e.g. Andrew "the genocide" Jackson). Trump has not challenged the right of the courts to block his orders or taken any measures to coerce Congress. Everything he has done is within the rules of the system. Furthermore, he may not have held elective office prior to the Presidency, but Trump is no sans-culotte: he is the billionaire son of a multi-millionaire father and has moved among the highest political tier his entire life. There are elements of his base which aspire to what could be described as a variant of neo-fascism, but Trump himself is just a populist whose message was surprisingly well received and who is now struggling with the system (with predictable results).

Lol, my god. Yes, Trump has elements within the region of his sphere that at times seem to almost resemble what might be considered to be something akin to an emulation of ideas bordering on aspects of idealogical concepts which might not have been entirely unfamiliar to people associated with what in some schools of thought might be regarded as not dissimilar to some principles sometimes referenced by those who might be considered not antithetical to some of the tenets of what has been called 'neo-fascism' by some observers. Maybe.

Keep fighting the good fight against politics-as-usual, bud. You're a game changer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Lol, my god. Yes, Trump has elements within the region of his sphere that at times seem to almost resemble what might be considered to be something akin to an emulation of ideas bordering on aspects of idealogical concepts which might not have been entirely unfamiliar to people associated with what in some schools of thought might be regarded as not dissimilar to some principles sometimes referenced by those who might be considered not antithetical to some of the tenets of what has been called 'neo-fascism' by some observers. Maybe.

Keep fighting the good fight against politics-as-usual, bud. You're a game changer.

Oh shit. I've been on the board for 15 years, and this is one of the best posts I've ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

But is Trump really a threat to American institutions? Up until now, he has not even gone as far as previous Presidents (e.g. Andrew "the genocide" Jackson). Trump has not challenged the right of the courts to block his orders or taken any measures to coerce Congress. Everything he has done is within the rules of the system. Furthermore, he may not have held elective office prior to the Presidency, but Trump is no sans-culotte: he is the billionaire son of a multi-millionaire father and has moved among the highest political tier his entire life. There are elements of his base which aspire to what could be described as a variant of neo-fascism, but Trump himself is just a populist whose message was surprisingly well received and who is now struggling with the system (with predictable results).

I'm not sure that's wholly true. Certainly Trump hasn't sought to take official executive or legislative steps to limit the ability of the courts to rule against him. But some of his rhetoric has sought to undermine the standing of the judiciary, which is a tactic that's been used by other politicians. 

I think the better question is whether Trump would like to reduce the influence of the courts, or have the courts more directly under his control? I don't know that the answer to this question is obvious. And that perhaps it is only the system, as flawed that it is, that is currently preventing Trump from actually doing harm to the judiciary.

As to coercing congress. Does threatening to primary congress members of his own party count as coercion in a constitutionally destructive sense? Possibly not, but it's certainly a threateningly coercive tactic.

Edit: James Arryn said it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But is Trump really a threat to American institutions?

I think the best answer to that question is: I don't know.

It's way too soon to really say. He's only been in office for a few months and it remains to be seen how he'll approach constitutional questions.

He has shown the potential to damage the image and working of the executive branch at the very least, but how lasting such damage will be is an open question. Also, one of the problems in evaluating Trump is that previous presidents have already taken a lot of liberties with the office. Let's not forget what presidents like Nixon or Reagan were able to get away with... And all modern US presidents have wielded considerable power on the inernational stage.

I guess what has people worried is that he doesn't seem to understand how things are supposed to work, shows little desire to learn, and has a narcissistic personality. He's off to a bad start because of the way he has dealt with Russia, and scandals comparable to Watergate or Iran-Contra are definitely a possibility in the next years. He is in fact attempting to centralize power in new ways, and it remains to be seen how this will all work out in the long-run.

I don't see him holding onto power beyond two-terms though, if only because he isn't young and energetic enough for that.

