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 August 29 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote: Here's the point of the Nazis vs BLM civil rights thing.
Suppose for a second that a hypothetical California called a state constitutional congress to amend the state constitution. And they added a line that said that the local electoral registrars had the right to disenfranchise anyone that they considered guilty of moral turpitude. And that the local electoral registrars, as a body, were comprised almost entirely by extreme left people who think that any Trump supporter is guilty of moral turpitude. And that the registrars are appointed by the system that they, and people who believe as they do, control.
xDaunt, Danglars etc would cry out that this is just asking for abuse. That the system is built to systematically disenfranchise conservatives. Now imagine that the president of that California constitutional congress actually said in his speech opening the constitutional congress that he was calling it to change the state constitution to deal with the threat of Nazis, racists, and conservatives, and forever ensure that liberal beliefs dominated in California. That in this case the naked abuse of the system is actually the stated intent for the use of the system.
Now imagine that they held a statewide referendum on the issue and that predominantly conservative parts of the state voted overwhelmingly for the new constitution, in even greater numbers than the number of registered votes in those districts. Can you imagine how they would react to that?
Well, you don't actually need to. Because that actually already happened. Only it was Alabama, not California. And it was blacks, not conservatives. And it's still being enforced. Black people are still being legally disenfranchised for life in Alabama by local electoral registrars without appeal or oversight in a system that was openly described by the author of it as a means to ensure white supremacy in the state. And Danglars already defended it as both constitutional and a state's rights issue and said that if the people of Alabama were unhappy with it then the people of Alabama who still had the franchise would surely vote against it.
This is why it's very suspicious when xDaunt, Danglars and so forth insist that nobody ever infringe upon any rights of white supremacists, not because they support white supremacists but because they'd never tolerate any kind of infringing of the rights of anyone for any reason. The status quo is not neutral, the status quo does not protect everyone's rights, the status quo is racist, and the status quo is built upon denying legal and constitutional rights to minorities.
That's what separates the right from the likes of the ACLU who will defend Nazis and the citizen children of illegal immigrants equally. When the ACLU defends Nazis people may be mad that they're doing it but nobody questions why they're doing it because it's been established by a very long track record that they defend everyone without prejudice. When the right show up to defend Nazis, not so much.
When the right stand behind their stated beliefs and support equal legal protections for every American then nobody will question why they're so eager to protect Americans who happen to be Nazis. But while they ignore millions of Americans but stand up for the rights of Nazis who happen to be Americans it's a little suspicious. If they want to be taken seriously as defenders of civil rights then they should broaden their defence to include non Nazis.
So I finally took the time to read up on what this Alabama voter disenfranchisement business that Kwark keeps bringing up is all about. For those who are unfamiliar, the general issue is that Alabama enacted a constitutional provision that denies the right to vote to people who have been convicted of "crimes of moral turpitude" (As an aside, this isn't uncommon legal language. It shows up in lots of places including the US immigration code). However, the provision did not define what "crimes of moral turpitude" are and include, leaving it to the discretion of the local county officials to apply the provision. The charge from civil rights groups is that the this provision was applied unfairly and inconsistently in a way that disenfranchised black voters. In other words, we have a facially neutral law that was arguably being applied in a racially discriminatory manner. I'm using past tense here because, in May of this year, the republican governor signed into law a bill that defines what "crimes of moral turpitude" include, thereby eliminating any sort of discretion in voter registration. In other words, the problem is solved, and Kwark needs to find something new to bludgeon Danglars and me with.
Now, one of the things that I take exception to is this idea being pedaled by Kwark, GH, and others that a poster's failure to voice an objection to a given subject should be construed in any way to be a tacit acceptance or agreement with that subject. Frankly, I had no idea what the fuck was going on in Alabama until I looked it up today. To imply that my silence on the issue means anything is the stuff of argumentative horseshit.
On August 29 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote: The charge from civil rights groups is that the this provision was applied unfairly and inconsistently in a way that disenfranchised black voters.
That's one way of describing the situation. Let's see what John B. Knox, the guy who wrote the provision, had to say on the matter in his opening address to the constitutional congress.
