|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 18 2017 12:19 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote: My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him. Nobody called him a facist because of it. They just noted it's a common tactic that facists have used in the past. Let's not jump the gun on jumping the gun. The point of the comparison is obvious: to insinuate that he is, or that he is close to being, a fascist.
|
On February 18 2017 11:42 xDaunt wrote: If it's not unconstitutional, then there's nothing wrong with it. ... Can you confirm that you actually meant to say this?
|
On February 18 2017 12:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 12:19 Gahlo wrote:On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote: My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him. Nobody called him a facist because of it. They just noted it's a common tactic that facists have used in the past. Let's not jump the gun on jumping the gun. The point of the comparison is obvious: to insinuate that he is, or that he is close to being, a fascist. or the somewhat milder, things are uncomfortably trending in that direction.
also, remember people, it's faScist, not facist. please help the OCD among us
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 18 2017 12:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +John McCain said on Friday that Donald Trump’s administration was in “disarray” and that Nato’s founders would be alarmed by the growing unwillingness to “separate truth from lies”.
The Republican Senator broke with the reassuring message that US officials visiting Germany have sought to convey on their debut trip to Europe, telling a Munich security conference the resignation of the new president’s security adviser, Michael Flynn, over his contacts with Russia reflected deep problems in Washington.
“I think that the Flynn issue obviously is something that shows that in many respects this administration is in disarray and they’ve got a lot of work to do,” said McCain, a known Trump critic, even as he praised Trump’s defence secretary. “The president, I think, makes statements [and] on other occasions contradicts himself. So we’ve learned to watch what the president does as opposed to what he says,” he said.
Without mentioning the president’s name, McCain lamented a shift in the US and Europe away from the “universal values” that forged the Nato alliance seven decades ago. McCain also said the alliance’s founders would be “alarmed by the growing inability, and even unwillingness, to separate truth from lies.”
The chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said “more and more of our fellow citizens seem to be flirting with authoritarianism and romanticising it as our moral equivalent”. The senator also regretted the “hardening resentment we see toward immigrants, and refugees, and minority groups, especially Muslims”.
European governments have been unsettled by the signals sent by Trump on a range of foreign policy issues ranging from Nato and Russia to Iran, Israel and European integration.
The debut trip to Europe of Trump’s defence secretary, Jim Mattis, and his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, to a meeting of G20 counterparts in Bonn, went some way to assuaging concerns as they both took a more traditional US position.
But Trump is wrestling with a growing controversy at home about potential ties between his aides and Russia, which he dismissed on Thursday as a “ruse” and “scam” perpetrated by a hostile news media.
Mattis made clear to allies, both at Nato in Brussels and in Munich, that the US would not retreat from leadership as the European continent grapples with an assertive Russia, wars in eastern and southern Mediterranean countries and attacks by Islamist militants.
US vice-president Mike Pence will address the Munich conference on Saturday with a similar message of reassurance. Pence will say Europe is an “indispensable partner”, a senior White House foreign policy adviser told reporters.
Mattis told a crowd that included heads of state and more than 70 defence ministers that Trump backed Nato. “President Trump came into office and has thrown now his full support to Nato. He too espouses Nato’s need to adapt to today’s strategic situation for it to remain credible, capable and relevant,” Mattis said.
Mattis said the US and its European allies had a shared understanding of the challenges ahead. Trump has alarmed allies by expressing admiration for Russian president Vladimir Putin. Source McCain sounds like he wants a war with Russia and isn't happy that someone opposes it.
Although the reality on the ground suggests that US-Russia relations will toe the status quo so I suppose he will be happy.
|
On February 18 2017 12:33 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 11:42 xDaunt wrote: If it's not unconstitutional, then there's nothing wrong with it. ... Can you confirm that you actually meant to say this? Unlawful may be the better word (though issues of lawfulness concerning the press almost inevitably concern constitutionality), but yes.
|
On February 18 2017 12:32 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 12:19 Gahlo wrote:On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote: My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him. Nobody called him a facist because of it. They just noted it's a common tactic that facists have used in the past. Let's not jump the gun on jumping the gun. The point of the comparison is obvious: to insinuate that he is, or that he is close to being, a fascist. Yes that is the direction you would like the discussion to go.