But that's all slightly beyond the point in a way. Originally I was just saying that his personality and past scandals disqualified him for the office of president of the US for the most educated Americans. The point was that educated folks (and by that I mean college educated) are naturally wary of candidates who don't seem to understand the responsibilities and realities of the office. The mere possibility of being a threat should be enough for people who understand stuff like the system of checks and balances -among oher things.
In theory, no one wants another Nixon.
Whether Trump is an actual threat is a different question in a way, one that will best be answered once he leaves. Right now there are some worrying signs but the red lines haven't actually been crossed yet -as far as we know. Of course, we're only in May of his first year.

19 minutes ago, Altherion said:

There are elements of his base which aspire to what could be described as a variant of neo-fascism, but Trump himself is just a populist whose message was surprisingly well received and who is now struggling with the system (with predictable results).

I would tend to agree, though I think his "struggle" with the "system" should not be exagerated at this point. The Republicans in Congress haven't exactly been hard on him so far and the Democrats aren't in a position to do much harm. What Trump is struggling with is first and foremost the presidency itself. He's made a great number of mistakes from day 1 (and some before he was even inaugurated) and is paying for them. The question is whether he will adapt to the office or whether he will attempt to brush the difficulties away ; in the latter case he may end up changing the presidency and taking additional powers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

There was also this hilarious gem:

At one point Spicer called Trump's speech one of the greatest foreign policy speech ever given. That's some serious sycophanting.

reminded me of this:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump's administration is certainly a threat to US institutions. Whether or not it will be a success is another question entirely, but half of his cabinet has said, by design, it is meant to destroy the US administrative system. The system in a lot of ways is fighting back against it, but there are a LOT of signs that it is under attack:

  • Not appointing several HUNDRED open positions in the government, including all attorneys for each state
  • Removal of the FBI director while an ongoing investigation into the administration is taking place
  • Ignoring requests from house and senate committees for information
  • dismantling of several government organizations
  • several executive orders that at least attempted to go over the legally allowed system
  • ignoring of emoluments clause entirely, and when told to comply saying 'it's just too hard'
  • deleting of government records and correspondence
  • full-on attacks of press
  • encouraging of private violence
  • encouraging countries to pay for benefits given (such as Saudi Arabia and China)
  • openly disparaging existing long-term alliances
  • openly spreading state secrets
  • openly spreading other allies' secrets
  • creating a voting commission to likely cause voting rights to be rescinded

Now, it's certainly an open question as to whether or not this attack will succeed or whether the Republic will remain resilient enough; I tend to think it's already hosed, others do not. But it's certainly a threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yah, for all the reasons Kalbear has listed and many more.  He's not just a threat to US institutions, he's dismantling and dysfunctioning them all.  Except the military and the police, which are to serve him and those to whom he's serving as minion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 No, the implication is that the violence of the Antifa protests has accelerated the violence on the right. The whole Free Speech issue is one that I think is extremely important. Everyone has a right to protest. No one has the right to throw low grade explosives at people and smash ATMs and storefronts and other peoples heads.  

I think you'll find that police actually do have the right to throw explosives and smash heads, especially when they're stopping protests.  Which, for some reason, they usually do more vigorously when its a leftist or black protest.  Weird, that.  

But besides the point is that right-wing violence has been continuing on in this country for a lot longer than antifa has been particularly active.  But suddenly when people decide that maybe polite discourse and decorum does not appear to work when one side shows up with guns and so start (badly and with poor aim, I'll admit) trying to fight back, the handwringing about violence in the US comes out.  As far as I can tell, apparently, violence is all well and good when its administered by the state,  protests are all well and good while they don't bother anyone, and we should just ignore a sudden resurgence of neofascism, overt racism, sexism, and general hate because well golly gee, at least we tried to be polite about it.  

And even then, that doesn't make sense.  You're still saying that if antifa hadn't shown up, the people who showed up with fucking torches to defend a confederate monument wouldn't still be making life difficult for PoC across the country.  Because I think they would have.  And I think they have been doing so politely and legally, but nevertheless just as harmfully, and it would have been allowed to be ignored.  But then people started protesting against the racism endemic in our society and the backlash was against the protestors.  Antifa is a reaction to the perceived failure of the system and the perceived collaboration of that system with the alt-right and neofascists.  

