U.S. Politics- This Is Us, Basically Fascists

[Jace, Extat]

Weird quote feature, but I was inspired to make this latest thread -instead of giving someone else a chance- by @James Arryn summing some nameless outrage in the late installment by concluding "Reality's screenwriters should have been fired." 

Now I love my man @James Arryn but this is a thing I've seen a disturbing amount of times since our Orange Ruler came to power. The joking about the unreal feeling nature of our current existence by decrying the seeming absurdity of fact VS former fiction. It's a joke, of course. But it's also a symptom, manifestation of the inability to reckon with the despairable depths of depravity to which our masters will sink.

It is not in anger that I suggest you 'wake up' but rather a weary empathy. There is no bottom to the miserable lake in which we live, it will only get deeper until one day all around us the signs of a faint remembered life disappear into the mists of authoritarianism. 

In other words, JA. You attempt to jest, but it's all down hill from here.

[Serious Callers Only]

https://www.newsweek.com/us-historians-are-fighting-stop-ice-erasing-records-agencys-treatment-1049158

 

In a letter addressed to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which instructs federal agencies on how to maintain their records, the American Historical Association has demanded that the regulatory body shut down any "threats to the preservation of records relating to the treatment of immigrants by the U.S. Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)."

The letter, signed by AHA Executive Director James Grossman, comes after it was revealed that ICE had sought permission from NARA to begin destroying years' worth of data, including information on reports of sexual abuse, solitary confinement and in-custody deaths.

[Serious Callers Only]

Also

 

[Jace, Extat]

 

27 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Are most religions not opposed to liberal principles?
What makes you so convinced that liberals don't oppose all religious fundamentalisms? When liberals fight for abortion or women's rights, don't they do so against all religious fundamentalists at the same time?
Have you ever heard a liberal say that religious fundamentalism is only bad when practiced by Christians? 

 

Yeah, but most "liberals" -to use as broad a brush as possible I guess- advocate equal treatment of folks regardless of religion, and that's advocacy of non-white religions. 'Cause the people making that argument are too stupid to hold two ideas in their snowflake little heads at once.

 

"Your religious beliefs shouldn't influence a woman's right to healthcare."+ "You shouldn't treat people as subhuman because of their religion"= "Kill Christians, Allahua Akbar!!!!"

-Conservative Math

[SweetPea]

8 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well my oh my, aren’t we all “fair and balanced” and stuff.

You are free of course to criticize the left, and I’m free to criticize your criticisms as being a bunch of flamin’ nonsense. And they typically smack of the usual bullshit conservative grievance that has little basis in logic or fact and usually is just grasping for straws.

Your last attempt here to show how crazy the left is was pretty lame for reasons that were explained by others and I on this board. There is nothing particularly insidious about an editorial board pulling an opinion piece that they find later to have patently factual errors in it. But, you made a leap in logic that it was in order to demonstrate how crazy the left is. That was an epic fail on your part. And with arguments like that, there is no particular reason for anyone to take your “points” even remotely seriously.

Your arguments come of as someone extremely desperate to show the American left is as bad as the American right. And you know, that doesn’t cut it. The American right is seriously screwed up and your last argument comes off as a typical goofball conservative grievance. While that kind of argument might play well with the Rush Limbaugh crowd, people with half a brain will see right through that bullshit.

Oh my, is this even possible?

You're arguing a strawman... 

Where did you get it from that I'm trying to prove how crazy the left is? I didn't even mention the left vs. right thing until others dragged  it into the conversation.

Stop being so dishonest, please.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, SweetPea said:

Oh my, is this even possible?

You're arguing a strawman... 

Where did you get it from that I'm trying to prove how crazy the left is? I didn't even mention the left vs. right thing until others dragged  it into the conversation.

Stop being so dishonest, please.

It’s often the case that it takes a bullshitter to know a bullshitter.

Didn’t you fact write as follows:

Quote

I find it hilarious that people cry "whataboutism!" whenever I dare criticize the left, but nobody seems to mind when you come out with a textbook example of it like this.

Oh so your not criticizing the left? You're just making general observations. Is that the story now, is it?

[Jace, Extat]

22 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

kind of my point.  That's why I didn't mention murder, manslaughter, grand theft, larceny, etc.  Not sure why the media is allowing 45 and co to control the narrative but then they've been allowing it from the get go.  

