The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.myajc.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/handel-preps-another-6th-district-campaign-ossoff-hints-comeback/PsDYoQhTSRIsq6myncmmuO/

Jon Ossoff may end up challenging Handel again for the Georgia 6th seat next year. With his name recognition and the fact a lot can happen in 15 months, it's not impossible he'd be able to defeat her the second time around, given Trump is likely to pull a lot of seats under with him as his approval most likely continues to fall.

Given her stubborn support of the House healthcare bill, that could be used against her if healthcare is at the front of discussion next year. Americans are increasingly turning against the GOP on the issue.

Plus, since the 6th is no longer the center of attention, it's quite possible the GOP base won't have the rally around the flag effect they did for the special election.

[-Robin-]

Reports are in that Mueller has impaneled a grand jury for the Russia probe.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/special-counsel-mueller-impanels-washington-grand-jury-in-russia-probe-1501788287

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/west-virginia-gov-republican-democrat/index.html

After having spent much of his life as a Republican, Jim Justice switched to Democrat in 2015 and ran for Governor of West Virginia. He won last year with good numbers despite the state being carried by Trump.

He switched back to Republican today.

He's saying it's because Democrats didn't embrace him, but let's be honest here. He just wanted to steal a seat that Democrats have consistently held since 2001.

Fortunately it's not a huge loss. The Governorship of West Virginia is weak, as its veto can be overrode with simple majorities in both chambers (controlled by Republicans currently). The only exception is budget bills. Democrats have enough votes to block any budget Justice and his old pals in the GOP can come up with.

[TailsTellsTales]

On 7/31/2017 at 6:56 PM, Lord Liquiir (Ogilvie) said:

On 7/31/2017 at 6:56 PM, Lord Liquiir (Ogilvie) said:

The right certainly does a great job of protecting at least one minority group.

The wealthy!

Clinton was the popular vote winner (but don't mention that because it turns into gushing about how great the Electoral College is and how it protects small states, when in reality it only protects swing states) and really, had any other moderate Democrat got up there, they would likely have crushed Trump. Comey's October surprise combined with a lack of enthusiasm for Clinton decreasing youth and minority Democratic votes (not to mention voter suppression tactics, but we do a disservice to say the only reason Democrats lose is because Republicans try to stack the deck) came together to give us President Trump.

 

I strongly agree about that. If republican politicians were forced to choose killing the homeless or raise taxes on the wealthy, they would pick killing the homeless without hesitation. They would raise taxes on the homeless just to give huge amounts of money to the rich. They will say things like "They pay most of the taxes." and what people fail to realize is that duh of course they pay most of the taxes! Most of the country is very broke or barely middle class which means even if the wealthy paid 5% in taxes, they would still end up paying most of the taxes because income inequality has gotten that bad.

Moderate democrat? That was one of many reasons why Clinton lost because she was too centrist. How come republicans can elect a far extreme right person but democrats keep picking wall street friendly candidates? They had Bernie Sanders, the best candidate in decades! He was not bought by wall street, he had the guts to talk about things that democrats are too scared to talk about (income inequality, single payer health care, taxing the wealthy, corrupt corporations, etc) and if anything if they pick another centrist, then people will vote Trump again. We had 8 years with a centrist president and that did nothing except maintain the status quo.

Now centrist is not necessarily a bad thing but when democrats are the only people wanting to compromise and be "centrist" it causes the center to be pushed rightward. After all Bill Clinton got rid of banking regulations, Obama (and Bush) gave massive wall street bail out, Obama (and Bush) gave massive tax cuts to the rich. This idea that democrats are going to be the savior to Trump is outrageous. Only Bernie Sanders can defeat Trump in a way that destroys him completely unless somebody else who has the same passion and will not accept wall street money can do it.

Sorry for long message. I usually like to keep them short.

[Tani Coyote]

6 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

How come republicans can elect a far extreme right person but democrats keep picking wall street friendly candidates?

