All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Kevinroc]

So, Roy Moore won the Alabama Senate Republican Primary.

Never change, Alabama.

[Red Wolf]

Porcupine Butte on Pine Ridge?

Yup. Lakota owned and operated since 1983.

[Old Man Ollie 1962]

Yup. Lakota owned and operated since 1983.

Have you ever seen the Crazy Horse Memorial?

[Kal-El Summers]

So, Roy Moore won the Alabama Senate Republican Primary.

Never change, Alabama.

Yeah, that piece of shit was always going to win. Hoping we can somehow get Doug Jones elected in December to avoid having ol' fuckboy Moore embarrassing the state even more in the Senate.

[mojotastic]

It looks like women will soon be able to drive in Saudi Arabia, yay for that i guess.

[Red Wolf]

Have you ever seen the Crazy Horse Memorial?

oh yeah, a few times.

[numberthirty]

So much for buddy's "Deal Making" skills.

[numberthirty]

It looks like women will soon be able to drive in Saudi Arabia, yay for that i guess.

While it is certainly serious, some of those protest videos did put a smile on my face.

[mojotastic]

I am glad to announce that Canada has also put sanctions on Venezuela officials including To the Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro.

http://rabble.ca/news/2017/09/canadi...ke-trump-smile

The first week of the new Parliament was quite predictable -- until late Friday afternoon when, out of the blue, Global Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland announced sanctions on forty Venezuelans, including President Nicolas Maduro.

As the Global Affairs department explained the move, about two weeks ago Canada and the Trump government of the U.S. formed an "Association," the aim of which was to "take economic measures against Venezuela and persons responsible for the current situation in Venezuela." Canada is now following through on its pledge to the Trump administration. It has imposed sanctions similar to those the U.S. imposed a while ago.

Venezuela is an important target for Trump.

[mojotastic]

While it is certainly serious, some of those protest videos did put a smile on my face.

I guess, the reason why i dont sound that excited is because, well is saudi arabai, they are still attacking Shias in places like Qatif, and other minorities, while i think this is great the Saudi goverment must do a lot more.

[The Question]

Donald Trump is bloated. He's a soft, spoiled, pampered, fat president. I bet he couldn't do ten push-ups, the fat &%$#. The North Korean president is Trump's Asian twin in size and temperament. These two fat, disgusting megalomaniacs have the power to destroy this planet.

[InvincibleDom]

On the contrary, even if you could prove the motivations of whites during the Jim Crow/Civili Rights era, I don't think you can prove that the monuments carry the same meaning for contemporary Southerners, unless you can read minds.

I remember saying that I think Nazism might always be a potential threat to modern Germany, so draconian measures there can be justified. I don't think either the return of the Confederacy or Jim Crow will ever be a comparable threat, but YMMV. I don't remember anything about swastikas, so you'll have to resort to a quote if you want to discuss the matter.

FWIW, various pop-culture works do keep alive the idea that the swastika wasn't purely a Nazi symbol, not to mention various non-fictional essays on the subject. The other week I started reading Dennis Wheatley's occult thriller THE DEVIL RIDES OUT, and in an early chapter a character mentions the Asian provenance of the swastika. The book was written in 1934.

Your intimation that it matters what all contemporary pro-monument Southerners feel on the topic is kind of irrelevant. That they can draw other sentiments from their use aside from the insistence that we harken back to the days of fighting for slavery, treason and separation of the country does not mean that the symbolism is not still there for all to see. The issue is there appears to be no compromise on the matter and a total lack of empathy or concern about a legitimate feeling from the people who are upset about it. It should be clear these belong in a museum and not prominently displayed in public areas. Pro-Monument supporters clearly understand why the other side has an issue with the statues, everyone knows the history; they just do not care how the others feel about that part of Americanism or the symbolism now.

You are also completely lost on the swastika comment. Again for clarity. I would image there are some contemporary people alive today who have a different feeling on the symbol. I also understand that the symbol is prevalent in asian culture (I still saw it on various temples in Korea). What is important is that if we decided to place it on a monument in America, citing the asian cultural influence and other non-Nazi references; the ones who are negatively impacted by the symbol will make it clear what the problem is. Moreover, it is impossible to pretend to not know anything about the Nazi movement.

I propose you and your defense of the civil-war statues are intimating the same stance. Put your head in the sand, I don't care about the feelings of the other side so long as I can occasionally look at a symbol that has no real relevance today (if the statue was legitimately benign) but could clearly cause offense to people who had to suffer under the message it put out. Trying to muddy the waters with all the existential and lesser known symbology is an obvious attempt to belittle clear messaging to a group of people in a specific area of the world.

Our very constitution is full of language to protect the minority from the majority. Certain defenses and freedoms do not require group consent. Removing the statues of the losing generals and leaders of a failed rebellion against the US government such that current minorities are not reminded of a time when their forefathers were oppressed and enslaved by that very system (which still has active support today) would be a perfect example of something that should not come down to a vote. It is wrong; fundamentally from a constitutional perspective, moral and logical one. Come with a better argument.

[InvincibleDom]

I have now given one example of a correlation that I would find meaningful. I still find fault with any and all "factual" essays that rely only on circumstantial evidence.

What was it again? Statue placement in areas such that you can demonstrate it was directed toward the minority groups? How would you demonstrate that objectively? So the side to tear them down has to do more work than the people who are pretending their meaning is something else? One side can simply provide a hypothesis, not grounded in fact, while the other side has to become the Perry Mason of history... Would it matter that these symbols are ALSO in places they didn't want minorities to frequent or locations they didn't want them to feel equal? Funding of the statues would also sprinkle them in locations not dominated by the minorities, kind of like a symbol of where not to go? If your argument is founded on hypothesis as to why they were erected, I can also hypothesize too. You have to prove nothing while the counter has to prove everything.

