All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Xheight]

After a few of the worst offenders lose their court cases the rest will learn to speak more responsibly. No one is limiting anyone's ability to speak, it's just making them take responsibility for what they say. As it should be.

As if that will exist only in among the twitterati. Privatizing repression is just the latest form of totalitarian impulse. If the DSA can have people in office why not Oath Keepers?

[Kirby101]

I don't disagree that Statues and the Civil War has been taken up as cover for ideology by some but let us be clear how that cover works and realize that it is not total in what a symbol can mean in its multivalent property. People did actually die heroically, tragically and without the culpability you imply in your absolutist quest to link ideas to reality. It is not ignorance about the causes of the Civil War that created nuanced history of that conflict just as Germans were not Nazis but were drawn into a struggle that was not entirely of their choosing.

And the "Noble Cause" and "It's Heritage, not Racism" rears it's ugly head.
Please stop being wrong!

[The Cool Thatguy]

Strawman argument - Struggles like wars can not be boiled down to single ideological beliefs and stand on that alone. That is the opposite of realism but rather idealism. To which your and others attempt to hang some sort of law on certain objective facts conflates actions, certain actions with entire structures and again seems to disguise the intent here, and like so many hate laws, are not about objective action and harm but about punishing thought and ideas.

I don't disagree that Statues and the Civil War has been taken up as cover for ideology by some but let us be clear how that cover works and realize that it is not total in what a symbol can mean in its multivalent property. People did actually die heroically, tragically and without the culpability you imply in your absolutist quest to link ideas to reality. It is not ignorance about the causes of the Civil War that created nuanced history of that conflict just as Germans were not Nazis but were drawn into a struggle that was not entirely of their choosing..

Whether or not they were willing, those Germans were still accomplices to genocide, so no statues for them.

And the same should be true of those who fought to defend slavery.

"Those simple hayseeds" doesn't work, especially given that ignorance of the law is no excuse

[thwhtGuardian]

As if that will exist only in among the twitterati. Privatizing repression is just the latest form of totalitarian impulse. If the DSA can have people in office why not Oath Keepers?

You say some crazy stuff...but this takes the cake. One one hand you have the DSA which is just a political group and on the other you have a group that's committed acts of actual terrorism and murder on American soil.

But sure, both sides are the same.

[thwhtGuardian]

As I've said before, laws implemented today in the United States would have a different context than laws implemented in Germany given its history of denazification, as well as a legal tradition dating back well before the Nazis that prioritizes free speech less than the US does.

The ridiculous efforts to prosecute comedians for mocking world leaders, or legal decisions that news reports of a conviction for double-murder be blocked from search engine results are examples of things that occur in a country without a more robust free speech tradition. It would likely be exploited in different ways in the United States if Trump's next Attorney General gets new statutory authority to go after critics.

None of which is dangerous as you suggested a law banning Holocaust denial would be...and your second "point" ? That's just a slippery slope with out any actual support...you can see that right?

[Jack Dracula]

Unless the Federal level(which, obviously, is not a "Supreme Court..."-level judge...) judges appointed by Trump have somehow become a complete non-issue?

That article is literally the political equivalent of saying "I Meant To Do That..."

Again...

Having that sort of a move gamed out to at least "Plan D..." is the minimum that should be happening before even seriously considering something like what you have suggested.

So far Trumps appointees to the lower courts haven’t been as much of a thorn in Democrats side as you’d imagine and No fillibuster at that level has allowed Biden to fill seats at a record pace.

[Xheight]

In case anyone missed the ground swell that is going on around the filibuster issue Politico had this mind blowing item on the Save the Steal push back against election integrity.

TOP POLITICAL STORY OF THE DAY — President JOE BIDEN is heading to Georgia, “the belly of the beast” of voter suppression, to tackle the issue head on. His speech on Tuesday is “expected to not only echo the themes of his address on the anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection but to expand on his endorsement of a filibuster carveout to pass voting rights legislation in the Senate,” Laura Barrón-López and Christopher Cadelago preview.

QUOTE OF THE DAY — From that same article, here’s House Majority Whip JIM CLYBURN (D-S.C.) aiming his fire at Sen. JOE MANCHIN (D-W.Va.) for arguing that any vote on the matter must be bipartisan:

“I am, as you know, a Black person , descended of people who were given the vote by the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 15th amendment was not a bipartisan vote, it was a single party vote that gave Black people the right to vote. Manchin and others need to stop saying that because that gives me great pain for somebody to imply that the 15th Amendment of the United States Constitution is not legitimate because it did not have bipartisan buy-in.”

For those following my conversations with Mets you will note that Georgia is indeed the center these days of Voter fraud questions and the use of registration data to create unfalsifiable legal status of ballots submitted by non traditional means. That people have been named and large money evidenced in swinging the vote in 2020 has indeed focused Democrats on constructing a counter narrative to hold on to what Covid allowed. Blanketing it all in some sort of Constitutional cover and its "heroes" is critical to swaying the base. Those with a more critical eye have to wonder what is the point of the willful blindness to objective standards, rights for all equally, and the assumption of subjective ones as protected classes.