Because America is a country with a conservative tilt due to the way elections and offices are set up.

Because we do not have compulsory or easily-accessible voting, the people who vote in primaries or the general election are going to lean more right than left.

Because the House has single member districts, it is easily gerrymandered to pack Democrats into solid blue districts while letting Republicans carry a bunch of right-leaning districts.

Because the Senate privileges small states, Republicans will more often than not have an advantage, as most small states lean Republican. The Senate's power over appointments means a left-wing President will have more trouble than a right-wing President.

And finally, since the Electoral College prioritizes swing states over all citizens, Republicans only need to win those states to pick the President. It makes the GOP's trend towards making registration and voting more difficult for Democrat-leaning groups more terrifying. Trump only narrowly won because ~50,000 people in the Rust Belt swung his way for some reason or another. Many of them would have been prior Obama voters.

Ultimately, Democrats have no choice but to keep propping up centrists with one or two major left wing policy objectives until they enact some serious changes. Fortunately a lot of the problems can be fixed through activism: ballot initiatives can be used to protect and expand voting rights, Democratic Governors can stop harmful GOP legislation, pressure can be put on members of Congress to end the requirement for single member districts (multi-member districts can then be established by state governments), and state governments can adopt the National Popular Vote Compact.

If the National Popular Vote Compact is adopted in particular, that will force Republicans to also put forward more moderate candidates. Other than 2004 (and that's because of strong loyalty towards Bush due to the War on Terrorism), the GOP has not won the popular vote since 1988. The best news is some red states have come close to passing the NPVIC, but some GOP forces keep crushing it. If Democrats can increase their margins in key and red states next year, they'll be in a position to make the NPVIC come into effect. If that happens, Trump's odds of re-election basically disappear.

6 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

They had Bernie Sanders, the best candidate in decades! He was not bought by wall street, he had the guts to talk about things that democrats are too scared to talk about (income inequality, single payer health care, taxing the wealthy, corrupt corporations, etc) and if anything if they pick another centrist, then people will vote Trump again. We had 8 years with a centrist president and that did nothing except maintain the status quo.

Bernie also was notoriously known for boiling down issues like racial disparity to economics. Useful for selling to moderate whites, but it made a lot of minorities feel unrecognized.

6 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Now centrist is not necessarily a bad thing but when democrats are the only people wanting to compromise and be "centrist" it causes the center to be pushed rightward.

Just an unfortunate part of American politics.

6 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Only Bernie Sanders can defeat Trump

Sanders is too old. Count him out.

VP candidate is possible, but he'd be better staying in the Senate because he'd become the chair of the Senate Budget Committee if Dems take the Senate, allowing him to push Dems' agenda.

[SSF1991]

20 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Now centrist is not necessarily a bad thing but when democrats are the only people wanting to compromise and be "centrist" it causes the center to be pushed rightward.

13 hours ago, Lord Liquiir (Ogilvie) said:

Just an unfortunate part of American politics.

Well, yes and no. Compromise is exactly what this country was founded on and what has carried it through the years. It has never been a "my way or the highway" thing. It's because of compromising that we have the Constitution.. On the other hand, compromise has failed with the US before, no matter how many times they tried it (see: Civil War).

The problem is, as per usual, the GOP. They never compromise on anything, meaning progress slows to a crawl or stops, simply because it's not their own party that came up with the idea. It wasn't always this way. This began to take shape during Bill Clinton's presidency. The GOP despies Democrats, their agenda, everything. It doesn't matter how much of the country agrees with a Democratic policy. Even if it's a policy that agrees with their agenda, just the sheer fact that it's a Democrat proposing it is enough for the GOP to say "no".

It's not an unfortunate part of American politics. It's an unfortunate part of a party that acts like children.

Quote

That was one of many reasons why Clinton lost because she was too centrist. How come republicans can elect a far extreme right person but democrats keep picking wall street friendly candidates?

