U.S. Politics- SCOTUS 2: The Election Strikes Back

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

The political establishment as well as the vast majority of the people who control jobs (yes, these sets have a considerable overlap) have decided that usage of certain terms is in and of itself grounds for dismissal from one's position and other forms of shunning. This makes usage of these terms an act of defiance towards groups including (though not limited to) the political establishment. The same is true of other politically incorrect speech which is why it has not been censored directly (though, as I said, there are strong incentives from the private sector not to speak this way).

Yeah, keep telling yourself it’s a rebel yell.

Honestly pathetic. Yelling that you want to fuck babies would also probably ruffle some feathers, hence is the essence of freedom, right? 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 hours ago, Bonnot OG said:

Elon Musk being a piece of shit was solidified even more with the info that came out about who he donates money to politically.

Haha. Firstly, let’s debunk the premise of the assertion, which is that a political donation to the Republican party in any way requires defense from a moral perspective. It does not.

Secondly, Musk is an equal opportunity donor, having donated pretty much a similar amount to Democrats over the years. 

Thirdly, in both instances the donations are miniscule in the context of his wealth.

What is quite a pattern here is that since Musk decided to criticise the media directly, the campaign of sudden negative articles about him has been relentless. Ironically, it is coming just as much from the left wing hipster nutters as it is coming from the fossil fuel/traditional space industry trough feeders on the right. Even Breitbart is getting in on the act.

The right wing press has always hated Musk, mostly for his position on fossil fuels and the renewable energy revolution.

The irony is that the left wing have now jumped on the bandwagon too, because they suddenly realized that he is not the left wing hippie they thought him to be, but is actually a billionaire industrialist who is willing to be pragmatic in pursuit of his goals.

The truth about Musk is that he has one overriding goal. And it is not electric cars or solar energy or tunnel boring or even personal wealth generation for the sake of itself. His overarching goal - and he has openly stated it numerous times - is to establish a self sustaining human civilization on Mars. And all of his other ventures are merely tools to help him achieve that long term goal.

Most people associate Musk primarily with Tesla. But Tesla is a side show for him. Tesla is his cash cow, which if he achieves his latest ten year performance target will net him about $200 billion in personal share value and compensation. And he has openly stated that his goal for accumulating personal wealth is to invest it in the colonization of Mars. So fully expect Musk to eventually extract all his Tesla holdings and fund the Mars program with that. 

But at that point Tesla will have moved electric vehicle technology lightyears ahead, which coincidentally is crucial for a Mars colony where no fossil fuels exist and where the internal combustion engine is useless.

It will also have revolutionized solar and battery technology, which again is crucial to a Mars civilization where the generation and storage of solar energy will be fundamental to initial and long term power needs.

And then you have the Boring Company digging tunnels, which at first seems rather random, until you realize that initial Mars colonies will be in underground tunnels, until terraforming is achieved in a few centuries. And the advancement of tunnel boring technology will be vital to that.

In short, Musk’s goal is clear. And his efforts are entirely consistent with that goal. Moving the world along to a clean energy future and weaning us off fossil fuels are merely nice side benefits of that goal. 

And in the context of that grand vision, donating a measly $100k dollars to both political parties to help achieve some short term benefits is utterly, completely insignificant, to the point of not even being noteworthy.

[DMC]

40 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Yelling that you want to fuck babies would also probably ruffle some feathers, hence is the essence of freedom, right? 

Sure, granted, but killing babies - especially in self defense - that's the definition of free(hat)dom.  And how:

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Haha. Firstly, let’s debunk the premise of the assertion, which is that a political donation to the Republican party in any way requires defense from a moral perspective. It does not.

Actually, it does. Since the Republican Party has simply lost it's fuckin' mind, and is empowering a wanna be dictator who is destroying, the liberal international order the US helped to put together since WW2, it's real problem.

Fuck Trump. And fuck the Republican Party. Anyone who gives a dime to them deserves criticism.

