U.S. Politics: The (Debt) Ceiling's the Limit

[Morpheus]

Trump just defended pardoning Arpaio and blasted Obama for commuting Chelsea Mannig's sentence. Part of a whole Whataboutism gag.

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Does he have the ability to pull votes from across the whole State to be elected?  God forbid he win he's 85 would he complete a full term?

 

Not only is he 85, he just lost his Sheriff election - you know, the office he held for 16 years.  By eleven points.

[Morpheus]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

Not only is he 85, he just lost his Sheriff election - you know, the office he held for 16 years.  By eleven points.

Trump also just said that the charges were designed to make him lose a close election

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Charlottesville was a good example of violence and preparation for violence being entirely the right thing. Berkeley this weekend was an example of it going horribly wrong. I can and must recognize both, and realize that both should be considered as strategies. 

I like this.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Morpheus said:

Trump also just said that the charges were designed to make him lose a close election

11 points is not a close election.

ETA:  Plus it was almost 13 points, not 11.  I forget fast.

[James Arryn]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not sure what is the struggle. The article still fails to address the most salient point - which is that it's easy to preach nonviolence, but hard to do so when people are going to be violent towards you. It handwaves this by saying that defensive people should be there if the state won't help, but don't let the state get to that point - which happily ignores how we are already there. 

I think that's the real disconnect - the perception of how bad things actually are. Some people think that this isn't that far and we're pretty okay aside from a few issues that can be dealt with. Others, like myself, see things getting far worse, and a real lack of use of government accountability to protect the innocent and pursue the guilty. 

I also think that this article overstates the effectiveness of violence in improving fascist outcomes. It isn't always great, but it isn't always bad. 

Charlottesville was a good example of violence and preparation for violence being entirely the right thing. Berkeley this weekend was an example of it going horribly wrong. I can and must recognize both, and realize that both should be considered as strategies. 

I think it's you who is missing the point, but I'll try and clarify with a question:

Which are you arguing?

1) that you actually think people fighting racism now face a tougher/more violent/more empowered enemy/situation that the CR folks in the 60's or Gandhi in India.

2) that you concede past non-violent agents of change faced much worse danger/enemies and prevailed with NV but that it now won't work because reasons.

I wonder if what's changed was that people back then understood freedom often has a price and had the courage to pay it, whereas now people feel freedom just really really ought to be and therefore it's fair game on whoever gets in the way, regardless of where that leads or whether or not it's likely to be counterproductive. So like use nazi style tactics against nazis and either handwave how that will play to a ton of people watching, or think that by shouting at them that there's no equivalence between the two you'll make them understand and agree with you. 

[James Arryn]

19 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Maybe it's because the author is not Canadian.  

BLAME CANADA!

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

BLAME CANADA!

I'M NOT YOUR BUDDY, PAL!

[Morpheus]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

11 points is not a close election.

Trumpmaths

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Morpheus said:

Trumpmaths

He has the best maths.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Charlottesville was a good example of violence and preparation for violence being entirely the right thing. Berkeley this weekend was an example of it going horribly wrong. I can and must recognize both, and realize that both should be considered as strategies. 

And I think it's fair to flip that on its' head as far as our side of the argument goes. That what looked bad in Berkeley and likely would've looked bad in Boston, was necessary in Charlottesville.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I"M NOT YOUR BUDDY, PAL!

The correct answer is "They're not even a real country anyway."

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

11 points is not a close election.

ETA:  Plus it was almost 13 points, not 11.  I forget fast.

Maricopa county is far more liberal than the rest of Arizona, as bizarre as that sounds. 

[James Arryn]

11 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The correct answer is "They're not even a real country anyway."

Lol, fair cop. We pretty much never bomb or invade anywhere, we might as well not even have a flag. 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Maricopa county is far more liberal than the rest of Arizona, as bizarre as that sounds. 

Well, that's totally burying the lede.  It is, by far, the largest county in Arizona, so how you do there is a pretty good gauge of how you'll do statewide.  Moreover, the only other county that approaches it in population - Pima - is much more Democratic.

9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Lol, fair cop. We pretty much never bomb or invade anywhere, we might as well not even have a flag. 

 

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I think it's you who is missing the point, but I'll try and clarify with a question:

Which are you arguing?

1) that you actually think people fighting racism now face a tougher/more violent/more empowered enemy/situation that the CR folks in the 60's or Gandhi in India.

2) that you concede past non-violent agents of change faced much worse danger/enemies and prevailed with NV but that it now won't work because reasons.

I wonder if what's changed was that people back then understood freedom often has a price and had the courage to pay it, whereas now people feel freedom just really really ought to be and therefore it's fair game on whoever gets in the way, regardless of where that leads or whether or not it's likely to be counterproductive. So like use nazi style tactics against nazis and either handwave how that will play to a ton of people watching, or think that by shouting at them that there's no equivalence between the two you'll make them understand and agree with you. 

I'm not arguing either.

I'm arguing that nonviolence is a great goal that is also incredibly hard to do and also has a number of fairly big failures that aren't particularly well-addressed (such as, say, the actual rise of Nazi Germany). 

I'm arguing that nonviolent movements often worked because they had violence as an alternative; Civil Rights and MLK worked because it was seen as a much better alternative than the race riots that had been going on, as an example. 

I'm arguing that preaching nonviolence is really easy when you're not the one that is going to get their head bashed in. If John Lewis wants to preach nonviolence out there and start doing major organizations of marches, I'll be first in line to march with him, but random people who aren't going to go to marches, aren't going to put their bodies in the line of fire and are watching people get beaten are the chickens in the breakfast survey here. And I'm not going to criticize those who are actually out there protesting and putting their lives on the line for not being moral enough for my tastes. 

Finally, I'm arguing that it isn't clear how counterproductive violent resistance is. 

[Kalbear]

25 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

And I think it's fair to flip that on its' head as far as our side of the argument goes. That what looked bad in Berkeley and likely would've looked bad in Boston, was necessary in Charlottesville.

Also, interestingly, Boston was far more of a first amendment failure than Charlottesville. Press weren't allowed to approach the Nazi pagoda, the nazi pagoda didn't have a sound system or megaphones and were isolated from the rest of the crowd so they couldn't even hear what the nazis were saying, and in general their first amendment rights were violated in spirit if not in letter. 

How come you're not up in arms about that?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Finally, I'm arguing that it isn't clear how counterproductive violent resistance is. 

 But you can identify bad optics when you see it. Like that Berkeley video dmc posted earlier. Or even worse, the video of the murder by car in Charlottesville.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Also, interestingly, Boston was far more of a first amendment failure than Charlottesville. Press weren't allowed to approach the Nazi pagoda, the nazi pagoda didn't have a sound system or megaphones and were isolated from the rest of the crowd so they couldn't even hear what the nazis were saying, and in general their first amendment rights were violated in spirit if not in letter. 

How come you're not up in arms about that?

Don't give a fuck about any of that. They were allowed to march and gather as their permit allowed for. Could give a hairy rat's ass about the rest. 

 

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Lol, fair cop. We pretty much never bomb or invade anywhere, we might as well not even have a flag. 

Well you guys are smart enough to realize you shouldn't start wars when hockey sticks are your best weapons and you guys have to continuously wash syrup off of your fingers.