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

[DMC]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

I completely agree that fascism is again on the rise in the world in general and the US in particular...in fact I have been 'annoyingly' stating as much in here for years now. I agree that the Trump administration has some chilling echoes of former evils. I agree that it must be fought. I disagree with using fascist tactics to fight fascism. Fight rhetoric with better rhetoric, or define calls to violence as illegal...but again that must cut both ways. Don't rubber stamp 'preemptive' violence against dangerous rhetoric because that already cuts both ways.

It's a difficult discussion to have around here, but the efficacy of violent tactics is something that is dubious at best.  There are very few conflict scholars that focus on success rates of violent vs. nonviolent protest, but the one that has devoted her career to this is pretty clear in her findings.

Of course, toppling dictators is different than the issue at hand, but I also wonder how proponents of preemptive violence towards white supremacist speech would interpret this weekend's results in the German elections - in which the far right AfD achieved third party status in spite of the country obviously having the most suppressive laws against Nazi expression.

[Altherion]

6 hours ago, lokisnow said:

The dude who wrote algorithms for Trumps campaign and the Brexit campaign has written a new algorithm called "gaydar" that identifies homosexuals based on facial recognition.

It would be interesting if it worked (e.g. 99% correct identification rate and 0.1% misidentification rate), but I very much doubt it can do that. Facial recognition is difficult even when you know what you're looking for. Here, he's simultaneously trying to identify facial characteristics indicative of an internal state (it's not obvious that such characteristics even exist) and then use them to make an identification. This might be possible, but it's way beyond current technology.

[Fez]

10 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/25/obamacare-repeal-failure-republicans-react-243096

Collins’ opposition dooms latest Obamacare repeal effort
Three GOP senators have come out against the Graham-Cassidy bill, likely dealing a fatal blow to the plan.

I don't trust Rand Paul; but I am fairly certain that Murkowski is still a 'no' and is just trying to not talk about it much if she doesn't need to. I think Lee might be a 'no' as well though, especially if there is an attempted Alaska buyout in the bill (still not clear if there is).

I also think the main reason McConnell hasn't officially pulled the bill yet is to try to avoid further inflaming Roy Moore supporters down in Alabama. The run-off primary is today and Sen. Luther Strange is very likely losing, but it makes sense McConnell would do his best to help Strange. Strange is a reliable GOP vote, Moore would be even more of a conservative wildcard than Cruz or Lee. 

(There's also the very slim chance that Moore could lose the special election to Doug Jones. But I suspect the close polling is due to Jones already consolidating the Democratic base while Republicans are still divided and that nearly all the undecideds will vote Republican. It is still Alabama after all).

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Free Northman Reborn

Quote

Well, there is another option I would potentially favor. And that is withdrawing completely from the region. Leaving the South Koreans and Japan to fend for themselves. But the US cannot be expected to continue protecting these nations in a situation where you have a nuclear armed North Korea.  So it's either stay and take out the North Korean nuclear capabilty, or leave and let the region sort itself out.

Of course, if you do that, you might well end up with a region completely dominated by China. So the US has to remain there to retain its geo-politcal influence. Bringing us back to the conundrum of how to do that without facing a nuclear armed North Korea. Which in turn brings us back to having to strike them before they achieve that capability.

Wow OK so your two preferred options are taking out North Korea completely and in effect allowing two of our closest allies to take heavy casualties or pull out completely, screwing over two of our closest allies and creating a situation that increases the likelihood of a full scale war between China and the U.S. Smart…..

[aceluby]

12 hours ago, Altherion said:

Again, to most people who are displeased by this, their stand on racism is a concern so secondary that it is more or less irrelevant. The important thing is that they're disrespecting the flag and the fact that they're gotten so much from this country exacerbates this. And while it is true that most politicians and other opinion-makers are quite wealthy, note that it is extremely rare for political or business types to attack the flag or otherwise question American exceptionalism directly. The only famous people who do it are actors and sports personalities and both draw a significant amount of hatred.

This is a bunch of dog-whistling racist bull shit, right here.  Athletes earn their money like anyone else.  They get paid to do a job at the rate the market deems their value is worth.  They didn't 'get' their money 'from this country'.  Trump is a fucking billionaire and was literally given his money by his daddy.  When Obama was President, Trump attacked American exceptionalism all the fucking time.  

Let's just stop with this charade and call it what it is.  White people take issue with black people protesting in any form and will find any excuse to declare why 'that' type of protesting is wrong, and it's because of deep seeded racist beliefs.  So just stop with the arm-chair quarterback dog whistling analysis.

[Ormond]

6 hours ago, dmc515 said:

It's a difficult discussion to have around here, but the efficacy of violent tactics is something that is dubious at best.  There are very few conflict scholars that focus on success rates of violent vs. nonviolent protest, but the one that has devoted her career to this is pretty clear in her findings.

Of course, toppling dictators is different than the issue at hand, but I also wonder how proponents of preemptive violence towards white supremacist speech would interpret this weekend's results in the German elections - in which the far right AfD achieved third party status in spite of the country obviously having the most suppressive laws against Nazi expression.