So your standard of evidence is beyond all doubt (or close to that). I am always fascinated by people not frequently used to the legal system finding fault with circumstantial evidence. I am guessing this is an accurate assessment of you because you are using such terms like you have never been in a court or have no idea about their weight. Circumstantial evidence convicts an awful lot. That finger print on the knife... circumstantial evidence. That DNA... circumstantial evidence. Not accounting for your whereabouts or being in the area of the crime... circumstantial evidence. Bloody boot print... circumstantial evidence. Have enough and people go to jail. People go to jail only on these types of facts all the time.

You have motive and circumstantial evidence with not even eye witness testimony and guess what... conviction more often than not. If it is good enough for murder cases why do we need a higher standard of evidence for perceived racial inequality?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Mayor Describes ‘Near-Death Conditions’ In Puerto Rico’s San Juan

“Maria has left behind her a trail of devastation and a humanitarian crisis,” Carmen Yulín Cruz said. Sorry, Mayor Cruz, but the president is concerned with more important things at present, like hating on NFL players who kneel during the anthem. Meanwhile....

**********

Donald Trump’s Attempt At Using Usain Bolt To Slam NFL Players Spectacularly Backfires

“Please leave The Boss out of your politricks.” Sunkist Satan just won't give up on this, will he? Of course not.

**********

Donald Trump Deleted Some Embarrassing Tweets After Alabama Loss

The president wiped his messages in support of incumbent Luther Strange. Heh! That's funny!

**********

GOP Rep. Mark Walker Calls Female Colleagues ‘Eye Candy’ At Press Event

He later tells CNN he regrets his “flippant remark.” Oh, WBEEEEEE....

**********

Jeff Sessions Defends Trump’s Right To Speak Out Against Free Speech

“The president has free speech rights too,” the attorney general said of Trump’s condemnation of NFL players who protest. This is what the hatchetmen of dictators say.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, 2015, as well as 2016, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" published profiles of Phyllis Schlafly, based on her inclusion on the 2012 Republican National Committee, helping write the GOP Party Platform, and several other platform committee slots in the decades prior to that. Schlafly, the founder of the Eagle Forum who ran for Congress way back in 1952, has been considered a radical conservative conspiracy nut since the Eisenhower Administration. Schlafly’s also been a proud anti-feminist for decades, having served as the opposite number to Gloria Steinem to prevent the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and not only believes women’s place is in the home (even though Schafly had a nanny raise her kids while she was politically active), but has given speeches where she argues there’s not even such a thing as marital rape. She’s also passionate about conspiracy theories like the secret Bilderberg Group, buys into the John Birch Society’s theories about fluoridated water, and the threat of a North American Union. Schafly argued against the GOP’s 2012 “autopsy” that suggested they find a way to attract minority voters, scoffing and saying that they should “focus on whites”. Phyllis also has been a staunch opponent of LGBT rights through the years, which is a shame considering one of her six children is gay. Another of her six children is Andrew Schlafly, the fanatically wacky creator of Conservapedia, the version of Wikipedia that exists for conservatives who reject facts and sources and instead have rewritten a version of reality on it that supports their agenda. Schlafly passed away in 2016 at the age of 92, and was eulogized by Donald Trump in the midst of his presidential campaign, whose nicest thought about Phyllis was that she liked HIM, which is kind of what her family should have expected when they asked an egomaniac to eulogize her. Since Phyllis has shuffled off the mortal coil, we'll retire her CSGOPOTD profile at time and go ahead and take a look at a different wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 608-25, since this was established in July 2014.)


Bill Schuette

Welcome to the 608th original profile presented by “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day”, where we’re going to be talking about Bill Schuette, Michigan's Attorney General since 2010, twice being elected now with just 52% of the vote, and believe it or not, back in 1984, he won office to represent Michigan's 10th Congressional District in Congress, winning three terms before getting beat in attempt to unseat legendary U.S. Senator Carl Levin. In those six years in office, Bill Schuette managed to sponsor 11 bills, and exactly zero of them passed. That's actually understating his ineffective time as a legislator... he even never got a bill out of committee in six years. After serving a few years as Michigan's Agricultural Commissioner, Schuette had an eight year run as a Michigan State Senator from 1994-2002. Schuette was appointed to serve as a judge frim 2002-2009, bringing us to his time as Michigan AG.

Schuette is known to be a fierce opponent of marijuana legalization, even for medical use, but his record as Michigan Attorney General on LGBT rights is perhaps his most disappointing crusade. He not only fought against marriage equality up until the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, but Schuette has even been the target of lawsuits by the ACLU in gay adoption cases as well. And if you think Schuette would be any better on women's rights, guess again, as he sued two abortion clinics over what he claimed were improper medical records disposal that opted to just close rather than go to court... and celebrated their closure.

Schuette is now planning on running for Governor of Michigan in 2018 to replace utter failure, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder. Snyder's legacy as the Governor who orchestrated the poisoning of the water supply of Flint, Michigan due to his sheer incompetence and desire to "save money" will, of course, be linked to Schuette, since Schuette was nice enough to not press charges against anyone in the administration, and just appointed a special prosecutor... who just so happens to be one of the biggest donors to Rick Snyder's political campaigns. Great work, Bill. I'm sure you'll be getting all the votes from Flint. Well, the ones the campaign of voter suppression by you and other Michigan Republicans won't prevent from being cast.

It's already going fabulously, with Schuette receiving an endorsement from future disgraced president and current disgrace Donald Trump on social media, where wouldn't you know it, Trump misspelled Schuette's name. We're going to keep tabs on Schuette during the coming campaign, and predict that he probably won't be campaigning much in Flint.