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.
On June 01 2017 00:27 Plansix wrote: I have to reluctantly agree with Danglars. Many of the treaties referenced were rejected for a number of reasons, but mostly because they are not enforceable or went beyond the limits of what a treaty can do in the US. There are limits to what international rules and laws congress can sign us up for. Especially if it subjects US citizens to courts or laws not set by the US.
The Paris Accord is not part of that and congress could have ratified it. But Congress isn’t in the business of being involved with those decisions any more, only heckling when they are made without them.
Yes, it is known that the US only thinks that people should be arrested or murdered by the US when they break international laws but are not from the US. And then it will do anything to get at those people. But of course nobody can arrest US citizens for breaking international law. If they do, the US will happily invade the Netherlands to retrieve people subject to an international court.
Also, with regards to the Convention on the Rights of Child:
President Barack Obama has described the failure to ratify the Convention as 'embarrassing' and has promised to review this. The Obama administration said that it intended to submit the Convention to the Senate, but failed to do so.
Exceptional.
Yep. You can also shoot people in Mexico or Canada from our side of the U.S. border and face no penalties from either government if you're employed by the U.S. government last I checked. God bless America.
Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’
From Mayor Ted Wheeler’s Facebook page (emphasis added):
On Friday three men Rick Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah Fletcher stood up against bigotry and hatred. Two paid with their lives. A third was seriously injured.
Our community remains in shock and mourning. But we are also tremendously grateful to our heroes and their families for their selflessness and heroism. They will serve to inspire us to be the loving, courageous people we are meant to be.
As Mayor, I wanted to update you on a few developments:
1) I have reached out to all of the victims and their families, including the two women who were terrorized and subjected to such hatred and bigotry. I have offered my unconditional assistance and support, day or night.
2) I have confirmed that the City of Portland has NOT and will not issue any permits for the alt right events scheduled on June 4th or June 10th. The Federal government controls permitting for Shrunk Plaza, and it is my understanding that they have issued a permit for the event on June 4th.
3) I am calling on the federal government to IMMEDIATELY REVOKE the permit(s) they have issued for the June 4th event and to not issue a permit for June 10th. Our City is in mourning, our community’s anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation. [...]
The murders in Portland are, of course, appalling — but, no, the government may not deny permits for speech because it views the speech as promoting “bigotry or hatred,” whether toward Muslims, blacks, whites, police officers, capitalists or whomever else. Nor can the government impose viewpoint-based timeouts for speech after certain events. If a police officer is murdered by anti-police fanatics, for instance, that cannot justify canceling the permit for a rally at which people speak out against the police, at which some attendees may hate the police, and at which a few attendees may indeed support killing police officers.
The city had a murder and attempted murder by a white supremacist and now the murder’s buddies want to hold a march supporting those views. Man, I can’t think why the Mayor would want to avoid the conflict that will result from that march taking place. That thing ends in riot gear and tear gas.
Hey now that guy is a true patriot /s
That guy is absolutely right. He represents American patriotism in action very accurately: Fuck over anyone that doesn't see things your way. Use whatever means possible.
That's a bit too dark man...
It's Trump era. You react to despicable behavior with sarcasm on what violent criminals think about patriotism.
I wasn't being sarcastic at all. I meant every word quite literally as I said it. See what the David Tennant impersonator above me said for an example of American patriotism as I described it in action.
On May 31 2017 23:15 zlefin wrote: so, what is the current legal status of the US on the paris accords? is it an unratified treaty?
See wouldn't it be nice if it had been brought before the Senate to ratify?
The United States never ratifies anything remotely related to human rights.
The US has not ratified any international human rights treaties since December 2002, when it ratified two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since that time, important new treaties have been adopted and other long-standing treaties have gained new member states. Unfortunately, the US has too often remained outside these efforts. For example, the US is the only country other than Somalia that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most widely and rapidly ratified human rights treaty in history. It is one of only seven countries-together with Iran, Nauru, Palau, Somalia, Sudan and Tonga- that has failed to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW): signed, not ratified - Convention on the Rights of the Child: signed, not ratified - Convention against Enforced Disappearance: no action - Mine Ban Treaty: no action - Convention on Cluster Munitions: no action - Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: no action - Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture: no action
Ah, the great land of freedom. Doesn't care about children, doesn't care about the environment that we all live in, doesn’t care about women, doesn't care about the use of mines, doesn't care about cluster munitions, doesn’t care about disabilities, doesn't care about torture.
It just cares about its own power, preventing itself from being held accountable and blaming Russia for everything.
If it's more directed at signaling a pace of future action, like the many virtue signallers I run into, then have at it. If this is important and effective and all the things I've heard in in the coffee shops of Hollywood, then you're making these treaties out of sand.
Edit: Shout out to climate "human rights" crowd.
I don't know what you're on about with virtue signalling. This is about being held accountable at an international level. The US has repeatedly shown it considers itself to be above international law, and won't ratify any conventions or treaties that may result in it being held accountable for its actions.
virtue signalling is phrase that's become popular lately because it lets you dismiss any act of virtue. it allows certain people to convince themselves its okay to be assholes because, secretly, everyone is actually an asshole and they're actually better because they're honest about it.
'virtue signalling' belongs into the same category as "beta male", "regressive left" and "crisis actor", if anybody wants to be taken seriously they should avoid trying to sound like some kind of conspiratory pickup artist
On June 01 2017 01:51 Gahlo wrote: I'd say that regressive left does have legitimate uses, it's just the overuse of the term waters down the ever living crap of the meaning.
To be fair, same goes for "racist," "alt-right," and the like.