Because Hillary has baggage. Decades of Republican propaganda, her own lies, sheer hatred of her, and mistakes that have been made to be associated with her piled up. It doesn't have to even be her fault. She's got actual baggage and loads of fake baggage created by the GOP. Even people not associated with the GOP, including my own friends, were not particularly welcoming to Hillary during the primaries. It had nothing to do with her being "wall street friendly' or "centrist". It had to do with her being a significantly flawed candidate, something that has been established publicly for years.

Hell, her own flaws cropped up at the worst time, mere days before the election (remember the Comey letter?) happened. Simply being friendly to Wall Street is not what did her in.

Quote

We had 8 years with a centrist president and that did nothing except maintain the status quo.

Because Republicans blocked everything, no matter what it was. It wasn't because of Obama being a centrist president.

Quote

This idea that democrats are going to be the savior to Trump is outrageous.

Well, it's going to be outrageous if people keep making a bigger deal about Democrats being Wall-Street friendly than Republicans being even more Wall Street friendly and with many more issues that currently have people legitimately scared.

This shouldn't even be a hard decision to make. If a party's only flaws are "we accept Wall Street money" and "we're not as extreme", I'll gladly take that over a party who prides itself on hating on minorities, killing people by taking away their health insurance, trying to restrict voting rights, make the poor even poorer, bully and imtimidate people who don't agree with them, creates rape culture, and much more. At least with Democrats, I know I won't be terrified about losing my livelihood and America's democracy dying.

 

[Tani Coyote]

http://thehill.com/regulation/healthcare/345411-fight-over-right-to-sue-nursing-homes-heats-up

In the latest wakeup call to senior Trump supporters... the Trump administration is pushing for a repeal to an Obama-era rule that bans any nursing home taking funds from Medicare or Medicaid from forcing residents to use arbitration to resolve disputes. The purpose of Obama's ban was so people could ask for court involvement for cases of abuse, neglect, etc.

It's standard for most contracts to require arbitration over lawsuits, but that should be your big tip off that arbitration protects businesses, not people.

Which is why the Chamber of Commerce is salivating over the Trump administration's move, while advocacy groups like AARP are coming out against it in full force.

Between this and the healthcare bill, holy shit older people. Trump and his Party do not care about seniors. Not anymore than they care about veterans.

[Patticus]

I don't understand. I thought that seniors were the GOP's most reliable demographic - particularly in the upcoming midterms? I wouldn't have thought that they'd be screwed over so readily by this administration. Do they want to potentially lose the House?

Surely McConnell and Ryan will be fighting this?

[Tani Coyote]

I really have no idea. I'm half-surprised Medicare and Social Security aren't being targeted next. The way the GOP is so openly targeting older people is leading me to think the old rule that senior issues could make or break one's career is changing.

Given the GOP has a huge lead over Democrats in young leaders, I wouldn't be surprised if they're gearing up to try and steal the youth vote, especially given millennials will finally pass Baby Boomers as the largest voting age generation next year.

[Patticus]

The youth vote nationwide is predominantly Democratic-leaning, though, no matter how many "youth leaders" the GOP claims to have. If they really wanted to capture that, then the GOP would have to do an about-face on several huge issues, including universal healthcare, immigration, Wall St regulation and education. I don't see that happening on McConnell's watch. Ryan's young enough to be around for a future switcheroo, but at least in the foreseeable future, that youth vote will more than likely elude the GOP.
 

Yesterday, Trump launched a new media firestorm, with this:

It sounds like dictator rhetoric, because it pretty much is. Kim Jong-un's speechwriter probably hoped to use those very words himself. But this is Trump using the language, so we can be reasonably sure that it's just a 71 year old with the mind of a 5 year old trying to make himself look all big and bad. Still though, I don't trust Trump not to do something insanely stupid. The temptation to just wipe out NK with nukes must claw at him every moment of the day.

