EPTI suspect that's how you get white antifa yelling 'white supremacists' at black and Asian conservatives. The conservatives at that particular protest kept asking "who are you against? Who are you against? We are not racist, we are not for the KKK or fascism, we don't even like Trump. What are you here for?" But no reply, just more chanting of anti-fascism, anti-KKK, anti-white-supremacy, etc. Finally, you did get "Trump, Trump." and "Build the wall" as counter chants due to the ridiculous nature of it all. (Bemused and baffled expressions all around, one started pretending to mosh to the anti-fa chants.) People may be giving up on dialogue, but it's not going to be the way forward to anything but more violence.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6828
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
Falling
Canada11582 Posts
I suspect that's how you get white antifa yelling 'white supremacists' at black and Asian conservatives. The conservatives at that particular protest kept asking "who are you against? Who are you against? We are not racist, we are not for the KKK or fascism, we don't even like Trump. What are you here for?" But no reply, just more chanting of anti-fascism, anti-KKK, anti-white-supremacy, etc. Finally, you did get "Trump, Trump." and "Build the wall" as counter chants due to the ridiculous nature of it all. (Bemused and baffled expressions all around, one started pretending to mosh to the anti-fa chants.) People may be giving up on dialogue, but it's not going to be the way forward to anything but more violence. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:32 Plansix wrote: I look forward to the limiting of the executive branch so congress is finally forced to do things again. Besides whine about executive power. This will help determine if Gorsuch is good or great. Is he also willing to roll back the power of the courts? Undoing the expansion of executive power is only one part of it. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:32 Falling wrote: Talking of Milo is tiring certainly, but I continue to maintain it is not just Milo that's getting the brunt end of this. If the feelings of Plansix's friends (though not Plansix himself) are indicative of even a plurality of the progressive wing, that's trouble. Because if you believe that one side is not worth debating, then you can't actually determine whether the people you are protesting or rioting against are pro what you are anti. I suspect that's how you get white antifa yelling 'white supremacists' at black and Asian conservatives. The conservatives at that particular protest kept asking "what are you against? We are not racist, we are not for the KKK or fascism, we don't even like Trump. What are you here for?" But no reply, just more chanting of anti-fascism, anti-KKK, anti-white-supremacy, etc. Finally, you did get "Trump, Trump." and "Build the wall" as counter chants due to the ridiculous nature of it all. (Bemused and baffled expressions all around, one started pretending to mosh to the anti-fa chants.) People may be giving up on dialogue, but it's not going to be the way forward to anything but more violence. I agree that it is trouble and a problem, but I don't see a solution until leadership finds a way forward. It is up to institutions to provide a feeling of stability. Colleges, states and other places of power need to show their students and citizens they give a shit. If they want to have a debate on free speech, debate if Milo's talks are worth while and productive among the students. One of the guys I follow for video games coverage works in New York City and there are literally skin heads out there every day yelling at him on the way to work. This is a new thing since the election and he has no idea why they are there. The dude is black and he says it isn't doing great things for his feeling of safety. He is a progressive, educated guy. But he understands why people are leaning in to violence. And I get where he is coming from. I've been alive for nearly 40 years and I've never seen shit like this. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:32 Falling wrote: Talking of Milo is tiring certainly, but I continue to maintain it is not just Milo that's getting the brunt end of this. If the feelings of Plansix's friends (though not Plansix himself) are indicative of even a plurality of the progressive wing, that's trouble. Because if you believe that one side is not worth debating, then you can't actually determine whether the people you are protesting or rioting against are pro what you are anti. I suspect that's how you get white antifa yelling 'white supremacists' at black and Asian conservatives. The conservatives at that particular protest kept asking "who are you against? Who are you against? We are not racist, we are not for the KKK or fascism, we don't even like Trump. What are you here for?" But no reply, just more chanting of anti-fascism, anti-KKK, anti-white-supremacy, etc. Finally, you did get "Trump, Trump." and "Build the wall" as counter chants due to the ridiculous nature of it all. (Bemused and baffled expressions all around, one started pretending to mosh to the anti-fa chants.) People may be giving up on dialogue, but it's not going to be the way forward to anything but more violence. and i'd prefer to talk about it when non-milo people are involved. a lot of people are of course idiots, adn these antifa people seem especially dumb. peopel would give up on dialogue less if they focused on dialogueing more with the reasonable people, rather than with the loudmouth crazies. the semi-reasonable people are easier ot talk to. but people always focus on the crazy/unreasonable people on the other side, so they don't hear the mainstream arguments as much. on another note, that behavior by some in the progressive wing is the reason some of the more establishment-style democrats dislike parts of the progressive wing, because of that craziness. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6304 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:28 TheYango wrote: Obama's case was a pause on immigration where a process was fucked up in an explicit and clearly demonstrable way, with a clear plan on how to actually fix that process. Trump's case is a pause on immigration to implement some nebulous concept of "extreme vetting" that has no specific details, with no effort whatsoever to demonstrate any problems with the current system, coupled with Trump repeatedly in the past showing intent to do something unconstitutional. If you're gonna lie to the teacher about your homework, at least do the reading so she can't tell you're obviously bullshitting. That's the point of the pause, though - to have a period for the new government to institute a new system. For intent, that's a screen for judicial activism: if I talk about stealing a pizza, and a year from now buy a pizza, is that now suspect? Well, we know there's nothing wrong with buying pizza. It seems this EO (the core of it, minus the parts about greencard people getting shafted and so forth) would either be the president's job or not. Also, he very long ago in the campaign made the change from his clickbait "Muslim ban" to extreme vetting, if you were reading along. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:04 zlefin wrote: why we still gotta keep talking about somethign unimportant like milo? bleh. people never/rarely want to really talk about policy. Some people just aren't allowed to talk at all, like milo  | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:46 Danglars wrote: Some people just aren't allowed to talk at all, like milo pretty sure milo gets to talk plenty  | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