And what is it that we want to do? Why it is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State. The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination
But sure, civil rights group have claimed that it's been applied unfairly against black voters. Who can really tell though.
I'm glad you think the issue has now been fixed (although maybe given it was used as a deliberate tool of racist ballot manipulation the fix really should have been getting rid of felon disenfranchisement entirely). It's one of a great many very serious and ongoing civil rights violations. Can we count on your support for those? And are you willing to condemn Sessions for his decades of defence of that provision?
Also isn't it a little odd to you that it had never been raised as an issue in the media you consume that a full 150 years after the end of the civil war African Americans in Alabama still didn't have the vote? I get assuming that that kind of thing isn't an issue because logically it really shouldn't be. But it is, and issues like it are endemic across the United States. It'd be great if letting African Americans in Alabama vote was the last of the problem but it's really not.
On August 29 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote: The charge from civil rights groups is that the this provision was applied unfairly and inconsistently in a way that disenfranchised black voters.
That's one way of describing the situation. Let's see what John B. Knox, the guy who wrote the provision, had to say on the matter in his opening address to the constitutional congress.
And what is it that we want to do? Why it is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State. The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination
But sure, civil rights group have claimed that it's been applied unfairly against black voters. Who can really tell though.
I'm glad you think the issue has now been fixed (although maybe given it was used as a deliberate tool of racist ballot manipulation the fix really should have been getting rid of felon disenfranchisement entirely). It's one of a great many very serious and ongoing civil rights violations. Can we count on your support for those? And are you willing to condemn Sessions for his decades of defence of that provision?
First of all, John B. Knox presided over the original provision that the US Supreme Court struck down. He had nothing to do with the passage of the new provision (and I'm somewhat curious to see how they differ, but it's not really important for present purposes).
Second, I don't have a context for what Sessions argued and why. To the extent that Sessions argued for the discriminatory application of the law or otherwise defended its discriminatory use, I have no problem condemning that.
Alabama law of 1901 that had the explicit mention to establish white supremacy was struck down in 1985 on the grounds that there might something a little racist with this whole notion. Alabama then reinstated the same law without the part where they explicitly proclaim that it's about white supremacy. They did that in 1996.
Think about that for a second. This law is barely old enough to drink.
Rather than asking people to condemn things, can we just ask them about their views on the subject? Rather than seeking to put people in a corner, lets try to be better informed?
That being said, if someone asks in good faith and people need to respond with good faith. That really seems to be the thing we burned through in this thread, faith in eachother to respond honestly.
On August 29 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote: Here's the point of the Nazis vs BLM civil rights thing.
Suppose for a second that a hypothetical California called a state constitutional congress to amend the state constitution. And they added a line that said that the local electoral registrars had the right to disenfranchise anyone that they considered guilty of moral turpitude. And that the local electoral registrars, as a body, were comprised almost entirely by extreme left people who think that any Trump supporter is guilty of moral turpitude. And that the registrars are appointed by the system that they, and people who believe as they do, control.
xDaunt, Danglars etc would cry out that this is just asking for abuse. That the system is built to systematically disenfranchise conservatives. Now imagine that the president of that California constitutional congress actually said in his speech opening the constitutional congress that he was calling it to change the state constitution to deal with the threat of Nazis, racists, and conservatives, and forever ensure that liberal beliefs dominated in California. That in this case the naked abuse of the system is actually the stated intent for the use of the system.
Now imagine that they held a statewide referendum on the issue and that predominantly conservative parts of the state voted overwhelmingly for the new constitution, in even greater numbers than the number of registered votes in those districts. Can you imagine how they would react to that?
Well, you don't actually need to. Because that actually already happened. Only it was Alabama, not California. And it was blacks, not conservatives. And it's still being enforced. Black people are still being legally disenfranchised for life in Alabama by local electoral registrars without appeal or oversight in a system that was openly described by the author of it as a means to ensure white supremacy in the state. And Danglars already defended it as both constitutional and a state's rights issue and said that if the people of Alabama were unhappy with it then the people of Alabama who still had the franchise would surely vote against it.
