US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8762

On September 19 2017 01:00 zlefin wrote:

dividing into two seldom helps much long term; there's always differences between people and disputes over governance; many US states already have such issues within them. similar factions will form within the two new nations over time; it's better to try to change the dynamics to prevent the factionalism developing in such a fashion, and to try to find better ways to address the fundamental disputes.

i'd also slightly dispute your initial characterization; some people (like myself) aren't really that dug in; and it's not so much a position they "want to believe" as a position that is correct and supported by the facts and evidence.

On September 18 2017 23:40 ChristianS wrote:

Didn't I already say I don't support removing Jefferson or Key? I don't think much of the left does either. Sure, the probability was basically 100% that somebody's hot take would be "you're right, mr. president, let's take down Washington and Jefferson too," just like it was basically 100% that there would be a few people on the other side saying "you're right, Washington is about white supremacy, that's why we should leave him up."

The answer to a slippery slope where a movement could start out good but turn into something bad is to figure out where it turns bad and rally all your defenses to that point. If you instead refuse to do the good stuff for fear of bad stuff happening later, you run the risk of a slippery slope being a less appropriate analogy than a rubber band. Work with the third estate to introduce democratic reforms you can make reasonable progress. If you stonewall them, pretty soon they're storming the Bastille and guillotining everyone. In other words, if we had more reasonable public debate on statues like Nathan B Forrest, maybe there wouldn't be as much reaction against Jefferson and Washington.

Speaking of, you still haven't been able to muster an answer for that simple question. I didn't ask "if locals wanna take down the Nathan B Forrest statue should they be able to?" I asked if you were a Memphian, would you be one of those locals wanting to take it down? Is leaving it up good or bad? Don't make xDaunt come and call you a coward, I'm sure he has important lawyer things to do.

On September 19 2017 01:14 RealityIsKing wrote:


Then be mature about it, don't go out and start name calling others who calls out the violent left.

On September 19 2017 01:15 Danglars wrote:

Didn't I already say the case of removal of confederate statues was arguable, provided it was localized and done in a legal way? I'm not a Memphis native. I'd almost certainly be for its removal if I was, but I'm not. The issue of what to do with it would be better left for actual Memphis natives that know if he's revered by a substantial neonazi/white supremacist force in the area, or just needs a plaque to remind people of his ignominious nature. Your post was the first I'd heard that Tennessee had passed a law in 2013 that prevents local governments from renaming, relocating, or otherwise tampering with war memorials on public land. I'm sure the drafter/sponsor of that bill and the background in 2013 are fascinating. There's probably great state house debate on the topic. This is all to say your hypotheticals require time and analysis breaking down the two sides to the issue. I'll answer "almost certainly" given his KKK/postwar roots. We don't have the kind of Tennesseans that could tell me if the polling shows African Americans want it up to remind people of the terrible things he did, or don't mind it based on his historical relation to both Tennessee and the war.

And you can dispense with the snide insinuations about "good or bad." You're asking hypotheticals from a guy that thinks its their business (Memphis natives), and you have enough lingering sense in your body to know I don't want something up that is only revered for his slaving and KKK relation.

On September 19 2017 01:19 Danglars wrote:

Unconstitutional intrusion by the legislative on the executive branch. It should be drafted as an amendment to the constitution to stand muster. If Trump/Sessions repeatedly fire special counsel, he should be impeached and removed.

On September 19 2017 01:14 RealityIsKing wrote:


Then be mature about it, don't go out and start name calling others who calls out the violent left.

On September 19 2017 01:25 Gorsameth wrote:

A fair few checks on the Presidency only existed by the grace of the President following them. Things like Conflict of Interest and pardoning your supporters before they are even convicted.
It all worked (mostly) fine for almost 230 years without being codified in law.

And then some people voted in an idiot that has no objection to abusing all these unofficial rules everyone else managed to follow.

On September 19 2017 01:23 ChristianS wrote:

Hey, thanks! At this point I'm not sure we disagree much about statues and when they should be taken down. I think I'd want it taken down if I lived there, but it should definitely be their decision. After Nathan Bedford Forrest there's a whole host of other statues to think about (like the much more terrifying-looking Nathan Bedford Forrest one put up in 1998, google if you want nightmares), but I think the thread would probably appreciate an end to statue-palooza for now.

I thought my snideness was more directed at xDaunt than you but in either case it's probably not very conducive to good discussion. My apologies.

On September 19 2017 01:36 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:

Yes. Making everything into a law will make everything work better, because no one breaks the law and those that do, are punished accordingly. I think you completely missed the point Gorsameth was making and instead are shifting so that you can avoid taking responsibility for the need to make these adjustments.

On September 19 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:

I'm trying to find the path forward because he's right. It's all politicized so maybe my list of abuses of "unofficial rules" conflict with his, but the trend is the same.

On September 19 2017 01:19 Artisreal wrote:


Your username makes those posts that have nothing to do with factual matters so much more hilarious.

Like the"violent left" is somehow of a problem for the reality of people in this country.
Or rather as if the perpetrators of said violence would discredit the actual left's goals in any form like some posters here try to argue is just tragicomic.