Quote

With only a few of its worst weapons, North Korea could, probably within hours, kill millions. This means an American first strike would likely trigger one of the worst mass killings in human history. In 2005, Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel who specialized in conducting war games at the National War College, estimated that the use of sarin gas alone would produce 1 million casualties. Gardiner now says, in light of what we have learned from gas attacks on civilians in Syria, that the number would likely be three to five times greater. And today North Korea has an even wider array of chemical and biological weapons than it did 12 years ago—the recent assassination of Kim’s half brother, Kim Jong Nam, demonstrated the potency of at least one compound, the nerve agent VX. The Kim regime is believed to have biological weapons including anthrax, botulism, hemorrhagic fever, plague, smallpox, typhoid, and yellow fever. And it has missiles capable of reaching Tokyo, a metropolitan area of nearly 38 million. In other words, any effort to crush North Korea flirts not just with heavy losses, but with one of the greatest catastrophes in human history.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

If they have weaponized smallpox, and they drop that on Tokyo etc...

[SenEDDtor Missile]

5 hours ago, Patticus said:

The youth vote nationwide is predominantly Democratic-leaning, though, no matter how many "youth leaders" the GOP claims to have. If they really wanted to capture that, then the GOP would have to do an about-face on several huge issues, including universal healthcare, immigration, Wall St regulation and education. I don't see that happening on McConnell's watch. Ryan's young enough to be around for a future switcheroo, but at least in the foreseeable future, that youth vote will more than likely elude the GOP.
 

Yesterday, Trump launched a new media firestorm, with this:

It sounds like dictator rhetoric, because it pretty much is. Kim Jong-un's speechwriter probably hoped to use those very words himself. But this is Trump using the language, so we can be reasonably sure that it's just a 71 year old with the mind of a 5 year old trying to make himself look all big and bad. Still though, I don't trust Trump not to do something insanely stupid. The temptation to just wipe out NK with nukes must claw at him every moment of the day.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-worst-problem-on-earth/528717/

If they have weaponized smallpox, and they drop that on Tokyo etc...

This whole thing feels like a deleted sequel scene for Team America World Police, with Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un waving their non-existent dicks at each other.

[Meta77]

With a country like N Korea that has always been a threat you need to Meerut with force. We tried the sit by amd leave them alone mentality with hitler. We see how that went. I may not like the way Trump blunders out whatever is on his mind but at the same time I'm not against showing nkorea well decimate them. You don't let a country run rampant saying they want to nuke you. If anything it's the West coast that should worry most being closet

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, Meta77 said:

We tried the sit by amd leave them alone mentality with hitler.

1. Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons.

2. A lot of tolerance for Hitler was out of a belief he'd help contain Soviet aggression and because the Great Powers honestly didn't want another war so soon after the Great War, especially when it would cut into spending for the growing European welfare states.

1 hour ago, Meta77 said:

I may not like the way Trump blunders out whatever is on his mind but at the same time I'm not against showing nkorea well decimate them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-takes-credit-for-nuclear-arsenal-that-was-largely-modernized-by-obama-administration/

We can thank President Obama for having an arsenal capable of decimating the North Koreans.

Trump's saying it's all him though. This tough talk with North Korea is probably to score some points in the polls. He can afford to be reckless with talk because Obama did all the hard work of keeping the arsenal modern after it had fallen into serious disrepair the last several decades.

[Meta77]

18 minutes ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

1. Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons.

2. A lot of tolerance for Hitler was out of a belief he'd help contain Soviet aggression and because the Great Powers honestly didn't want another war so soon after the Great War, especially when it would cut into spending for the growing European welfare states.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-takes-credit-for-nuclear-arsenal-that-was-largely-modernized-by-obama-administration/

We can thank President Obama for having an arsenal capable of decimating the North Koreans.

Trump's saying it's all him though. This tough talk with North Korea is probably to score some points in the polls. He can afford to be reckless with talk because Obama did all the hard work of keeping the arsenal modern after it had fallen into serious disrepair the last several decades.