This is why it's very suspicious when xDaunt, Danglars and so forth insist that nobody ever infringe upon any rights of white supremacists, not because they support white supremacists but because they'd never tolerate any kind of infringing of the rights of anyone for any reason. The status quo is not neutral, the status quo does not protect everyone's rights, the status quo is racist, and the status quo is built upon denying legal and constitutional rights to minorities.
That's what separates the right from the likes of the ACLU who will defend Nazis and the citizen children of illegal immigrants equally. When the ACLU defends Nazis people may be mad that they're doing it but nobody questions why they're doing it because it's been established by a very long track record that they defend everyone without prejudice. When the right show up to defend Nazis, not so much.
When the right stand behind their stated beliefs and support equal legal protections for every American then nobody will question why they're so eager to protect Americans who happen to be Nazis. But while they ignore millions of Americans but stand up for the rights of Nazis who happen to be Americans it's a little suspicious. If they want to be taken seriously as defenders of civil rights then they should broaden their defence to include non Nazis.
The fact that you're asserting "the right" acts uniformly as you suppose is just a testament to how your bias blinds you to the the equally prevalent legitimate complaints of the "the right."
If you didn't notice, most of the right (including his own senior administration officials) was criticizing Trump for his handling of Charlottesville. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi was accusing a guy who is on public video yelling "F*** Neo-Nazis! F*** white supremacists!" of being a white supremacist (yeah, figure that one out) for planning a free speech rally--as if "free speech" necessarily implies "white supremacist" in the modern age. Link to previous post.
For every Sessions, Bannon, and Trump, there's a McCain, Cohn, and Tillerson that are disgusted by them. But as long as you're condoning (and willfully participating in) the broad stroking of the entire right as racists while ignoring the legitimate arguments of the non-racist right, there's never going to be a constructive discussion on either racism or free speech.
? You completely ignored my point and instead ranted about how I was painting you all with the same brush. If you don't want to be painted with the same brush then start standing up against the civil rights abuses. At a certain point you're making my argument for me. You're more concerned with defending people on the right from being called racists than you are with civil rights abuses.
I ignored your "point" because it's a 400 word realization of assuming your own correctness (may or may not be valid, I haven't followed this thread for the whole 5 years) in previous arguments and laying judgment on xDaunt, Danglars, and "the right" for disagreeing with it. If you had made an actual argument, I may have actually responded or even agreed.
And, hilariously and ironically enough, you're the one making my argument for me--I don't recall ever not standing against civil rights abuses, though you've apparently assumed I have by defending the KKK's free speech rights. But here I am having to defend myself against a charge based on no evidence instead of actually having a discussion on either free speech or racism.
I think my stance civil rights has been pretty clear from my posting: I'm an ironclad defender of civil rights for all, support the socioeconomic advancement of disadvantaged groups, and believe that diversity strengthens organizations and especially the USA. However, pursuit of such goals has become moralized and ideological to the point that it's hindering achievement of the original goals in the first place, and would be better served by a more level-headed, rational, and scientific approach. The status quo approach towards achieving these goals serves the two groups with the most power to advance them: Democratic politicians (through votes), and the large majority of socially left-leaning whites (by making them feel as though they're "advancing progress"). The groups hurt the most are the disadvantaged groups themselves: their supposed "advocates" spend their resources on largely symbolic token efforts and demonizing the opposition instead working towards real progress.
So when you responded to his post, you really were responded to a fictional person making a fictional argument? You don’t even want to discuss the point he brought up, but mostly state your views as the right way to address the subject.
KwarK is not a fictional person and his broadstroke was not a fictional action. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to call out specific parts of a post that are patently false, especially when the types of demonstrably false claims being made are essentially a repeated talking point of many self-described "social progressives."
I only brought up my personal views when KwarK asserted that I was making his argument for him (though admittedly he may have been using the impersonal form of "you").
On August 29 2017 05:11 xDaunt wrote: The charge from civil rights groups is that the this provision was applied unfairly and inconsistently in a way that disenfranchised black voters.
That's one way of describing the situation. Let's see what John B. Knox, the guy who wrote the provision, had to say on the matter in his opening address to the constitutional congress.
And what is it that we want to do? Why it is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State. The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination
But sure, civil rights group have claimed that it's been applied unfairly against black voters. Who can really tell though.