You have right-wing assholes stalking, intimidating, and attacking women who try to go to Planned Parenthood.  So then you get people escorting those women through the crowds because we've decided that that harassment falls under the right to protest.  But then women are still getting abortions, so George Tiller gets shot.  And now you're fucking telling me that the problem is the clinic escorts because they "escalated" the situation.  Give me a break.  The right and alt-right would have shown up and been violent without antifa ever existing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More terrorism was a predictable consequence of escalating the war on terror. But a lot of people on both sides of the aisle seemed to be determined to double down on the war on terror.

Escalating right-wing violence is a predictable outcome of the emergence of left-wing violence. I personally oppose violent action, so I don't support anyone's assertion that it's reasonable to react against violence by one group by committing violence one's self. Though I grudgingly accept that in order to maintain law and order the state may, when all else fails and no other option presents itself, resort to as minimal as possible coercive violence.

But for those who think violent response is a more broadly justifiable course of action by private groups, I wish you luck in not appearing like total hypocrits from time to time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget, Trump had volunteer vigilante groups providing 'security' at his rallies, so this person calling for militias at his is just a step up.  Don't blame it on the kids, responsibility should be laid at Prezzie Orange Thingy's tiny little feet because he wouldn't put a stop to the earlier groups.  

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-2016-vigilante-security-213847

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I'm not sure that's wholly true. Certainly Trump hasn't sought to take official executive or legislative steps to limit the ability of the courts to rule against him. But some of his rhetoric has sought to undermine the standing of the judiciary, which is a tactic that's been used by other politicians. 

I think the better question is whether Trump would like to reduce the influence of the courts, or have the courts more directly under his control? I don't know that the answer to this question is obvious. And that perhaps it is only the system, as flawed that it is, that is currently preventing Trump from actually doing harm to the judiciary.

Every President would like to have more power and exert more influence over the other branches of government. My point was that Trump has not actually done anything yet. At most, he has spoken of doing something that has already been done in American history. There is very little new about his purported anti-democratic actions (squabbles with Congress, attacks on the press, restructuring of executive agencies, etc.). Even if, for example, the Supreme Court tells him his executive order on immigration is unconstitutional and he tells the Supreme Court that they have no authority to make that call, that still wouldn't be new (Jackson got there first).

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Whether Trump is an actual threat is a different question in a way, one that will best be answered once he leaves. Right now there are some worrying signs but the red lines haven't actually been crossed yet -as far as we know. Of course, we're only in May of his first year.

Fair enough. My guess is that Trump himself will not do anything extraordinary, but the next iteration might (i.e. there's a pretty good chance of a real fascist becoming prominent in the next 10-20 years).

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

The question is whether he will adapt to the office or whether he will attempt to brush the difficulties away ; in the latter case he may end up changing the presidency and taking additional powers.

Almost every President has tried to grab more power to himself; that's how the executive branch wound up so much larger and more powerful than it originally was. Trump will only be notable if the powers he manages to obtain are significantly greater than the recent norm. This is pretty difficult since Obama wasn't shy about executive power grabs and G. W. Bush used 9/11 for blatantly unconstitutional actions which somehow made it past the courts relatively unscathed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Almost every President has tried to grab more power to himself; that's how the executive branch wound up so much larger and more powerful than it originally was. Trump will only be notable if the powers he manages to obtain are significantly greater than the recent norm. This is pretty difficult since Obama wasn't shy about executive power grabs and G. W. Bush used 9/11 for blatantly unconstitutional actions which somehow made it past the courts relatively unscathed.

Agreed. Again, it's the difference between his potential versus what will actually happen. There have been some worrying signs for a president who's only been in office for a few months, but Trump will nonetheless find it difficult to top his predecessors. And because of his uh... unique style of leadership, Trump also has more weaknesses than many of them,

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...