|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 06 2018 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission. Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time.
This was my thought at first. To me, it feels like a way to smear the right as a way of saying "You need to condemn these people, who, by the way, are people from YOUR team". From there, the right fighting it is their way of saying "This isn't even something to condemn because there is no problem, meaning the problem can't be our fault".
But I do see these groups feeling empowered by Trump. They truly do believe that stuff like "build the wall" and "they've got to go" as a more mainstream way of saying what they themselves believe. They think of it like Trump has their back, but he can't be so brazen about it. Which is mildly true. Nazis feeling any slight amount of social acceptance is 100% intolerable in my eyes. They should feel like complete outcasts.
|
On April 06 2018 04:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 03:48 iamthedave wrote:On April 06 2018 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission. Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time. They probably don't need it... but what does it say about the state of the country that they struggle to even say THAT? And I'd have thought you - as a fellow European - of all people would know the value in fighting fascism. We got fucked over by that once. Let's not do it twice, eh? The Italians are already skirting dangerously close to the border. Sure, fight fascism but you don't do that by the government putting out a statement that neo-nazi's are bad.
I would argue that if they are unable to do it in writing with nothing on the line, there are totally unwilling to implement any policies or take action to combat these groups. Talk is cheap, but they won’t even do that.
|
On April 06 2018 04:14 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 04:05 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2018 03:48 iamthedave wrote:On April 06 2018 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission. Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time. They probably don't need it... but what does it say about the state of the country that they struggle to even say THAT? And I'd have thought you - as a fellow European - of all people would know the value in fighting fascism. We got fucked over by that once. Let's not do it twice, eh? The Italians are already skirting dangerously close to the border. Sure, fight fascism but you don't do that by the government putting out a statement that neo-nazi's are bad. Especially considering that the lawmakers are people who could actually do something if they wanted to. Saying "Nazis are bad mkayy" is already pointless when it is just a random dude talking to people. It seems utterly ridiculous for a government legislative to have nothing better to do than state "nazis are bad" in really big letters. Regarding the "abolish the police" discussion. I think a lot of the problem stems from GH not meaning the same thing as everyone else when using these words. If you say "abolish the police", people here "and don't replace it with anything else", which is such an obviously bad idea that they don't take you seriously afterwards. Despite how broken the US police is, the core function of "a police" is still something that needs to be filled in a civilized society. A society of law can only work if the government has a monopoly on force. As far as i can tell, that isn't what GH means when he says "abolish the police". (If it is, that is actually the position of a madman). From what i can tell, GH thinks more along the lines of "completely rebuild the police from the ground up". Which i think is a position that would result in a lot less flak if that were how it is formulated. I don't know if GH uses "abolish" for shock value, but i don't think it strengthens his position a lot.
the issue is more that he has no real proposal for how to do so (i.e. how to rebuild a new police force), and more to the point, no proposal (not even a vague one) which prevents the exact same thing from happening with this "new" police force. i.e. the issue is a result of pressure that apply to the function, swapping out one for an entirely new different one won' tfix that.
aka, so you completely rebuild the police from the ground up; did that actually fix the problem? generally speaking, the answer is simply no. you just replaced one instance with another instance with all the exact same problems, because it did nothing to address the underlying causes.
he needn't hav edeveloped one himself of course; he could point to one made by some politician/activist he favors.
this is a common problem in revolutionary rhetoric: it favors destroying the old system without having any real replacement in mind, or simply assuming that whatever replacement is done will somehow be better, without accounting for how it would actually be so.
|
On April 06 2018 04:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission. Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time. This was my thought at first. To me, it feels like a way to smear the right as a way of saying "You need to condemn these people, who, by the way, are people from YOUR team". From there, the right fighting it is their way of saying "This isn't even something to condemn because there is no problem, meaning the problem can't be our fault". But I do see these groups feeling empowered by Trump. They truly do believe that stuff like "build the wall" and "they've got to go" as a more mainstream way of saying what they themselves believe. They think of it like Trump has their back, but he can't be so brazen about it. Which is mildly true. Nazis feeling any slight amount of social acceptance is 100% intolerable in my eyes. They should feel like complete outcasts.
It basically boils down to asking the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet" question to someone who does in fact, but not in universal public opinion, beat their wife. Then that person points out that it's an unfair question and anyone who doesn't believe the premise (that the GOP does in fact get votes from white supremacist of the KKK/Neo-Nazi tier) accepts the unfairness of the question on it'[s face and refuses to engage with contrary information.