I'm glad you think the issue has now been fixed (although maybe given it was used as a deliberate tool of racist ballot manipulation the fix really should have been getting rid of felon disenfranchisement entirely). It's one of a great many very serious and ongoing civil rights violations. Can we count on your support for those? And are you willing to condemn Sessions for his decades of defence of that provision?
First of all, John B. Knox presided over the original provision that the US Supreme Court struck down. He had nothing to do with the passage of the new provision (and I'm somewhat curious to see how they differ, but it's not really important for present purposes).
Second, I don't have a context for what Sessions argued and why. To the extent that Sessions argued for the discriminatory application of the law or otherwise defended its discriminatory use, I have no problem condemning that.
Thanks for saying you condemn defence of the discriminatory use (otherwise known as the use but I won't push you too far).
I don't bring these things up to bludgeon you with them. I bring them up because racist discrimination and denial of civil rights really is a huge and ongoing problem in the United States. They're "holy shit how is this still a thing!" problems where you learn about them and it's almost unbelievable that it's still happening. And yet moves to reform the system are met with consistent opposition from a majority that wouldn't tolerate being on the receiving end of the same discrimination for a second.
If we get to a point where all of the civil rights abuses have gotten resolved I won't be sad because I have nothing left to bludgeon you and Danglars with. I'll be happy because apparently we'd have gotten to a point where society could collectively agree to stop abusing civil rights. I bludgeon you with them because these issues remain "black issues" or "identity politics" and are dismissed by the white majority. Nazi rights are really, really, really far down the priority list for civil rights in America. The fact that you're unaware of the more urgent things may simply be a component of the media you consume but, when taken on a larger scale, is an example of the importance given to various groups by white America.
To be fair to Xdaunt, he defended Sessions during the confirmation hearings, but has not defended any of Sessions most racially charged policies as AG.
Four months into his campaign for president of the United States, Donald Trump signed a “letter of intent” to pursue a Trump Tower-style building development in Moscow, according to a statement from the then-Trump Organization Chief Counsel Michael Cohen.
The involvement of then-candidate Trump in a proposed Russian development deal contradicts repeated statements Trump made during the campaign, including telling ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos that his business had “no relationship to Russia whatsoever.”
The disclosure from Cohen, who has described himself as Trump’s personal lawyer, came as Cohen’s attorney gave congressional investigators scores of documents and emails from the campaign, including several pertaining to the Moscow development idea.
“Certain documents in the production reference a proposal for ‘Trump Tower Moscow,’ which contemplated a private real estate development in Russia,” Cohen’s statement says. “The decision to pursue the proposal initially, and later to abandon it, was unrelated to the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign.”
In a separate statement texted to ABC News, Cohen added that “the Trump Moscow proposal was simply one of many development opportunities that the Trump Organization considered and ultimately rejected.”
Cohen specifically says in his statement that Trump was told three times about the Moscow proposal.
“To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Trump was never in contact with anyone about this proposal other than me on three occasions, including signing a non-binding letter of intent in 2015,” his statement says.
Trump's Russian Business Connections Under the Microscope Memory Lapse? Trump Seeks Distance From 'Advisor' With Past Ties to Mafia Cohen also makes clear that he himself engaged in communication directly with the Kremlin about the proposal during the ongoing 2016 presidential campaign. His statement says he wrote to the press secretary for Russian President Vladimir Putin at the request of Felix Sater, a frequent Trump Organization associate who had proposed the Trump Moscow development.
“In mid-January 2016, Mr. Sater suggested that I send an email to Mr. Dmitry Peskov, the Press Secretary for the President of Russia, since the proposal would require approvals within the Russian government that had not been issued,” Cohen’s statement says. “Those permissions were never provided. I decided to abandon the proposal less than two weeks later for business reasons and do not recall any response to my email, nor any other contacts by me with Mr. Peskov or other Russian government officials about the proposal.”
The Trump Moscow development proposal, which was first reported Monday by The Washington Post, provides a new look at the relationship between the president’s real estate firm and Sater, a convicted felon who served a year in New York state prison for stabbing a man during a bar fight.
