All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!(Part II)

[Ragged Maw]

I was on another forum and had someone, a 'concerned citizen' who dislikes the idea of confronting - and punching, if need be - Nazis where they gather, tell me that if we keep provoking neo-Nazis and punching them when they spout their garbage, eventually, one of them will snap and throw acid in our faces or take us to their murder dungeon and torture us to death.



Am...am I crazy, or is "You might wind up in a murder dungeon" like...the single WORST reason to not confront bigots where they gather...? Is that not just the most...cowardly **** you have ever seen?

"Welp, if you keep fighting for equality, eventually, Garuda will descend from the heavens and devour you alive. So you better stop making a ruckus, lefties...!"

LOL. I mean, seriously...

Depends on whether there's a palpable risk of a feedback loop of escalating aggression. And figuring that out requires gleaning the respective states of mind of whatever opposing parties are involved.

[PwrdOn]

Depends on whether there's a palpable risk of a feedback loop of escalating aggression. And figuring that out requires gleaning the respective states of mind of whatever opposing parties are involved.

Well regardless of whether you think your side has the advantage in a confrontation, creating an atmosphere where violence is an acceptable means of settling poiltical disputes inevitably leads to the kind of chaos that produces authoritarian dictators. At the end of the day, punching fascists will just give them exactly what they want, no matter how satisfying it may feel at first.

[Mister Mets]

I've heard of Douglas Ernst's blog given that he relentlessly stalked Dan Slott.

He's also a pizzagate believer.

https://douglasernst.blog/2016/11/24...and-deceivers/

His more recent comments are generally a defense of comicsgate.

I did notice one tendency he had to consistently go after the left and the center for going too far without actually saying what he wants.

[Mister Mets]

Well regardless of whether you think your side has the advantage in a confrontation, creating an atmosphere where violence is an acceptable means of settling poiltical disputes inevitably leads to the kind of chaos that produces authoritarian dictators. At the end of the day, punching fascists will just give them exactly what they want, no matter how satisfying it may feel at first.

There is also the problem that people willing to use violence to settle disputes might not be the best at determining what views are so extreme as to merit violence.

That's a possibility. That said, I can't see them tipping any of their hand to say what you mentioned. Leaves an opening for no good reason that the folks that they are investigating could run with.

The Ronan Farrow component was the wrinkle.

The picture looks one way when it's just Carr's statement after Thursday night. It starts to get more interesting once that pair of comments from Farrow happen.

If it's just a picture that looks that one way, why would Farrow feel the need to mention any of that?

We'll find out soon enough. Something this big would definitely be part of Mueller's report if there is substantial evidence for it.

There’s Nothing Wrong With Open Borders

Man, the commentators don't like it.

And that's people with New York Times accounts, who tend to be far to the left of the yahoo comments guys.

[Tendrin]

He's also a pizzagate believer.

https://douglasernst.blog/2016/11/24...and-deceivers/

His more recent comments are generally a defense of comicsgate.

I did notice one tendency he had to consistently go after the left and the center for going too far without actually saying what he wants.

He's a comicsgate precursor, an early manifestation of a malignancy in the fandom.

[Tendrin]

Josh Marshall on the Mueller statement about the Buzzfeed article.

The first thing to note here is that I don’t think the Mueller office has ever issued a statement like this. They hardly ever say anything at all beyond terse and procedural statements about court cases. I cannot recollect any other time when they’ve publicly disputed a story. If it’s happened once or twice, it’s extremely rare.
The other point to note is that this is not a blanket refutation of the story. The statement is carefully worded and disputes “description[s] of specific statements” and the “characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office.” It’s possible to interpret this as disputing specific subsidiary points in the story, while leaving the central claims intact. But that seems like a stretch.

[aja_christopher]

Josh Marshall on the Mueller statement about the Buzzfeed article.

Important to note that Cohen hasn't given a denial but instead seems to be more concerned for the safety of his family after this "leak".

My guess is that it's either a false plant to sow confusion or intelligence agents are trying to keep the pressure on Trump by passing on relevant info to media sources in secret at selected intervals -- there were a lot of these unnofficial "leaks" during the start of the Trump administration so it's notable that this is just continuing said pattern in letting Trump know that he's being monitored and that the "feds" already know the whole truth.