Things like the rash of white supremacist terrorists shooting up schools, theaters, churches. Planting bombs, burning buildings, and so on. Or the domestic policing organizations refusal to engage with theses terrorists as terrorists if that's what society so deems fitting of these actions independent of melanin content (I feel I have to mention I'm overall weary of labeling anyone a 'terrorist').
|
On April 06 2018 04:35 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 04:14 Simberto wrote:On April 06 2018 04:05 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2018 03:48 iamthedave wrote:On April 06 2018 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission. Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time. They probably don't need it... but what does it say about the state of the country that they struggle to even say THAT? And I'd have thought you - as a fellow European - of all people would know the value in fighting fascism. We got fucked over by that once. Let's not do it twice, eh? The Italians are already skirting dangerously close to the border. Sure, fight fascism but you don't do that by the government putting out a statement that neo-nazi's are bad. Especially considering that the lawmakers are people who could actually do something if they wanted to. Saying "Nazis are bad mkayy" is already pointless when it is just a random dude talking to people. It seems utterly ridiculous for a government legislative to have nothing better to do than state "nazis are bad" in really big letters. Regarding the "abolish the police" discussion. I think a lot of the problem stems from GH not meaning the same thing as everyone else when using these words. If you say "abolish the police", people here "and don't replace it with anything else", which is such an obviously bad idea that they don't take you seriously afterwards. Despite how broken the US police is, the core function of "a police" is still something that needs to be filled in a civilized society. A society of law can only work if the government has a monopoly on force. As far as i can tell, that isn't what GH means when he says "abolish the police". (If it is, that is actually the position of a madman). From what i can tell, GH thinks more along the lines of "completely rebuild the police from the ground up". Which i think is a position that would result in a lot less flak if that were how it is formulated. I don't know if GH uses "abolish" for shock value, but i don't think it strengthens his position a lot. the issue is more that he has no real proposal for how to do so (i.e. how to rebuild a new police force), and more to the point, no proposal (not even a vague one) which prevents the exact same thing from happening with this "new" police force. i.e. the issue is a result of pressure that apply to the function, swapping out one for an entirely new different one won' tfix that. aka, so you completely rebuild the police from the ground up; did that actually fix the problem? generally speaking, the answer is simply no. you just replaced one instance with another instance with all the exact same problems, because it did nothing to address the underlying causes. he needn't hav edeveloped one himself of course; he could point to one made by some politician/activist he favors. this is a common problem in revolutionary rhetoric: it favors destroying the old system without having any real replacement in mind, or simply assuming that whatever replacement is done will somehow be better, without accounting for how it would actually be so.
I've made clear several times that if people's reason they say they can't support abolishing the police is that the replacement plan isn't thought out enough, that their responsibility is to get up and work towards one themselves, not simply use it's perceived lacking as justification for their inaction.
As to specific ideas regarding a 're'creation of the necessary (these we have disagreements on I presume) social functions prescribed to be resolved with policing I've offered some, I'm open to others, and conclude there must eb some we haven't discovered. Again, that's not a reason not to support abolition of the police, it's reason to engage oneself in more than an armchair critical fashion.
To demonstrate this you can ask specific questions and I can give you my position and we can go from there.
Let's say 'the problem' (to be overly simplistic), is police shooting unarmed people. In the very beginning of this most recent exchange I proposed disarming the police.
I'm confident that a disarmed police force would not be shooting unarmed people, and certainly not without repercussion should such an aberrational situation occur.
|
Regardless of their reasons for declining, I don't think legislation is a good medium for inactive statements. I see this move by dems as similar to Trump's "why won't she say radical islamic terrorism?" schtick. Nonsense.
|
|
|
On April 06 2018 04:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2018 03:03 Gorsameth wrote:On April 06 2018 02:35 Plansix wrote:Apparently this is now something we need to debate. Tennessee Lawmakers Decline — Again — To Advance Measure Denouncing Neo-Nazis
For the second time in less than a month, Tennessee's GOP state lawmakers have declined to proceed on legislation condemning white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups. On Monday, roughly three weeks after a Democratic-sponsored resolution died in committee, GOP state Rep. Ryan Williams quietly requested that the Republican version of the measure be withdrawn.
The new version was nearly identical to the one put forth by Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemmons in the days immediately following the white nationalist rally last August in Charlottesville, Va. After those demonstrations descended into deadly violence, Clemmons' brief resolution stated that "we strongly denounce and oppose" the beliefs underpinning white nationalism — and urged law enforcement to recognize these and neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organizations.