However, it does not change the fact those are the tools that dictators and fascist used to gain and hold power. And discussion of those tools being employed in the US system, knowingly or unknowingly, is completely reasonable. And shouldn't be derailed by people crying about Trump being called a fascist when no one did that.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 18 2017 12:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 12:32 LegalLord wrote:On February 18 2017 12:19 Gahlo wrote:On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote: My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him. Nobody called him a facist because of it. They just noted it's a common tactic that facists have used in the past. Let's not jump the gun on jumping the gun. The point of the comparison is obvious: to insinuate that he is, or that he is close to being, a fascist. Yes that is the direction you would like the discussion to go. However, it does not change the fact those are the tools that dictators and fascist used to gain and hold power. And discussion of those tools being employed in the US system, knowingly or unknowingly, is completely reasonable. And shouldn't be derailed by people crying about Trump being called a fascist when no one did that. Dictators and fascist also give speeches and hold rallies and pass executive orders.
|
On February 18 2017 12:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 12:40 Plansix wrote:On February 18 2017 12:32 LegalLord wrote:On February 18 2017 12:19 Gahlo wrote:On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote: My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him. Nobody called him a facist because of it. They just noted it's a common tactic that facists have used in the past. Let's not jump the gun on jumping the gun. The point of the comparison is obvious: to insinuate that he is, or that he is close to being, a fascist. Yes that is the direction you would like the discussion to go. However, it does not change the fact those are the tools that dictators and fascist used to gain and hold power. And discussion of those tools being employed in the US system, knowingly or unknowingly, is completely reasonable. And shouldn't be derailed by people crying about Trump being called a fascist when no one did that. Dictators and fascist also give speeches and hold rallies and pass executive orders. Those are also well documented tool of democracy. Denial of provable facts like the weather, attacking the press and judiciary are not. Your argument sort of falls flat.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 18 2017 12:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 12:47 LegalLord wrote:On February 18 2017 12:40 Plansix wrote:On February 18 2017 12:32 LegalLord wrote:On February 18 2017 12:19 Gahlo wrote:On February 18 2017 12:15 LegalLord wrote: My view of this is simply "Trump attacking the press [by saying they oppose the American people] is not in good taste, but it's far from reasonable to call him a fascist for it."
Let's not jump the gun just because we don't like him. Nobody called him a facist because of it. They just noted it's a common tactic that facists have used in the past. Let's not jump the gun on jumping the gun. The point of the comparison is obvious: to insinuate that he is, or that he is close to being, a fascist. Yes that is the direction you would like the discussion to go. However, it does not change the fact those are the tools that dictators and fascist used to gain and hold power. And discussion of those tools being employed in the US system, knowingly or unknowingly, is completely reasonable. And shouldn't be derailed by people crying about Trump being called a fascist when no one did that. Dictators and fascist also give speeches and hold rallies and pass executive orders. Those are also well documented tool of democracy. Denial of provable facts like the weather, attacking the press and judiciary are not. Your argument sort of falls flat. Not really. It's a sloppy correlation meant to draw parallels where they aren't really appropriate. It's understandable when you really don't like the guy (a fully reasonable position) but it's nonetheless wrong. It's sort of like when people tried to prove that Trump rallies had Nazi salutes at them. Just an attempt to draw parallels to paint a disliked fella in a worse light.
Fuck, at least get something better than just standard Fox News fare before crying fascist - or, in your very deflective and roundabout way, "tools that fascists use."
|
You're free to engaged in whatever discussions you want. But calling people hysterical and saying people are wrong for even broaching the topic is not a compelling argument. You're constant attempts to derail it are not either. The same with people discussions of Russian aggression towards our sovereignty and election. And other elections.
Trump isn't a dictator, but Bannon would love if he was. But Trump is just a really incompetent version of Nixon. He is no Putin.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
You're not wrong for broaching the topic - you're wrong for a severe overreaction to an admittedly problematic behavior.
Edit: This isn't going anywhere, as usual with you. Might as well just nip this in the bud and end the discussion. Random Russia mention is random by the way (your desire for people to see Russia in a poor light is noted).
|
Just pointing out your constant attempts to derail rather than engage with a topic. Specifically dictatorships and their trappings, real or highly hypothetical.
And saying someone is overreacting is synonymous with calling them hysterical. Not really convincing me of much.
|
On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote: Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody.
|
On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote: Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody.
Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation.
As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does.
|
On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote: Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. A and B are classifications in this case, not individuals, so the total weight of them is not so clear. in particular it's not equivalent to a two person system.
it's also a question of which standards should apply to the decision process.
|
On February 18 2017 14:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote: Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. A and B are classifications in this case, not individuals, so the total weight of them is not so clear. in particular it's not equivalent to a two person system. it's also a question of which standards should apply to the decision process.