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

The irony is that the left wing have now jumped on the bandwagon too, because they suddenly realized that he is not the left wing hippie they thought him to be, but is actually a billionaire industrialist who is willing to be pragmatic in pursuit of his goals.

At the expense of everyone else. He'll probably be one of those clowns at Davos, decrying the rise facism and autarky, and then talking about vapid "multi-stakeholder solutions".

[Altherion]

18 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Actually, it does. Since the Republican Party has simply lost it's fuckin' mind, and is empowering a wanna be dictator who is destroying, the liberal international order the US helped to put together since WW2, it's real problem.

I don't understand why you're so riled up about the recent behavior of the Republican party. They've met Trump halfway on the rhetoric, but what they've actually done is exactly what they've always done (or at least in the past half century): appointed conservative Supreme Court justices and cut taxes. The international order is quite robust and no individual (not even the President of the US) can destroy it -- and Trump isn't even trying to, he's just being his usual rude self and doing stuff like demanding that NATO allies pay their fair share which, again, is a rather old refrain.

[DMC]

25 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The international order is quite robust and no individual (not even the President of the US) can destroy it -- and Trump isn't even trying to

This is one of your funny funny jokes, right?

[LongRider]

18 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is one of your funny funny jokes, right?

No, I would say that Altherion is one of those 'very serious people'.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Altherion said:

I don't understand why you're so riled up about the recent behavior of the Republican party. They've met Trump halfway on the rhetoric, but what they've actually done is exactly what they've always done (or at least in the past half century): appointed conservative Supreme Court justices and cut taxes. The international order is quite robust and no individual (not even the President of the US) can destroy it -- and Trump isn't even trying to, he's just being his usual rude self and doing stuff like demanding that NATO allies pay their fair share which, again, is a rather old refrain.

 

[Darth Richard II]

Haha cut taxes. What the actual fuck.

[Seli]

12 hours ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

Is there an objective criteria for determining what violence is properly proportionate to the words offered or is this purely case by case?  I can see your point but I do wonder what happens when, as Altherion points out, those you disagree with start using the same tactic to justify their violent actions?  Inherently subjective situations don’t work well when placed into legal frameworks.  To be clear this does happen in legal frameworks but if many on various sides start claiming their violence is justified based on others speech law will seek an objective way to limit that violence.

I thought you had decades of jurisprudence on this, neatly summarized in a thing called "protected classes". Because, while it is possible to decide on a case by case basis that is very wasteful, if we know the arguments that will be made beforehand.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Selibration Srbija! said:

I thought you had decades of jurisprudence on this, neatly summarized in a thing called "protected classes". Because, while it is possible to decide on a case by case basis that is very wasteful, if we know the arguments that will be made beforehand.

You’re missing the point if US Courts suddenly has thousands and thousands of people who claim that their violent actions are justified under the “fighting words” doctrine the Courts are not going to stand by and allow that violence to continue.  They will act to limit the application of this doctrine specifically because it is an exception to the normal rule that you shouldn’t react violently to insulting words.  It’s not intended to be the standard rule for every violent interaction.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

You’re missing the point if US Courts suddenly has thousands and thousands of people who claim that their violent actions are justified under the “fighting words” doctrine the Courts are not going to stand by and allow that violence to continue.

At least in my understanding of the fighting words doctrine it's you that doesn't understand the repercussions on the courts if racial slurs are added.  The doctrine does not justify violent actions - that's kind of contradicts its spirit in general.  What it does is say certain speech is not protected.  Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire:

Quote

On a public sidewalk in downtown Rochester, Walter Chaplinsky was distributing literature that supported his beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness and attacked more conventional forms of religion. Chaplinsky called the town marshal "a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist." He was arrested and convicted under a state law that prohibited intentionally offensive, derisive, or annoying speech to any person who is lawfully in a street or public area. On appeal, Chaplinsky argued that the law violated the First Amendment on the grounds that it was overly vague. 

he Court identified certain categorical exceptions to First Amendment protections, including obscenities, certain profane and slanderous speech, and "fighting words." He found that Chaplinsky's insults were “fighting words” since they caused a direct harm to their target and could be construed to advocate an immediate breach of the peace. Thus, they lacked the social value of disseminating ideas to the public that lay behind the rights granted by the First Amendment. A state can use its police power, the Court reasoned, to curb their expression in the interests of maintaining order and morality.