Isn't Clyburn employing the same subjective knowledge that the shooters of Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man, in Georgia who claimed or cop throughout the country the subjective fear and danger of facing a potential criminal? Right law, wrong argument. Right law because the 15th did represent a consensus of the country ideologically if not politically, it was an amendment not a simple law as will subject to basic majority. Rather than break down partisanship as a front and speak to shared values he is speaking to something else that is dubious and invites skepticism. As a functionary of a political machine that bases its power on racial bias I suppose he not blind but sees what advantage is.

[Xheight]

You say some crazy stuff...but this takes the cake. One one hand you have the DSA which is just a political group and on the other you have a group that's committed acts of actual terrorism and murder on American soil.

But sure, both sides are the same.

The circularity of your reasoning might play in some polisci class but not in reality. People commit crimes not organizations, it is foundational to our understanding of law. I am not for purging DSA members but if you want ex-felon convicts to vote what is your standard here. Calling something terrorist doesn't make it objectively so as Ted Cruz so painful realized of late. Criminalizing the Muslim Brotherhood worked out how well in history? If someone says yes I am a supporter of group x and still gets elected then people have decided have they not or are you seeking to prevent people from having certain choices? We aren't all suburban wine moms you know. There are people in this country like my family who had parts of their family killed by communists and get mad at socialism still, and it is a subjective argument i know but that seems to hold more value than objective reasoning for some.

[Jack Dracula]

Take a moment...

Now, seriously consider how many folks Trump could have gone after because they could not actually prove the existence of a tape of whatever someone made up as far as Trump/Hotel Room/Russian Prostitutes.

What you are discussing would have given an already incredibly "Sue Happy..." President a massive stick to take to a whole bunch of people.

Which is just not a smart move.

No matter what the good that someone suspects that it could do.

Inaction due to fear of possible unintended consequences while ignoring the existent worsening danger is irrational.
That is why slippery-slope arguments are often wrong. If inaction will result in a worsening situation, taking action which may result in a remedy is the only rational decision.
Again, we have the benefit of history to inform us of potential consequences and the capability to figure out a remedy.

[JB]

It seems to be running through both chambers. I suspect that one or more members of Congress were carriers and exposed the others to it.

AOC was partying in Miami without a mask then tested positive when she returned home.

[Jack Dracula]

As I've said before, laws implemented today in the United States would have a different context than laws implemented in Germany given its history of denazification, as well as a legal tradition dating back well before the Nazis that prioritizes free speech less than the US does.

The ridiculous efforts to prosecute comedians for mocking world leaders, or legal decisions that news reports of a conviction for double-murder be blocked from search engine results are examples of things that occur in a country without a more robust free speech tradition. It would likely be exploited in different ways in the United States if Trump's next Attorney General gets new statutory authority to go after critics.

The fact that someone like Trump can misuse his status and employ lies to gain power and abuse the office in that way indicates the system is broken and need’s fixing. Fix the system and your fears of abuse aren’t as relevant.

[thwhtGuardian]

The circularity of your reasoning might play in some polisci class but not in reality. People commit crimes not organizations, it is foundational to our understanding of law. I am not for purging DSA members but if you want ex-felon convicts to vote what is your standard here. Calling something terrorist doesn't make it objectively so as Ted Cruz so painful realized of late. Criminalizing the Muslim Brotherhood worked out how well in history? If someone says yes I am a supporter of group x and still gets elected then people have decided have they not or are you seeking to prevent people from having certain choices? We aren't all suburban wine moms you know. There are people in this country like my family who had parts of their family killed by communists and get mad at socialism still, and it is a subjective argument i know but that seems to hold more value than objective reasoning for some.

...The Oathbreakers are objectively terrorists though, this isn't a gray area. And the moment you use any objective reasoning is the day I eat my hat.

[Xheight]

Inaction due to fear of possible unintended consequences while ignoring the existent worsening danger is irrational.
That is why slippery-slope arguments are often wrong. If inaction will result in a worsening situation, taking action which may result in a remedy is the only rational decision.
Again, we have the benefit of history to inform us of potential consequences and the capability to figure out a remedy.

Specious, I don't see him calling for inaction but correct action which our binary impulses of law or no law are perhaps the problem. Argument and discourse is what enlightened people believe changes thinking and that the Democrats have reached the limits of such is bringing out some very dangerous consequences that are not theory. While I don't agree with the thesis of elites' role “pernicious polarization,” has a danger all to its own https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ction-violence

[Xheight]

...The Oathbreakers are objectively terrorists though, this isn't a gray area. And the moment you use any objective reasoning is the day I eat my hat.

calling it so does not make it true. Logically all you can say is that some have committed acts that are by law defined as terrorism.

[thwhtGuardian]

calling it so does not make it true.

This is that lack of objective thought I mentioned.