Ultimately, this is all just speculation regardless and it's better that no official action is taken until more credible evidence is gathered.

[Tendrin]

Important to note that Cohen hasn't given a denial but instead seems to be more concerned for the safety of his family after this "leak".

My guess is that it's either a false plant to sow confusion or intelligence agents are trying to keep the pressure on Trump by passing on relevant info to media sources in secret at selected intervals -- there were a lot of these unnofficial "leaks" during the start of the Trump administration so it's notable that this is just continuing said pattern in letting Trump know that he's being monitored and that the "feds" already know the whole truth.

Ultimately, this is all just speculation regardless and it's better that no official action is taken until more credible evidence is gathered.

And who knows if Barr will even allow the publication of the report.

[Tami]

Trump White House reportedly sought to put Pelosi ‘in her place’

One of the most striking aspects of Donald Trump’s petty decision to cancel House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Afghanistan is the degree to which it was lacking in any sense of proportionality. The president and his team were bothered that the California Democrat had raised security concerns about the upcoming State of the Union address.

In response, Trump decided to scrap a long-planned secret trip in which congressional leaders – including the chairs of the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees – who were set to visit with American troops stationed abroad, while receiving briefings on the status of an ongoing war.

It’s hard to imagine any fair-minded observer making the case that these are two comparable.

So why did this happen? According to a striking New York Times report, the West Wing wanted to put Pelosi “in her place.”

White House officials – including Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff – had been irked by Ms. Pelosi’s invocation of security concerns as her premise for urging Mr. Trump to move his speech, and sought to put her in her place after she had emphasized that she represented a coequal branch in governing, according to aides who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions.

Depriving Ms. Pelosi of an aircraft was the easiest way to remind her, they said. So Mr. Trump made a play for dominance and one-upmanship…. White House aides were tickled by the move, even as some acknowledged that Republican House members might fear for their own trips going forward.

[PaulBullion]

That's a possibility. That said, I can't see them tipping any of their hand to say what you mentioned. Leaves an opening for no good reason that the folks that they are investigating could run with.

The Ronan Farrow component was the wrinkle.

The picture looks one way when it's just Carr's statement after Thursday night. It starts to get more interesting once that pair of comments from Farrow happen.

If it's just a picture that looks that one way, why would Farrow feel the need to mention any of that?

This is as good a theory of any I have seen:

Thread

[PaulBullion]

Jeff Merkley requests FBI perjury investigation into Kirstjen Nielsen

I really hope not to see another administration this crooked in my lifetime.

[Robotman]

Jeff Merkley requests FBI perjury investigation into Kirstjen Nielsen

I really hope not to see another administration this crooked in my lifetime.

That would be fantastic if they can nail her for that.

[worstblogever]

Nancy Pelosi Cancels Afghanistan Trip After Accusing Trump Of Leaking Travel Plans

The House speaker cited “the grave threats caused by the President’s action.” Trump put the safety of Speaker Pelosi and her delegation at risk just so he could get back at her for suggesting he cancel his State of the Union speech. Talk about petty as hell.

That's some terrible headline writing. She ACCUSES him of doing it? He did in in plain view on Twitter.

[Jack Dracula]

Well regardless of whether you think your side has the advantage in a confrontation, creating an atmosphere where violence is an acceptable means of settling poiltical disputes inevitably leads to the kind of chaos that produces authoritarian dictators. At the end of the day, punching fascists will just give them exactly what they want, no matter how satisfying it may feel at first.

I agree/. At the end of the day punching someone in the face accomplishes nothing to change their attitudes or ideas. It only galvanizes their resolve and convictions and stokes their anger. You need to attack their ideas and make them see the errors in their beliefs to effect actual change.

[PaulBullion]

I agree/. At the end of the day punching someone in the face accomplishes nothing to change their attitudes or ideas. It only galvanizes their resolve and convictions and stokes their anger. You need to attack their ideas and make them see the errors in their beliefs to effect actual change.

Depends. Keep in mind that the allure of the alt-right is based on masculinity. I think few things made them less attractive to loners on the internet than Spencer getting punched, and that one guy trying to tear up the sign and failing.