On September 19 2017 01:47 ChristianS wrote:

This is an idea that just came into my head so it's probably stupid, but what if Congress passed a law that said certain presidential actions would auto-initiate impeachment proceedings? Would that pass constitutional muster? Or would we still need an amendment?

On September 19 2017 01:49 RealityIsKing wrote:


BLM, antifa, and modern western feminism are all part of the violent left.

BLM, instead of being civilized like SK protest went on to destroy community infrastructure.

Antifa are anything but fascist that wants to silence freedom of speech, but they are mostly shit disturbers though.

Remember #KillAllMen and #maleTears? And I thought feminism is about peace and unity? Nope.

Listen there are problems with the private jail complex and zoning. The best possible way to counter that is to select leaders to run for office positions and change the policy through democratic voting, not through public destruction.

On September 19 2017 01:32 Danglars wrote:

Maybe you're right and there's insufficient checks on the Presidency. The way to make it "work mostly fine" for the next 230 years, should the Republic survive, is to "codify it in law" following the constitutional method of amendments. Use power to bind power.

On September 19 2017 01:51 ShoCkeyy wrote:



I would think it still needs an amendment because the president can veto said law. The amendment is done by congress, then sent to states where 3/4s need to approve.

The Marshall Islands and Mozambique have joined a growing group of governments convened by California governor Jerry Brown that have committed to deep carbon pollution cuts.

The Under2 coalition has now been signed or endorsed by 187 governments. Signatories agree to reduce their CO2 emissions drastically by the middle of the century.

On Sunday, on the eve of the UN’s Climate Week in New York, Brown announced ten new members, including the low-lying Pacific islands.

“Climate change threatens the very existence of the Marshall Islands and many other places,” said Brown. “Cities, states and countries are joining the Under2 Coalition to curb emissions and prevent a horrible catastrophe.”

The Marshall Islands and Mozambique are the seventeenth and eighteenth nation states to join. Also signing were the US state of Maryland, the Australian state of Queensland, two German states and several US cities.

In a press release on Sunday, Brown’s office said the new additions brought the number of people represented by governments in the coalition to 1.2 billion, 16% of the global population. The jurisdictions have a combined GDP of $28.8 trillion, 39% of the world economy.

Signatories to the coalition are required to submit a plan for reducing their carbon emissions to 80-95% below 1990 levels by 2050 or to cut their pollution to just two tonnes per person per year. Californians produced an average of 11.3 tonnes of CO2 in 2015.

National governments who cannot commit to the deep cuts required by the coalition are instead asked to endorse the programme. This goes beyond symbolic support, according to the coalition website. Nations are expected to encourage their own local and regional governments to become signatories.

Albeit a tiny overall contributor to climate change, the collaboration between the Marshall Islands and the governor of California is significant. The Marshall Islands are a convenor of the ‘high ambition coalition’, which drew together a bloc of hawkish governments in advance of the signing of the Paris climate accord in 2015.

Brown has grouped together a similar crowd of nations (many of the national governments who have joined Under2 were involved in the high ambition coalition). By including local and state governments the group can work around national leaders who try to stall climate action.

Marshallese foreign minister John Silk said the high ambition coalition would “work closely” with Brown to build bridges between national and sub-national governments.

“Every country, every company, and every constituency must take ambitious climate action, and it is this groundswell of climate action that the Under2 Coalition is building,” said Silk.

Since taking power in January, US president Donald Trump, Brown’s bête noire, has warned he intends to withdraw the US from the Paris deal. Brown, whose tenure expires in late 2018, has set himself up as the de facto envoy for a segment of the US that remains determined to lead climate action.

“America is not run by Donald Trump,” Brown told a meeting on climate change at the UN General Assembly in New York on Monday. “We are a country of diverse power centres and mobilising those power centres that are not controlled by the president is still a very worthwhile goal, and very powerful.”

Brown will be special advisor for states and regions to the Fijian presidency of the next major climate talks in Bonn in November. The governor has discussed climate cooperation in meetings with world leaders, including China’s Xi Jinping. This time next year, he also will host a summit in San Francisco that will bring leaders of cities, states, business and civil society together just months before a critical meeting of the UN climate treaty at the end of 2018.

“The withdrawal from Paris climate agreement puts us, as a nation, out of step with where the rest of the world is headed. That doesn’t mean that the cities can’t pick up the slack,” said Orlando mayor Buddy Dyer, who also joined Brown’s initiative this week.

Brown has also championed tough new targets for emissions reductions in his state – the world’s sixth largest economy. In 2016, he signed a bill mandating an emissions cut of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

But last week, the domestic push stalled after the legislature failed to vote on a bill that would have set California on course to 100% clean energy by 2045.

On September 19 2017 01:49 RealityIsKing wrote:


BLM, antifa, and modern western feminism are all part of the violent left.

BLM, instead of being civilized like SK protest went on to destroy community infrastructure.

Antifa are anything but fascist that wants to silence freedom of speech, but they are mostly shit disturbers though.

Remember #KillAllMen and #maleTears? And I thought feminism is about peace and unity? Nope.

Listen there are problems with the private jail complex and zoning. The best possible way to counter that is to select leaders to run for office positions and change the policy through democratic voting, not through public destruction.