It is the concept that colleges allow him to use their campus as a venue, when they pass on other speakers all the time. But Milo is magical and has to be allowed to speak. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:42 oBlade wrote: That's the point of the pause, though - to have a period for the new government to institute a new system. If your goal is to implement a new system, then you better have details of said new system, what's broken about the current system, and what the new system is meant to fix. Until Trump actually tells us what "extreme vetting" actually is, the term has no real meaning. This is not an unreasonable bare minimum. But putting a stop on immigration with no demonstrable plan beyond "we're working on it, it's going to be EXTREME" is not really acceptable. | ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:52 TheYango wrote: If your goal is to implement a new system, then you better have details of said new system, what's broken about the current system, and what the new system is meant to fix. Until Trump actually tells us what "extreme vetting" actually is, the term has no real meaning. This is not an unreasonable bare minimum. But putting a stop on immigration with no demonstrable plan beyond "we're working on it, it's going to be EXTREME" is not really acceptable. Heck, I'd even like if it Trump could tell people what the current system is. I'm willing to bet most people probably don't know (myself included). Then again I'm not sure Trump knows either. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:51 Plansix wrote: It is the concept that colleges allow him to use their campus as a venue, when they pass on other speakers all the time. But Milo is magical and has to be allowed to speak. I don't see why campuses don't invite people like him for debates instead of talks. If you're inviting someone because of their work or their history or accomplishments, sure, give them a podium and let people listen. If people are being invited to expound the views or opinions, then give them a proper format where they are properly challenged. Then let students actually learn about critical thought and analysis. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:28 TheYango wrote: Obama's case was a pause on immigration where a process was fucked up in an explicit and clearly demonstrable way, with a clear plan on how to actually fix that process. Trump's case is a pause on immigration to implement some nebulous concept of "extreme vetting" that has no specific details, with no effort whatsoever to demonstrate any problems with the current system, coupled with Trump repeatedly in the past showing intent to do something unconstitutional. If you're gonna lie to the teacher about your homework, at least do the reading so she can't tell you're obviously bullshitting. Maybe if he actually bothered to detail a plan about what "extreme vetting" entails and why it's an improvement over current immigration checks, and took the time to not totally botch the implementation of his EO, it would have passed. I'm still not seeing a dividing line here. You think it's bad policy. He's still doing this ostensibly (in the minds of his supporters, justifiably) given that Americans don't trust the government to be able to properly vet. So you don't like it, but it's legal if Obama's was legal. Do you think judges should be read into national security briefings so they can help out with conducting refugee and immigration policy? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 10 2017 09:42 oBlade wrote: That's the point of the pause, though - to have a period for the new government to institute a new system. For intent, that's a screen for judicial activism: if I talk about stealing a pizza, and a year from now buy a pizza, is that now suspect? Well, we know there's nothing wrong with buying pizza. It seems this EO (the core of it, minus the parts about greencard people getting shafted and so forth) would either be the president's job or not. Also, he very long ago in the campaign made the change from his clickbait "Muslim ban" to extreme vetting, if you were reading along. You've hit on what's also being either glossed over or intentionally ignored (because "meh Muslims" yields nice sound bites). These departments are staffed with Obama holdovers. Trump and his advisors need to take a look and ask around to see how well we're able to consider national security when someone from a country without a government that dialogues with ours about people's records on terrorism and threats. You can't get a chain of contact into the Syrian police department of Aleppo and check if Nadir and Khalid are who they say they are and if they've blown up a restaurant recently. But yeah, sound bite journalism. And Trump's tweets, excepting perhaps his latest one, haven't been a help. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44190 Posts
On February 10 2017 10:05 Danglars wrote: Do you think judges should be read into national security briefings so they can help out with conducting refugee and immigration policy? I mean that'd certainly help. If he wants to show that he has a legitimate cause for this and it isn't arbitrary and discriminatory then he could start by showing that cause. But Trump doesn't go to his own national security briefings so make what you will of that. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
On February 10 2017 10:00 WolfintheSheep wrote: I don't see why campuses don't invite people like him for debates instead of talks. If you're inviting someone because of their work or their history or accomplishments, sure, give them a podium and let people listen. If people are being invited to expound the views or opinions, then give them a proper format where they are properly challenged. Then let students actually learn about critical thought and analysis. Often it's not the school at all really? I believe in UC Berkley's case a Republican school group organized to bring Milo on campus. From the sound of it they didn't particularly seem interested in what he had to say so much as bringing him in because they knew he'd rile up the liberal students. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 10 2017 10:16 farvacola wrote: Why didn't the Trump administration raise the "Obama holdovers" issues on appeal? Oh yeah, because claiming that you can't staff your office correctly and that therefore you should be able to unilaterally suspend already granted residency interests without review is a stupid thing to claim in court. Or anywhere for that matter. ah yes, the old "i have a shitty lawyer defense". | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 10 2017 10:19 ticklishmusic wrote: ah yes, the old "i have a shitty lawyer defense". Never blame the attorney for being handed a losing case. | ||
| ||