Didn't Obama want to get rid of our nukes?

And I swore Hitler rose to power from old d

History channel documentaries cause no one took him serious or reports he was raising an army?

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

6 hours ago, Meta77 said:

With a country like N Korea that has always been a threat you need to Meerut with force. We tried the sit by amd leave them alone mentality with hitler. We see how that went. I may not like the way Trump blunders out whatever is on his mind but at the same time I'm not against showing nkorea well decimate them. You don't let a country run rampant saying they want to nuke you. If anything it's the West coast that should worry most being closet

When we sat and left them alone they barely did anything. Just because they say they want to nuke you doesn't mean they will--they've said they would nuke the US and their allies several dozen times, if not more, and have never carried out with it. And we have shown N. Korea plenty of times that if they cross any line, they would be met in full force in retaliation by simply flying B2 Bombers nearby and having joint exercises with the South Korean military.

North Korea is a bonafide threat and one that's overconfident for it's own good, and I would love nothing more than to wipe out it's regime as much as the next guy. But they mostly blow hot air instead of actually instigating a conflict that everyone on the planet knows they would lose hands down. They can barely even be compared to Hitler because their military equipment is so outdated and underfunded that they won't even last anywhere near as long in a fight against the US and South Korea (alone or combined) as Nazi Germany did in WWII against the Allies with actual competent engineering of their time. And that was before NATO, which if the DPRK were actually that dumb to attack the US, it wouldn't just be the US and South Korea they'd potentially be dealing with--and that's without considering that we don't even need NATO to deal with North Korea, so it won't hurt the US if other NATO members decided they weren't gonna help for whatever reason.

3 hours ago, Meta77 said:

Didn't Obama want to get rid of our nukes?

No? Where the heck did you even hear that? If anything, he, like any sensible leader of a great power, wanted to prevent them from getting into the hands of rogue organizations (North Korea had nukes since G.W. Bush and was probably developing them before Clinton, so I don't wanna hear anyone trying to pin that one on Obama), and likely didn't want to increase the stockpile of them for risk of a potential arms race, but he had no intention of ever getting rid of them.

Half of the US's power comes from having nukes in the first place--getting rid of them is a great way to weaken the country in a negotiation.

[Patticus]

4 hours ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

Trump's saying it's all him though. This tough talk with North Korea is probably to score some points in the polls. He can afford to be reckless with talk because Obama did all the hard work of keeping the arsenal modern after it had fallen into serious disrepair the last several decades.

I hope he changed the launch codes while he was at it, because for 20 years they were 00000000.

Quote

Today I found out that during the height of the Cold War, the US military put such an emphasis on a rapid response to an attack on American soil, that to minimize any foreseeable delay in launching a nuclear missile, for nearly two decades they intentionally set the launch codes at every silo in the US to 8 zeroes.

http://gizmodo.com/for-20-years-the-nuclear-launch-code-at-us-minuteman-si-1473483587

Trump was always going to try to take credit for everything good that happened from the moment he was sworn in - because that's what narcissistic shitlords like him do.

The important thing is that he doesn't kick off what could easily become the most terrible mass killing in recorded history. Nuclear weapons, biological weapons and a fucking huge army... NK would get wiped out by the US, easily, but the damage it could do in the brief period before its defeat is incalculable. Honestly, right now, I'm half hoping that Kim Jong-un is the more sane and rational of the two men.

[SSF1991]

9 hours ago, Meta77 said:

And I swore Hitler rose to power from old d

History channel documentaries cause no one took him serious or reports he was raising an army?

As someone who watches History Channel documentaries all the time, that's not why he rose to power. Although Hitler did have his own police army (the S.A., later the S.S) it was only used in his attempts to gain power in the failed takeover of government in 1924, and to intimidate in the late 20s and early 30s. They weren't in the position to do much, especially during the time period I mentioned, due to the Nazis change in policy towards gaining power by Democratic/legal means, rather than by force.