Why are they classifications rather than individuals?
|
On February 18 2017 14:38 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 14:29 zlefin wrote:On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote: Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. A and B are classifications in this case, not individuals, so the total weight of them is not so clear. in particular it's not equivalent to a two person system. it's also a question of which standards should apply to the decision process. Why are they classifications rather than individuals? oops. my bad, I was incorrectly noting which words were used where. It should instead be that where you said "both partners", that's the parts that should have been referred to for purposes of unclear weighting etc, rather than the A/B set.
so it should be both "partners" are classifications in this case, not individuals, so the total weight of them is not so clear. in particular it's not equivalent to a two person system.
|
On February 18 2017 14:44 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 14:38 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 14:29 zlefin wrote:On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote: Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. A and B are classifications in this case, not individuals, so the total weight of them is not so clear. in particular it's not equivalent to a two person system. it's also a question of which standards should apply to the decision process. Why are they classifications rather than individuals? oops. my bad, I was incorrectly noting which words were used where. It should instead be that where you said "both partners", that's the parts that should have been referred to for purposes of unclear weighting etc, rather than the A/B set. so it should be both "partners" are classifications in this case, not individuals, so the total weight of them is not so clear. in particular it's not equivalent to a two person system.
Okay, then that's true, but it's also pretty obvious, and doesn't stop us from looking at the major trends in priority.
|
On February 18 2017 12:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 12:33 Aquanim wrote:On February 18 2017 11:42 xDaunt wrote: If it's not unconstitutional, then there's nothing wrong with it. ... Can you confirm that you actually meant to say this? Unlawful may be the better word (though issues of lawfulness concerning the press almost inevitably concern constitutionality), but yes. Morality and legality are not the same. E.g. if you are an evangelical extremist you believe it's morally wrong to allow women to have an abortion or gays to marry. Luckily it is not legally wrong. For you to marry your morality to legality means you have no moral compass of your own and rely on the American courts to decide what is right or wrong. If that's so, then why are you often so outspoken against things that are obviously legal. One of which is Obamacare, which has been deemed legal, and according to you therefore just.
In fact, with a morality defined by law it seems very hard for you to support your congressmen (or Congress at all): their principal purpose is to propose changes to laws, but how could they do that without some further moral compass about what is right? Pragmatism alone?
But in all fairness, I doubt you actually hold that belief, because you have voiced strong opinions on some of the courts' rulings, as well as proposals by Congress and the president for changes in the law. So clearly you do have some opinion about what is right, regardless of what is lawful. So why not answer the question that was asked rather than dodging it with this weird false equivalency?
|
On February 18 2017 14:23 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 14:08 Acrofales wrote:On February 18 2017 02:30 Nebuchad wrote: Okay so we have one side who thinks it's not very important which one goes through, something like 55-45, and one side who thinks it's very important which one goes through. So since we're equal in this partnership, you're going to account for how important it's for the other side and choose the person who they think is important, right?
Right? Insofar as I know, nobody in this thread is choosing jack shit, but if they were, I'd assume one person, one vote. If you're so passionate about Ellison, then make the case why he's better, because "it's important that we win" doesn't convince anybody. Dude I'm not even american and you aren't either, why are you acting as if I believe it's about us choosing anything? Of course we aren't choosing anything. I'm just pointing out that in an equal relationship where both partners are honest, if one is mostly okay with A and B and the other reaaaaally wants A, then you probably should end up with A. That's a really basic thing. So if the DNC ends up going with B when one part of its base wants either A or B and the other part of its base wants A, that says something about the situation. As per the press discussion, it's kind of ludicrous in the first place because the american press has actually been overall way too fair to republicans for way too long. It took a Trump for people to come out and actually denounce obvious lies, when the republicans have been demonstrably dishonest on a multitude of subjects for a multitude of years. The far right parties of most of Europe dream of a press that lets them get away with as much as yours does. Shouldn't the proportions matter? If 99% of the party wants A, but is okay with B too, but 1% really really wants B, which choice is"right"?
In most European systems clearly the B people would have left the party ages ago and started their own political party. In the US the first past the post system prevents that. So should 1% (note: proportions are fictional) be able to hold the party hostage by virtue of their uncompromising stance?
|
|
|
|