That measure met its end before it could pass the State Government Subcommittee, having failed to receive any Republican support. GOP lawmakers in the committee initially offered no explanation why, but they later described the resolution as a trap designed to embarrass them, rather than actually win passage.
"Part of being a great legislator is knowing your bill, knowing the committee that it's going through, working the vote and asking for a motion and a second before you get there," Williams said then, according to Nashville Public Radio. "That's what policymaking is. It's pretty simple."
House Majority Leader Glen Casada told the member station that if Clemmons should try again, the GOP caucus would "definitely second it, motion it, support it, vote for it" — an assertion Clemmons responded to with blunt disbelief.
"Glen Casada is full of crap," Clemmons told Nashville Public Radio in an email. "Feel free to quote me."
Yet the resolution did indeed appear destined for revival last week after Williams, who serves as the House Republican caucus chairman, introduced a second resolution identical to the first in every respect except one: It dropped the stipulation urging the designation of neo-Nazis and white nationalists as domestic terrorists.
That revival lasted less than a week, though. The resolution was withdrawn from a committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, by Williams' own request.
His office did not immediately respond to NPR's request for comment.
But in a statement given to The Tennessean, Williams explained that the "bill's caption was too narrow and couldn't be amended to incorporate additional feedback gathered from our members over the past couple of days." The newspaper noted that he did not clarify what, exactly, that additional feedback would have entailed.
"I still believe it is important for our General Assembly to condemn groups that support racism and hatred," Williams said. "I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on a future resolution which can meet the expectations of all of our House members, as well as the citizens of Tennessee." SourceThe framing used by the state GOP that the non-binding resolution is a trap to embarrass them does not seem to hold much water. This just seems to be further evidence that some state GOP members are concerned with upsetting voters that support hate groups. It is not a good sign going forward, as groups become more emboldened by the support through omission. Why do we need legislation condemning neo-nazi's. Sounds like a BS waste of time. This was my thought at first. To me, it feels like a way to smear the right as a way of saying "You need to condemn these people, who, by the way, are people from YOUR team". From there, the right fighting it is their way of saying "This isn't even something to condemn because there is no problem, meaning the problem can't be our fault". But I do see these groups feeling empowered by Trump. They truly do believe that stuff like "build the wall" and "they've got to go" as a more mainstream way of saying what they themselves believe. They think of it like Trump has their back, but he can't be so brazen about it. Which is mildly true. Nazis feeling any slight amount of social acceptance is 100% intolerable in my eyes. They should feel like complete outcasts.
But they are. They openly consider Trump one of them, are emboldened by his Presidency, and were overjoyed when he pulled out his infamous 'bad people on both sides' line. This isn't hyperbole, it's fact; they literally wrote that Trump's words were the biggest endorsement they could have asked for.
Yes, they do need to condemn these people. And it's embarrassing that they can't see that. This will embolden them further.
In ten or twenty years time, the Neo-Nazis could be the new Tea Party, with actual Republican representatives getting voted into office in certain parts of the country while the Party goes 'problem? what problem you're the problem'.
I really wish Americans as a whole could see how close your country is coming to the slippery slidey slope. You've been drifting further, and further, and further to the right for decades, to the point that actual neo-nazis can openly speak out in support of a Presidential candidate and not only does the president not condemn them, the entire party equivocates about telling them to fuck off.
That is terrifying.
Statements are never meaningless when it comes to things like that. And if they can't pass 'meaningless' legislation like this, you really think they're going to jump to on the bigger issues needed to fight these guys?
The reason this is an issue, is because it shouldn't be an issue. And I'm not really replying to you since you're not dismissing it as such, but more to the situation as a whole. Hell, I'd have no issue if I believed the Republican Party would take bold, firm action to cast away neo-nazi support, but I see no evidence that's going to happen. I see the usual 'let's not throw words around' equivocation that leads to the tacit support these people need to go around telling people that the US government agrees with them. And that sort of backing really matters. It really, really does. If they tell people the President's on their side, and can point to all the times he's clearly not told them to take a long walk off a short pier, it's only one dumbass away from 'these guys must have a point' and another one joining the fold.
|
Americans have a hard time reconciling the paradox that we hold freedom of speech as sacrosanct, while also arguing that declarations by our goverment are hollow and without meaning.
|
Silicon Valley continues to be involved in political battles, as they have in the past. Now there is a campaign by Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook to change the way privacy laws work in America. As the world's largest social network, certainly they have a big say on how those sorts of regulations work in practice. I think that Congress has been paying attention to these tech giants and may slap them with fines or onerous regulations to make sure that they are following the rules of this country as they should be.