States can use their police power to regulate speech that invokes violence - that is almost the inverse of the state neglecting its police power by condoning violence against speech.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

At least in my understanding of the fighting words doctrine it's you that doesn't understand the repercussions on the courts if racial slurs are added.  The doctrine does not justify violent actions - that's kind of contradicts its spirit in general.  What it does is say certain speech is not protected.  Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire:

States can use their police power to regulate speech that invokes violence - that is almost the inverse of the state neglecting its police power by condoning violence against speech.

I do see your point.  

My point is not that racial slurs should be protected speech.  It is that if the fighting words doctrine is over applied due to a significant increase  frequency of violent actions, I suspect Courts will limit its application in an effort to reduce the frequency of violent actions.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

It is that if the fighting words doctrine is over applied due to a significant increase  frequency of violent actions, I suspect Courts will limit its application in an effort to reduce the frequency of violent actions.

I this this condition (a marked increase in violent actions) is an unfounded assumption.  There's no reason to suspect this would happen.  For a US-to-US comparison - I think there are logical objections to hate crime statutes.  But in actuality, only about six thousand incidents are prosecuted as such per year.  Considering the multitude of court systems in this country it's very difficult to see that's onerous in terms of case load. 

For a non-US comparison, consider compulsory voting.  Very rarely is this actually prosecuted in countries with it on the books.  It's the spirit of the law that is important.  Which would be the same case here - thanks to the wonders of the internet, the social (and, yes, sometimes violent) repercussions to such speech would be far more punitive than any nominal penalties a state statute would provide for.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

I this this condition (a marked increase in violent actions) is an unfounded assumption.  There's no reason to suspect this would happen.  For a US-to-US comparison - I think there are logical objections to hate crime statutes.  But in actuality, only about six thousand incidents are prosecuted as such per year.  Considering the multitude of court systems in this country it's very difficult to see that's onerous in terms of case load. 

For a non-US comparison, consider compulsory voting.  Very rarely is this actually prosecuted in countries with it on the books.  It's the spirit of the law that is important.  Which would be the same case here - thanks to the wonders of the internet, the social (and, yes, sometimes violent) repercussions to such speech would be far more punitive than any nominal penalties a state statute would provide for.

There are people here advocating in favor of violence.  I can’t believe they are the only folks who feel this way.  As such if there is a perceived spike in violent actions and “fighting words” is the justification offered I suspect it “fighting words” will not be favored by Courts.  

That’s my point.  No perceived spike, no reaction.  Perceived Spike and there will be push back.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Scott de Montevideo! said:

There are people here advocating in favor of violence.  I can’t believe they are the only folks who feel this way.  As such if there is a perceived spike in violent actions and “fighting words” is the justification offered I suspect it “fighting words” will not be favored by Courts.  

Well, that's why it's important to differentiate between a perceived spike among the participants in this thread and a perceived spike in actual reality.

[Paladin of Ice]

Trump calls the EU "a foe" in a television interview right before Putin summit. Other ramblings included accusing FBI Agent Strzok of plotting actions against him before he was even a candidate for president, continuing to call the Mueller probe a witch hunt and saying the existence of the probe at all hurts the US relationship with Russia, saying that asking Putin to extradite the 12 hackers indicted "hadn't occurred to him", and blaming hacking of the DNC not on Russia, but on the DNC's "bad defenses".