Sater is a controversial figure who served for many years as a federal government cooperating witness on a host of matters involving organized crime and national security. Sater had also traveled in Moscow with Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., in the mid-2000s and handed out business cards identifying himself as a “senior adviser” to Donald Trump Sr.
Trump had taken pains to distance himself from Sater. In one sworn deposition, regarding a Trump development in Florida on which Sater had worked, Trump said “I don't know him very well … if he were sitting in the room right now I really wouldn't know what he looked like.”
But on Sept. 30, 2015, Trump Organization officials told ABC News that Sater had inflated his connections to the company. Alan Garten, a senior Trump Organization attorney, told ABC News that “there's really no direct relationship” between Sater and the real estate firm.
“To be honest, I don't know that he ever brought any deals,” Garten said.
That was the same month Sater brought the company the Trump Moscow development proposal, according to Cohen’s statement. Cohen’s statement notes that he did not share the proposal with others in his firm.
“Mr. Sater, on occasion, made claims about aspects of the proposal, as well as his ability to bring the proposal to fruition. Over the course of my business dealings with Mr. Sater, he has sometimes used colorful language and has been prone to ‘salesmanship,’” Cohen wrote. “As a result, I did not feel that it was necessary to routinely apprise others within the Trump Organization of communications that Mr. Sater sent only to me.”
Garten and an attorney for Sater did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
For five months, the Trump Organization gave serious consideration to the Moscow development idea. But Cohen told ABC News he scuttled the plan in January 2016, one year before Trump was sworn in as president.
“I abandoned the Moscow proposal because I lost confidence that the prospective licensee would be able to obtain the real estate, financing, and government approvals necessary to bring the proposal to fruition,” Cohen said. “It was a building proposal that did not succeed and nothing more.”
A LOI will have a bunch of handwaving about how it's nonbinding and it doesn't have any guarantee of a transaction blah blah blah but when you sign one it means serious talks have happened and the deal is far along. I'd say in my line of work it's 75% of the way to a close. A lot of stuff comes across a CEO's desk which he may not necessarily pay attention to, but a deal like this Trump almost certainly would have known about.
On August 29 2017 05:40 KwarK wrote: Thanks for saying you condemn defence of the discriminatory use (otherwise known as the use but I won't push you too far).
I don't bring these things up to bludgeon you with them. I bring them up because racist discrimination and denial of civil rights really is a huge and ongoing problem in the United States. They're "holy shit how is this still a thing!" problems where you learn about them and it's almost unbelievable that it's still happening. And yet moves to reform the system are met with consistent opposition from a majority that wouldn't tolerate being on the receiving end of the same discrimination for a second.
Are they? In Alabama, for example, it was the majority opposition (I'm assuming) of a fairly racist state and majority ignorance for most of the rest of the country. Like xDaunt, I had no idea what was going on Alabama, and lumping Alabama Republicans with NY or IL Republicans on social issues makes little sense, as they have very different views.
For the cases where it's not majority ignorance, I have a feeling the cases you're thinking of aren't as clear cut to most people as you believe they should be. Then again, talking in generalities is pretty useless for this discussion I think.
Nazi rights are really, really, really far down the priority list for civil rights in America. The fact that you're unaware of the more urgent things may simply be a component of the media you consume but, when taken on a larger scale, is an example of the importance given to various groups by white America.
This is an argument that I really don't like. Arguing that Nazi free speech should be protected when the Google memo, Charlottesville, and several other controversial protest/free speech incidents have been in the news does not mean that you're valuing Nazi free speech over minority voting rights or some other civil liberty. It's just talking about what's in the news, and talking about what other people are currently discussing. I don't have a "priority list" of civil rights violations to talk about based on some utilitarian calculation that guides what I focus my posts on. Moreover, I can hold the position that we should defend minority voting rights and Nazi free speech rights simultaneously.
States like Alabama, North Carolina and Texas have been the way they are for a very long time. One of the reasons they disliked Obama so much is he and Holder in the justice department cracked down on a lot of the voter suppression and police abuses through the use of federal powers. But even when those issues are brought to light, we still have to go through long, protracted discussions about how the NC voter ID laws are meant to suppress black voters. Or the Texas district lines are designed to limit minority influence in elections.
EPT
