U.S. Politics: If Trump Is In Attendance, The Next Protest Should Be A Roman Salute

[Shryke]

7 hours ago, S John said:

Not quite.  In conservative circles one of the Obama quotes you hear thrown around a lot is the one where he used the words (I believe in a pre-2008 campaign speech) 'fundamentally transform' America.  This is often used as proof by conservative numb-nuts that Obama, and all liberals by extension, 'hate' America.  Because - why would you want to fundamentally transform something that you love?  Often Obama's actions as president get tied back to that statement by his critics, Trump being among those critics.  The Iran Deal, the Paris Agreement, his comments about Trayvon Martin, and on and on all get tied back to the fact that Obama said he wanted to fundamentally transform America, therefore all of these actions of change are manifestations of his hatred for America.   

In addition to being nonsense its also hypocritical, in that many of the same people who would pounce on Obama for that word choice voted for Trump to 'shake things up' a little bit, but there it is.  Change, particularly liberal change = progressivism / socialism, which are considered fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of the United States by many modern conservatives.  

It makes sense once you understand that it's not about change vs not-change, it's about "benefiting white men" vs "benefiting other people, potentially at the expense of white men".

Trump will shake things up by making american great (read - white) again. That's good.

Obama will shake things up by changing things towards more equality or more liberal or something. That's bad.

[Yukle]

4 minutes ago, Shryke said:

My understanding was that it had nothing to do with campaigning and everything to do with trying to ram through as many judicial nominations as they could before they (potentially) lose the Senate.

That's a charitable reading. Much more likely it's so that Democrats can't campaign in vulnerable seats.

Republicans, at least based on current polling, stand to gain in the Senate.

[Altherion]

@Rippounet

Quote

Yes, one might conclude that... If one had zero knowledge of American history.

People were not angry enough to do anything against the enforcement of equality by law in the fifties? Seriously?

Not anything that mattered, no. Obviously, there is always a reaction to any social change so my language was a tad imprecise. What I meant was that they did not wreck the social system as whole (and weren't even trying to do so) and thoroughly failed at stopping or reversing the changes in question.

[Shryke]

18 minutes ago, Altherion said:

@Rippounet

Not anything that mattered, no. Obviously, there is always a reaction to any social change so my language was a tad imprecise. What I meant was that they did not wreck the social system as whole (and weren't even trying to do so) and thoroughly failed at stopping or reversing the changes in question.

The fact that Civil Rights struggles of the 20th century apparently passed you like a ship in the night kind of explains a lot honestly.

[Jace, Extat]

10 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The fact that Civil Rights struggles of the 20th century apparently passed you like a ship in the night kind of explains a lot honestly.

If it weren't in Fox News' centennial retrospective, altherion don't believe in it.

[Fragile Bird]

So how go the primaries?

[Gertrude]

4 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

So how go the primaries?

Funny you should ask ... I just got back from manning the polls for the first time ever. I probably won't do that again any time soon. the talking to people and doing the actual work was fine, I'm just a little peeved at my precinct chair for being a wee, WEE bit disorganized and now knowing her ass from a hole in the ground. Super sweet lady, don't ever want to work with her again. Oh, you're asking how the races went? Not a god-damned clue. All the action was in the Dem races though. I'd say about 90% of the ballots issued were D in my tiny section of Eastern Iowa.

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, Yukle said:

That's a charitable reading. Much more likely it's so that Democrats can't campaign in vulnerable seats.

Republicans, at least based on current polling, stand to gain in the Senate.

I don't think that's more likely at all. One of McConnell's chief goals is packing the federal courts.

[Jace, Extat]

2 minutes ago, Shryke said:

I don't think that's more likely at all. One of McConnell's chief goals is packing the federal courts.

There was talk of McConnel doing this to hurt dem campaigns months ago. It can be both.

[James Arryn]

14 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I can totally understand that.  And the pledge is, objectively, weird.  However, I have a somewhat nuanced and more positive view of American patriotism.  We are not a country that has 1,000+ years of shared cultural history.*  In fact, our shared cultural history (such as it is) - our mythology so to speak - is our patriotism and in a sense our performing rituals, like the pledge and the anthem, signifies belonging.  Rejecting those rituals is unsettling to people whose narrative of place and time is given meaning by those rituals.  It is even more powerful when the people rejecting otherwise do not fit within (what I'm going to call) a dug in minority's view of what that myth looks like (white and male).  I wholly agree with you that anthem kneelers are in fact living out our nominally shared ideals way better than the people demanding anthem standing.  But the reason that it is such a powerful protest in my mind is that by kneeling they are both rejecting and embracing our supposedly shared values at the same time.  