Unless you wanna be accused of hysteria by the evil men you can't call them evil. 

Enableism 101

[DMC]

2 hours ago, James Arryn said:

Trump’s latest gem: Americans need photo ID to buy groceries. Seriously. 

Reality’s screenwriters should have been fired a long time ago. 

Let's take a look at what Trump said:

Quote

“You know, if you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID. You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture,” Trump said at Tuesday night’s Tampa, Fla., rally to drum up support for GOP Rep. Ron DeSantis’ gubernatorial bid.

He was – in the moment – throwing his support behind tougher ID requirements for voters.

“Only American citizens should vote in American elections. The time has come for voter ID like everything else,” Trump said.

I don't gather from that a push to make photo ID a requirement to buy groceries.  Rather, he's using groceries to gin up support for Voter ID laws, which is insidious in itself - but that's not how it's described.  Trump doesn't care if you have ID to buy groceries - and from Walmart to the turtles all the way down, neither do the grocers.  It's an (eminently stupid) appeal to agree with voter ID laws.  And, it's decidedly not a "gem" to make people provide ID to buy groceries. 

There's no reason to take Trump's statements out of context when his in-context statements are rife for ridicule and possible prosecution.

[LongRider]

1 hour ago, Triskjavikson said:

There's a good reminder here that whether Cohen had that Prague meeting after all is still very much on the table in the investigation and might be one of the biggest gets of all for Mueller.  

 Very interesting, thanks for posting. 

[James Arryn]

35 minutes ago, DMC said:

Let's take a look at what Trump said:

I don't gather from that a push to make photo ID a requirement to buy groceries.  Rather, he's using groceries to gin up support for Voter ID laws, which is insidious in itself - but that's not how it's described.  Trump doesn't care if you have ID to buy groceries - and from Walmart to the turtles all the way down, neither do the grocers.  It's an (eminently stupid) appeal to agree with voter ID laws.  And, it's decidedly not a "gem" to make people provide ID to buy groceries. 

There's no reason to take Trump's statements out of context when his in-context statements are rife for ridicule and possible prosecution.

Possibly I wasn’t clear. I was not suggesting he was proposing new laws, but rather that he was falsely claiming this was already the state of affairs. Which is both another example of his distorted view, but also probably suggests he’s never set foot in a grocery store. 

Edit: I guess I can maybe see how you misread me, but i’d prefer you make sure before accusing me of deception.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

Which is both another example of his distorted view, but also probably suggests he’s never set foot in a grocery store. 

Oh, well yeah of course.  Basically impossible to argue against that.  Makes his love for fast food weird.  Almost like voyeurism.

[The Anti-Targ]

57 minutes ago, DMC said:

Let's take a look at what Trump said:

57 minutes ago, DMC said:

“You know, if you go out and you want to buy groceries, you need a picture on a card, you need ID. You go out and you want to buy anything, you need ID and you need your picture,” Trump said at Tuesday night’s Tampa, Fla., rally to drum up support for GOP Rep. Ron DeSantis’ gubernatorial bid.

He was – in the moment – throwing his support behind tougher ID requirements for voters.

“Only American citizens should vote in American elections. The time has come for voter ID like everything else,” Trump said.

 

I assume that's an actual prepared speech? Or is this him going off script. If it's part of his prepared speech then it suggests more Republicans than just Donald have never set foot in a grocery store. Or they are deliberately writing bullshit in his speeches.

I guess the counter argument is that voting is theoretically as much of a constitutional right as gun ownership. And to be constitutionally consistent the right should be arguing that no ID should be required to either buy a gun or to vote. So the question is, given Republicans keep winning elections, why are these people more worried about mass voter fraud than they are about mass shootings?

 

 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I assume that's an actual prepared speech? Or is this him going off script. If it's part of his prepared speech then it suggests more Republicans than just Donald have never set foot in a grocery store. Or they are deliberately writing bullshit in his speeches.

I guess the counter argument is that voting is theoretically as much of a constitutional right as gun ownership. And to be constitutionally consistent the right should be arguing that no ID should be required to either buy a gun or to vote. So the question is, given Republicans keep winning elections, why are these people more worried about mass voter fraud than they are about mass shootings?