Zuckerburg will be testifying before Congress on April the 11th & will be discussing these very issues. It's a new era in America now and social media is a big part of the lives of a lot of people and that's just the way it is nowadays. I think that a lot of people in this thread are focusing too much on "meta" issues that are irrelevant but that's none of my business, I guess. US politics continues to fascinate people in the tech sector & tech guys being political is a good thing.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/mr.-zuckerberg-goes-to-washington/article/2012170
|
I'll believe this government putting in regulations that protect people over companies when I see it.
|
market is gonna be ugly tomorrow.
|
"the time to buy is when there's blood in the streets."
Don't think people aren't getting rich off the whole ride down and the way back up too.
|
don't forget, this isn't a trade war
|
On April 06 2018 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:"the time to buy is when there's blood in the streets." Don't think people aren't getting rich off the whole ride down and the way back up too.
I know I will be! My plan is to stock up on Amazon
|
Rather than remedy its misconduct, China has chosen to harm our farmers and manufacturers. In light of China’s unfair retaliation, I have instructed the USTR to consider whether $100 billion of additional tariffs would be appropriate under section 301 and, if so, to identify the products upon which to impose such tariffs. I have also instructed the Secretary of Agriculture, with the support of other members of my Cabinet, to use his broad authority to implement a plan to protect our farmers and agricultural interests,” the president said.
So China reacted exactly as literally everyone said they would react, with counter tariffs. And for that they now get more tariffs. Which will lead to...
Reading this tweet makes me think this is more about him wanting to be the 'big guy' in the headlines than about actual economic policy
|
On April 06 2018 08:48 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +Rather than remedy its misconduct, China has chosen to harm our farmers and manufacturers. In light of China’s unfair retaliation, I have instructed the USTR to consider whether $100 billion of additional tariffs would be appropriate under section 301 and, if so, to identify the products upon which to impose such tariffs. I have also instructed the Secretary of Agriculture, with the support of other members of my Cabinet, to use his broad authority to implement a plan to protect our farmers and agricultural interests,” the president said. So China reacted exactly as literally everyone said they would react, with counter tariffs. And for that they now get more tariffs. Which will lead to... Reading this tweet makes me think this is more about him wanting to be the 'big guy' in the headlines than about actual economic policy
The last time we did this shit, we ran head long into the Great Depression. And once the damage is done and Chinese companies stop buying American soybeans or pork, they won't come back even if the tariffs are lifted. Not easily. Those companies are not going to be willing lose money on a whim of our political parties and who wants to run on some populist bullshit.
|
this is almost hilarious at this point because he's so absolutely incompetent when it comes to making people do what he wants without bullying (because bullying doesn't work in this case).
I am quite sure Europe or other nations would be right up there with the US in an attempt to help or at least agree with getting China to open up their markets and change some of their policies. And yet what we see is everyone who'd usually join the bandwagon ignore it out of spite because of how Trump sells it.
Seriously, had it been Obama, Bush (any of the 3), Hillary, Sanders or fucking Ted Cruz who proposes going after China we'd have people in the US and EU comming together and pushing for that.
Instead we have this madness because it's poilitical suicide to agree with anything the US does under Trump right now. The guy could probably promise to cut the US military budget in half and instead divide that money among several charities and people would march on the streets against Merkel for being too friendly with the US if she happened to agree.
|
It doesn't seem like that to me toades; it seems more like people don' tlike this plan because it's simply a dumb and ill-thought out plan.
I don't see how this would be "ignoring it out of spite".
it's not just that trump si bad at selling it or that he's toxic, it's that it's a bad underlying product.
|
I would say the underlying issue is real to some degree (edit: that is, China not opening up their markets. Not talking about trade deficits) and it's a topic in the EU as well. I'll agree that his plan is bad and it wouldn't just be "oh you put 50billion tariffs on China? Awesome we'll do the same!" but maybe something else along the lines "yo stop for a second. That's just stupid. But beyond all that bullshit there's a point to be had. What do you say we work something out together?"
But the fact that the US has lost every ounce of political softpower it still had 2 years ago makes it so much harder for him. Hell, the Iraq war wasn't only the US fighting. Maybe had this 50billion tariff thing be proposed by Obama/Bush some nations would have joined in after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