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.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

27 minutes ago, Fez said:

I don't trust Rand Paul; but I am fairly certain that Murkowski is still a 'no' and is just trying to not talk about it much if she doesn't need to. I think Lee might be a 'no' as well though, especially if there is an attempted Alaska buyout in the bill (still not clear if there is).

I also think the main reason McConnell hasn't officially pulled the bill yet is to try to avoid further inflaming Roy Moore supporters down in Alabama. The run-off primary is today and Sen. Luther Strange is very likely losing, but it makes sense McConnell would do his best to help Strange. Strange is a reliable GOP vote, Moore would be even more of a conservative wildcard than Cruz or Lee. 

(There's also the very slim chance that Moore could lose the special election to Doug Jones. But I suspect the close polling is due to Jones already consolidating the Democratic base while Republicans are still divided and that nearly all the undecideds will vote Republican. It is still Alabama after all).

I suspect there could be as many as a dozen Republican Senators who don’t want to vote for this bill, and unlike the previous bills, this one plainly hurts several red states in a way that’s unmistakable (the others did too, but it wasn’t as black and white). I’ve heard several names floated about, including some unusual suspects.  

And for those keep track, we’ve got 5 days to go to see if Republicans wreck 1/6 of the U.S. economy to get their tax cuts for the super-rich, which in and of itself will hurt the economy.

As to the Republican primary run-off, man has it been bizarre. You’ve got Trump stumping for Strange and Bannon for Moore. The two candidates are trying to out crazy one another, and that’s saying something because Moore is as right wing as any candidate I’ve ever seen. You’ve got Strange calling Moore a liberal and Moore is on stage brandishing a gun.

[Zorral]

romperman finally speaks of Puerto Rico -- to yell at it for being broke -- though of course the cause of PR being broke is due to the ancient 1917 Jones Act!!!!! that the US congress put in place, and where, of course, despite being US citizens, PR has no voice.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/jones-act-holding-puerto-rico-back-debt-crisis/

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-shippers-push-back-in-battle-over-puerto-rico-import-costs-2015-7

But what would the United States' Ignoramus In Chief know about any of this?  Let's yell some more about football!

[Kalbear]

52 minutes 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.

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. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

This is a bunch of dog-whistling racist bull shit, right here.  Athletes earn their money like anyone else.  They get paid to do a job at the rate the market deems their value is worth.  They didn't 'get' their money 'from this country'.  Trump is a fucking billionaire and was literally given his money by his daddy.  When Obama was President, Trump attacked American exceptionalism all the fucking time.  

Let's just stop with this charade and call it what it is.  White people take issue with black people protesting in any form and will find any excuse to declare why 'that' type of protesting is wrong, and it's because of deep seeded racist beliefs.  So just stop with the arm-chair quarterback dog whistling analysis.

Moreover, Trump’s making this an issue solely to stoke white racial resentment and he’s attempting to gain politically off of it. That’s our President…..

[Morpheus]

Trump was just talking about the tremendous job they are doing in Puerto Rico despite the difficulties of it being "an island in the middle of an ocean. And it's a big ocean. A very big ocean." He also knows a lot of people from Puerto Rico AND a lot of Puerto Ricans.

[maarsen]

3 hours ago, Altherion said:

It would be interesting if it worked (e.g. 99% correct identification rate and 0.1% misidentification rate), but I very much doubt it can do that. Facial recognition is difficult even when you know what you're looking for. Here, he's simultaneously trying to identify facial characteristics indicative of an internal state (it's not obvious that such characteristics even exist) and then use them to make an identification. This might be possible, but it's way beyond current technology.

Phrenology had a so called scientific basis also. I  suspect that this is  equally as valid as phrenology. 

[Ice Queen]

15 hours ago, Altherion said:

Again, to most people who are displeased by this, their stand on racism is a concern so secondary that it is more or less irrelevant. The important thing is that they're disrespecting the flag and the fact that they're gotten so much from this country exacerbates this. And while it is true that most politicians and other opinion-makers are quite wealthy, note that it is extremely rare for political or business types to attack the flag or otherwise question American exceptionalism directly. The only famous people who do it are actors and sports personalities and both draw a significant amount of hatred.

First of all, their talents are exploited for our entertainment. What Trump said is that a bunch of black guys should kill themselves for our enjoyment and blood lust, and that their rights as citizens aren't worth a thing. 

Trump accuses them of sissifying the game, when these guys are expected to kill themselves and each other for our viewing pleasure like it's The Running Man. Their brains are utterly destroyed, along with serious physical impairments like arthritis. All so we can have a bit of fun.

Third, their stand on racism is NOT a secondary concern. I'm ashamed to say my fellow Yinzers are, even now in the 21st century, so blinded by hate and fear of black men. 

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/09/pennsylvania-fire-chief-calls-steelers-coach-mike-tomlin-a-no-good-ngger-over-nfl-protests/

[denstorebog]

Dem lawmaker threatens to force Trump impeachment vote next week

Not sure what the effect of this bit of symbolism will be. On one hand, it's another show of resistance out in the open. On the other hand, since it's not likely to gain much attention or interest except from some naive grassroots Democrats, it kinda devalues the notion of impeachment for future use, at a time when the traction is actually there. I'm not sure we want the idea of impeachment to become a weekly protest slogan like the endless symbolic proposals of legislation by House Dems to force the release of Trump's tax returns.