Not sure how you shoehorned guns into the discussion, but OK.  Easily, the most effective way states execute voter suppression is by incarceration - and then subsequently taking away voting rights from non-violent offenders that are deemed "ex-cons."  This provides states run by the GOP - i.e. the 26 states with unified GOP gov't - with the most effective way to purge undesirables from the rolls.  But the way you're describing it makes no sense, and is not how it is executed.

[Altherion]

46 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I guess the counter argument is that voting is theoretically as much of a constitutional right as gun ownership.

Interestingly enough, this does not appear to be the case. The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and that's that, but the right to vote is a patchwork of amendments. It cannot be restricted based on race or gender or age (except the minimum of 18) or non-payment of taxes, but as long as the government stays clear of this patchwork and does not violate any other Constitutional text (e.g. the Equal Protection Clause), it can restrict voting in a way that it cannot do with the right to bear arms.

[DMC]

17 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Interestingly enough, this does not appear to be the case. The Constitution says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed and that's that, but the right to vote is a patchwork of amendments. It cannot be restricted based on race or gender or age (except the minimum of 18) or non-payment of taxes, but as long as the government stays clear of this patchwork and does not violate any other Constitutional text (e.g. the Equal Protection Clause), it can restrict voting in a way that it cannot do with the right to bear arms.

This is perhaps the dumbest thing you have ever asserted.  The right to "bear arms" has one amendment.  The right to vote has at least three amendments:

Quote

FIFTEENTH:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

Quote

NINETEENTH:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Quote

TWENTY-SIXTH:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[2]

You said "as long as the government stays clear of this patchwork and does not violate any other Constitutional text (e.g. the Equal Protection Clause), it can restrict voting in a way that it cannot do with the right to bear arms."  This is patently unfounded.  The amendments to the constitution have exactly one vague thing to say about guns.  In contrast, they have all of the above about voting.  Feel free to challenge me with The Federalist.  Because you can't.  They say nothing about guns and a lot about voting.  In conclusion, you're full of shit.

[SweetPea]

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

It’s often the case that it takes a bullshitter to know a bullshitter.

Didn’t you fact write as follows:

Oh so your not criticizing the left? You're just making general observations. Is that the story now, is it?

First of all, what I said is not even close to "trying to prove how crazy the left is".

Second, I wasn't even talking about this instance, I was referring to how people have thrown 'whataboutism!' at me whenever I criticized the left, but now they did not seemed bothered at all when someone else was doing it.

So yeah, strawman.

33 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is patently unfounded.  The amendments to the constitution have exactly one vague thing to say about guns.  In contrast, they have all of the above about voting.

Between the two statements that "the right to do X shall not be denied" and "the right to do X shall not be denied on account of XYZ", the first one is the stronger. You may be right overall, but this is a bad argument.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, SweetPea said:

You may be right overall, but this is a bad argument.

Why?

[SweetPea]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Why?

Because to say that "the right to do X shall not be denied" means it cannot be denied for any reason. But "the right to do X shall not be denied on account of XYZ" implies it can be denied for reasons other than XYZ.
 

Again, I'm not familiar with the details of the Constitution so you might be correct that voting rights have more protection in practice, but I think there was a logical error in your argument as to why that is the case.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, SweetPea said:

Because to say that "the right to do X shall not be denied" means it cannot be denied for any reason. But "the right to do X shall not be denied on account of XYZ" implies it can be denied for reasons other than XYZ.
 

Again, I'm not familiar with the details of the Constitution so you might be correct that voting rights have more protection in practice, but I think there was a logical error in your argument as to why that is the case.

You need to provide context to "XYZ."  Otherwise, I honestly don't know what you're arguing.  Not trying to be a dick, just don't understand what you're saying.

[SweetPea]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

You need to provide context to "XYZ."  Otherwise, I honestly don't know what you're arguing.  Not trying to be a dick, just don't understand what you're saying.

Let's go with race, sex, age, but it doesn't matter, really. The point is that in one instance you are generally forbidding the denial of rights, for any reason, while in the other instance you are forbidding the denial of rights, but only if it happens based on the three specified reasons. This is just semantics, really, but from what I hear, interpreting the words of the Constitution correctly is a big deal in the US.