On June 01 2017 01:51 Gahlo wrote: I'd say that regressive left does have legitimate uses, it's just the overuse of the term waters down the ever living crap of the meaning.
To be fair, same goes for "racist," "alt-right," and the like.
The current tactic to maintain the status quo is to limit our vocabulary until it is impossible to discuss politics. They win when all words are devoid of meaning and we just scream at each-other Dragon Ball style.
Portland mayor urges federal government to revoke permit for ‘alt-right’ demonstration, on the theory that ‘hate speech is not protected’
From Mayor Ted Wheeler’s Facebook page (emphasis added):
On Friday three men Rick Best, Taliesin Myrddin Namkai-Meche, and Micah Fletcher stood up against bigotry and hatred. Two paid with their lives. A third was seriously injured.
Our community remains in shock and mourning. But we are also tremendously grateful to our heroes and their families for their selflessness and heroism. They will serve to inspire us to be the loving, courageous people we are meant to be.
As Mayor, I wanted to update you on a few developments:
1) I have reached out to all of the victims and their families, including the two women who were terrorized and subjected to such hatred and bigotry. I have offered my unconditional assistance and support, day or night.
2) I have confirmed that the City of Portland has NOT and will not issue any permits for the alt right events scheduled on June 4th or June 10th. The Federal government controls permitting for Shrunk Plaza, and it is my understanding that they have issued a permit for the event on June 4th.
3) I am calling on the federal government to IMMEDIATELY REVOKE the permit(s) they have issued for the June 4th event and to not issue a permit for June 10th. Our City is in mourning, our community’s anger is real, and the timing and subject of these events can only exacerbate an already difficult situation. [...]
The murders in Portland are, of course, appalling — but, no, the government may not deny permits for speech because it views the speech as promoting “bigotry or hatred,” whether toward Muslims, blacks, whites, police officers, capitalists or whomever else. Nor can the government impose viewpoint-based timeouts for speech after certain events. If a police officer is murdered by anti-police fanatics, for instance, that cannot justify canceling the permit for a rally at which people speak out against the police, at which some attendees may hate the police, and at which a few attendees may indeed support killing police officers.
I think the mayor needs to go the route my local college town did back in the 1990s when the KKK wanted to have a march. Allow the permit and all other permits for the same day. I am sure these white supremacist terrorist will be very existed to march at the same time as 8 other marches with more people that loath the alt-right.
On June 01 2017 01:51 Gahlo wrote: I'd say that regressive left does have legitimate uses, it's just the overuse of the term waters down the ever living crap of the meaning.
Honestly can't think of any legitimate use, but that's probably because I'm part of it.
On June 01 2017 02:19 Plansix wrote: I think the mayor needs to go the route my local college town did back in the 1990s when the KKK wanted to have a march. Allow the permit and all other permits for the same day. I am sure these white supremacist terrorist will be very existed to march at the same time as 8 other marches with more people that loath the alt-right.
That is brilliant. Drowning out the hate with love.
On June 01 2017 02:19 Plansix wrote: I think the mayor needs to go the route my local college town did back in the 1990s when the KKK wanted to have a march. Allow the permit and all other permits for the same day. I am sure these white supremacist terrorist will be very existed to march at the same time as 8 other marches with more people that loath the alt-right.
That is brilliant. Drowning out the hate with love.
I was real young at the time, but apparently all of the 5 colleges in the area had students traveling city to protests. And once the KKK march was canceled(because they are in fact cowards), it was just everyone celebrating and going to local bars.
On June 01 2017 02:19 Plansix wrote: I think the mayor needs to go the route my local college town did back in the 1990s when the KKK wanted to have a march. Allow the permit and all other permits for the same day. I am sure these white supremacist terrorist will be very existed to march at the same time as 8 other marches with more people that loath the alt-right.
That is brilliant. Drowning out the hate with love.
I was real young at the time, but apparently all of the 5 colleges in the area had students traveling city to protests. And once the KKK march was canceled(because they are in fact cowards), it was just everyone celebrating and going to local bars.
Yeah, the "March Against Sharia" that's getting moved from Portland to Seattle is going to be well received too I imagine.
Silver lining, people are realizing white supremacy is alive and well in this country.
On June 01 2017 02:19 Plansix wrote: I think the mayor needs to go the route my local college town did back in the 1990s when the KKK wanted to have a march. Allow the permit and all other permits for the same day. I am sure these white supremacist terrorist will be very existed to march at the same time as 8 other marches with more people that loath the alt-right.
That is brilliant. Drowning out the hate with love.
I was real young at the time, but apparently all of the 5 colleges in the area had students traveling city to protests. And once the KKK march was canceled(because they are in fact cowards), it was just everyone celebrating and going to local bars.
Yeah, the "March Against Sharia" that's getting moved from Portland to Seattle is going to be well received too I imagine.
Silver lining, people are realizing white supremacy is alive and well in this country.
I fully support the future of political engagement that could erupt into violence at any moment. It is how this stuff was dealt with in the past and how needs to be dealt with now. These groups need to be seen as real forces in our country, not weird little corners of the internet.
The notion that all the Russia stuff is just them poking and prodding this administration, because it's a new administration, and Trump's at that, seems plausible, but our administration being totally incompetent at handling it, and Trump being Trump, doesn't make it much better. It goes from being an impeachable set of offenses to having a president that I'd probably rather have impeached, and an administration I look forward to changing up in the coming years.
So let's say Comey testifies saying "Trump encouraged me to end the investigation", what does that actually mean? Is that obstruction? Or would he have to "ask me to stop the investigation"? Does he have to actually take action to end the investigation? Would the combination of encouraging Comey to end it, then firing Comey after refusing to end it, be obstruction?
EPT