[HoodedCrow]

It would be justice to see romperman carry the football in a real NFL game. I'm betting he would be sorry, oh so sorry.

[Rippounet]

Ok, thanks for the link. Weirdly enough, the couple of articles I'd read didn't explain that.

However, there's still two ways to look at it.

16 hours ago, Altherion said:

Ordinarily not, but the guy who started it explained what it meant:

The issue is not that he is protesting against racism -- many people do that and nobody pays much attention to them unless they riot or block roads or something of the sort. The problem is that he thinks this is important enough to outweigh everything that is good about America to the extent that he refuses to show pride in our flag.

Except if you dig a bit, that's not actually true.
Originally Kaepernick had chosen to just sit, something even I would see as mildly disrepectful (but I wouldn't care much of course ).
But then he switched to kneeling, and it seems it was very specifically to honor veterans:

 

Quote

 

He also wanted to redirect the narrative stemming from his recent refusal to stand for the national anthem. What began as a gesture to protest police brutality and social injustice had careened into a national debate on everything but that.

Instead, the question being asked was whether Kaepernick was disparaging the sacrifices made by the military.

So, on Thursday night, in his team’s final exhibition game before the start of the N.F.L. season, Kaepernick, along with his teammate Eric Reid, took a knee instead of a seat during “The Star-Spangled Banner,” all with the blessing of Kaepernick’s invited guest, Nate Boyer, a former member of the Army’s Green Berets.

Also, Kaepernick announced afterward that he would donate the first million of his $11.9 million salary for this season to charitable organizations and that he was open to speaking to students at the San Francisco Police Department academy.

“Once again, I’m not anti-American,” Kaepernick said. “I love America. I love people. That’s why I’m doing this. I want to help make America better. I think having these conversations helps everybody have a better understanding of where everybody is coming from.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/sports/football/colin-kaepernick-kneels-national-anthem-protest.html

 

It seems to me his very posture goes against the argument that he is rejecting "everything good about America." You don't bend the knee to stuff you don't respect at least a little bit. The fact that he specifically said he loved America also makes me doubt that he is showing hatred for America.
I'm afraid I'll have to call this "the usual story": a black guy makes a stand for social justice and gets called "un-patriotic" and "un-American" for it. Because pointing out that the US is not perfect is apparently un-patriotic... Or at least it is if you're black.
Which is also why I see pointing out his wealth as hypocritical. A wealthy black guy protests racial injustice, and suddenly people develop a class conscience? Please. Most Americans make a point of not believing in class war most of the time. How convenient it is for some to hate rich black men. Meanwhile, there's a white billionaire in the White House surrounded by millionaires and billionaires in his cabinet. But that's ok, 'cause they're white, right?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, denstorebog said:

Dem lawmaker threatens to force Trump impeachment vote next week

Not sure what the effect of this bit of symbolism will be. On one hand, it's another show of resistance out in the open. On the other hand, since it's not likely to gain much attention or interest except from some naive grassroots Democrats, it kinda devalues the notion of impeachment for future use, at a time when the traction is actually there. I'm not sure we want the idea of impeachment to become a weekly protest slogan like the endless symbolic proposals of legislation by House Dems to force the release of Trump's tax returns.

It can also backfire in another way. It might cause Republicans who have soured a bit on Trump to rally to him.

[denstorebog]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It can also backfire in another way. It might cause Republicans who have soured a bit on Trump to rally to him.

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.

[King Ned Stark]

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.  Have the people who are entrenched on the far left stopped to ask themselves why Trump reinvigorated this dying debate?  Simply because he's a stupid racist and just can't help himself?  It's that kind of arrogance that helped Trump win the election in the first place.

Is it too much to fathom, that Trump picked this fight, because it's one he's likely to win?  Rip patriotism all you want, but a vast majority of Americans consider themselves patriotic.  Add that to the perception that the national anthem is not performed to honor policemen, and you start to lose even more people.  It seems plausible that the NFL walked right into a trap.  Just a few articles I have read have stated that the NFL ratings are declining, Alejandro Villanueva's jersey is skyrocketing in sales, and players were booed for kneeling in Boston & Washington D.C. (Two areas that would seem to be more anti-Trump than most).

I'm fine with the protest, or any peaceful protest for that matter, though I thought it a bit ill advised.  Wouldn't it be more appropriate to protest until all the cops standing around the stadium were escorted out?  

The far left are likely to double down on a fight they're unlikely to win, which is probably a reason why they are down to their lowest % of governing members since, what, WWII?

You can't, at least in this day and age, tell Americans to take down statues of the Founders, protest the anthem, censor speech, and erode due process (which Kaepernick was protesting); and expect to be voted into office.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

You can't, at least in this day and age, tell Americans to take down statues of the Founders, protest the anthem, censor speech, and erode due process (which Kaepernick was protesting); and expect to be voted into office.

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

What speech is being censored?