Quote

Coming off a contentious NATO summit and a trip to the U.K. in which he seemed to undercut the government of America's closest ally, President Trump took aim at another Western institution just days before his high-stakes meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

In an interview with "CBS Evening News" anchor Jeff Glor in Scotland on Saturday, President Trump named the European Union -- comprising some of America's oldest allies -- when asked to identify his "biggest foe globally right now."

"Well, I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn't think of the European Union, but they're a foe. Russia is foe in certain respects. China is a foe economically, certainly they are a foe. But that doesn't mean they are bad. It doesn't mean anything. It means that they are competitive," Mr. Trump said at his golf club in Turnberry, Scotland. 

"I respect the leaders of those countries. But, in a trade sense, they've really taken advantage of us and many of those countries are in NATO and they weren't paying their bills," he added.

On Sunday, British Prime Minister Theresa May told the BBC that Mr. Trump had encouraged her to "sue the EU" rather than negotiate over the U.K.'s departure from the bloc. May's conservative government is deeply split over her handling of Brexit, and her hold on power was further weakened by Mr. Trump's comments to a British tabloid that her approach had likely "killed" any chance of a new trade deal with the U.S. once Brexit is complete. (Mr. Trump tried to walk back his criticism in a joint press conference on Friday.)

 

Meanwhile his commentary on Putin is strangely different. "Maybe he'll be a friend someday."

Quote

Trump was set to land in Helsinki Sunday night with what he said were low expectations and an unusually loose agenda for the kind of high-stakes international meeting that typically is tightly scripted with predetermined outcomes.

But Trump has an uncommon faith in his abilities to wing it on the global stage. When he departed Washington, Trump said meeting with Putin may be “the easiest” part of his trip. And as in last month’s Singapore summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, he is banking on his personality to forge a lasting bond with Putin that could improve U.S.-Russia relations and solve some of the world’s intractable problems.

“He’s been very nice to me the times I’ve met him,” Trump told reporters last week in Brussels, previewing his Putin tête-à-tête. “I’ve been nice to him. He’s a competitor . . . He’s not my enemy. And hopefully, someday, maybe he’ll be a friend. It could happen.”

In an indication of his friendly posture, Trump said he “hadn’t thought” of asking Putin to extradite the 12 Russian agents indicted by the U.S. Justice Department when prompted in an interview with CBS News anchor Jeff Glor.

Trump went on to blame his predecessor for Russia’s election interference, telling Glor, “They were doing whatever it was during the Obama administration,” and adding that the Democratic National Committee “should be ashamed of themselves for allowing themselves to be hacked.”

Things that make you say "Hmmmmm..."

[Bonnot OG]

Elon Musk continuing to show he is a piece of shit calling the lead rescue diver in Thailand a pedo because the guy criticized Musk's shit PR stunt and called it what it was, a PR stunt. 

Also, to quote D0GGEAUX - I want you to look directly at adam sandler and then look back at me and say the words "capitalism rewards creative innovation" with a straight face. 

[Serious Callers Only]

Sasha new 'topical' show.

One of the congresscriters on this clip is supposed to be (i didn't verify) the guy that was constantly yelling 'he lies' on the president Obama state of the union. Joke about how it's not rape if they're married too of course.

 

[Martell Spy]

Yes, Normal Republican Elites Are a Threat to Democracy

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/yes-normal-republican-elites-are-a-threat-to-democracy.html

Quote

The problem with this analysis is simple: “mainstream Democrats” have come to view the Republican Party as a threat to democracy because the Republican Party has come to (correctly) view democracy as a threat to itself. For this reason, the idea that the GOP is a “civic menace” is perfectly reconcilable with a commitment to “the ordinary give-and-take of democratic politics.” While many progressives want to make structural changes to the American political system to reduce the probability of the GOP (as currently constituted) holding power, those changes are all aimed at making our electoral institutions more democratic, not less.