 

 

*Noting that most of the European countries' mythology of shared cultural history was made up in the 19th Century and used nefariously.

Canada says eh?

 

edit, I think Australians probably say ‘heaps/reckon’ and kiwis say ‘sheep’, too, but that’s just guessing. 

[Seli]

11 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

How are you distinguishing between a religious and an ethical view?

One terminates at "source said so", the other on "I think so" or "I feel that way".

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

1 hour ago, Seli said:

One terminates at "source said so", the other on "I think so" or "I feel that way".

IME, your distinction fails in praxis.

[The Warlock of Qarth]

In other news, the judge who sentenced Brock Turner (remember him?) has been recalled.

For a nuanced report about both sides of the recall, there's this excellent article from HuffPost:

https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/brock-turner-michele-dauber/

All in all, I feel this kind of thing sets a bad precedent.

[mormont]

2 minutes ago, Warlock of Quarth said:

All in all, I feel this kind of thing sets a bad precedent.

Well, maybe, but it is surely exactly the reason why judges in the US are elected?

I don't believe they should be, of course. But in the system that exists, this cannot be a precedent. If there's a problem here, it's with the system, not with this instance of it being used.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Zorral said:

You mean well, but you obviously have NO IDEA WHAT IT IS TO BE PREGNANT AGAINST YOUR WILL.

Nor are we speaking here only of rape, but just, well, regular sexual life of an average female human being  So many way of ending up preggers, which one never wanted to expected, from rape, to birth control failure, to o there are many other reasons too.  But evidently most male don't know about any of them, including those mentioned above.

You are far too judgmental of people you know nothing about over the internet. I’m guessing you’re at least a decade or two older than me, and it’s pathetic that I have to tell you to act like a mature adult.

We all have incidents that scar us. Lost friends and family members who died too young. Failed relationships, both lovers and friends. Professional and personal failures. And moments that change how you feel about an issue for the rest of your life. One of the latter was when I was a sophomore in high school, and a friend who was 15, after telling me and some others that she was 2 months pregnant,  asked us to pummel her stomach to cause a miscarriage. I refused, but I heard her screams as I walked away. Ever since that day I’ve been militantly pro-choice. Do not tell me that I don’t know what it’s like to be pregnant against your will. I’ve seen it’s darkest repercussions.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

How are you distinguishing between a religious and an ethical view?

 

16 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Exactly.

By only the most obvious way. This feels like when Dr. Ben Carson said that only Christians can be moral human beings……

ETA:

Or worse, when Erick Erickson, while denouncing Trump’s bigotry, said that everyone who doesn’t believe in his specific sect of Christianity is amoral and damned.   

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

10 minutes ago, mormont said:

Well, maybe, but it is surely exactly the reason why judges in the US are elected?

I don't believe they should be, of course. But in the system that exists, this cannot be a precedent. If there's a problem here, it's with the system, not with this instance of it being used.

Agreed, nor should they have lifetime appointments. The former causes them to hand out harsher sentences while the latter makes them unaccountable.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

57 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

By only the most obvious way. This feels like when Dr. Ben Carson said that only Christians can be moral human beings……

ETA:

Or worse, when Erick Erickson, while denouncing Trump’s bigotry, said that everyone who doesn’t believe in his specific sect of Christianity is amoral and damned.   

Clearly people can have ethical or religious problems with political issues.  The point we are attempting to make is how do you determine which is which when there is overlap?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Clearly people can have ethical or religious problems with political issues.  The point we are attempting to make is how do you determine which is which when there is overlap?

By how people articulate their opinions. I feel like this is easier to understand for people who aren’t particularly religious because they don’t have that internal conflict, at least not as often.

Circling back to the original point, if you say your faith teaches you that abortions are immoral, and therefore should be illegal, you’re acting in an unconstitutional manner if and when you propose a law to outlaw abortions. If you can argue that there’s a medical reason why abortions should be illegal in some instances absent your faith, you’re good. Your faith can absolutely influence your perception of morality, but it can’t be your driving motivation for passing legislation. There has to be a practical reason that exists outside of your religious beliefs.

The problem is having this high of a bar is still relatively new, especially for older generations that still have a stranglehold on power in the U.S. Back in the day, nearly everyone in the U.S. was some type of Christian, so their ethical and religious moral values were one in the same and went unchecked. That’s starting to change, and the hypocrisy is being called out more often now. And that played a huge role in why Trump won.

[Mexal]

10 hours ago, Shryke said:

I don't think that's more likely at all. One of McConnell's chief goals is packing the federal courts.

It's both.