As for Hitler "not being taken seriously", that was only during the 20s, when Germany had recovered from its economic problems that occurred at the end of WW1. Even during the 30s, Hilter didn't get the Chancellorship with ease. President Hindenburg was very unsupportive of Hitler having the position, and he only did it with reluctance due to the political situation at the time.

Here's usually the reasons given, although each documentary varies on which of these reasons they mention:

1. German humiliation due to the end of WW1 - The Treaty of Versailles was widely controversal due to its harsh punishment on Germany and division amongst the Allies. France wanted to be extremely brutal on Germany, Britain just wanted Germany to negate the growing Russian threat to its east, Italy wanted its war goal fulfilled, and America was simply torn on whether the treaty was a good idea or not. Nobody really came out of the end of WW1 satisfied. France and Britain would try to avoid war at all costs, Italy felt betrayed (sowing the seeds for Mussolini's rise), America didn't even pass the treaty, and Germany was harshly punished due to being labeled as the instigator of the war (Austria-Hungary and Serbia were the first to declare war, starting the chain of events that lead to a full fledged world war). Germany, in particular, suffered the most from this. They were forced to give up land, demilitarize other land, pay money reperations to the Allies that took them 100 years to do, and more. There was also a faction of people who felt that Germany really didn't need to surrender, and felt that Jewish people "stabbed them in the back" by not supporting the war in the first place and conspiring against the country to "sell out to its enemies". This allowed Hitler with something to point to throughout the 20s and 30s.

2. The Great Depression - What's worth noting is that it wasn't until the Great Depression in the late 20s-early 30s that the Nazis actually began to rise. Before then, they were seen as too extreme. But the Great Depression hurt Germany the most, with millions and millions impacted. Distrust in the government grew, and people began to embrace the Nazis as a party that "understood their problems" and "will bring change".

3. Hitler's campaigning and speechmaking - Hitler was very passionate in his speeches, sometimes making 40+ in the span of a month. However, it's how he gave them that got him so much support from voters. He painted himself as the savior, Fuhrer, the only one who can save Germany from the situation it is in. His speeches were theatrical in nature, with significant gesturing and postures, causing people to think emotionally rather than critically. His speechmaking was so good, it is how he was able to convince the courts to give him a lighter sentence following his failed revolutionary attempt in 1924, and how he became head of the Nazi Party. These first three reasons tend to be the ones cited by most documentaries as the cause of Hitler's rise.

4. Many German elections - From 1930 to 1933, five German elections were held. Before the first one in 1930, the Nazis only had less than 3% of the vote. However, the 1930 and July 1932 changed the immensely. The July 1932 elections made the Nazis the largest party in Parliment. However, there was no majority party and nobody wanted to create a coalition majority to effectively govern, causing more elections. This leads to reason number four.

5. Divided German Reichstag - None of the elections from 1930 to 1933 succeeded in breaking the Reichstag's division. Meanwhile, even though the Nazis were never able to get more than 45% of German voters, they still maintained the largest seat count in the Reichstag. As a result, a strong faction of politicians (notably Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg ), industrialists and businessmen asked President Hindenburg to make him Chancellor. They felt that Hilter would help break the political deadlock by being an outsider that can lead a government "independent from parliamentary parties" and start of movement that "enraptures millions of people". However, they also felt that, privately, they could control Hitler and make him their "tool". This massive appeal, along with the political division in the Reichstag, is what lead to Hitler being appointed as Chancellor.

So there you have it. I honestly feel like it wasn't one singular thing that did it. It was a series of events that led to Hitler's rise. If only one of these things didn't happen, Hitler wouldn't have been in position to get power. It was the worst case scenerio, and it happened.

This is why I feel like Trump/Hitler comparisons, while the closest we've gotten to an American Hitler, is a bit of a stretch to me. Trump didn't rise because of an economic crisis. He doesn't have the speech-making charisma that Hitler had. He doesn't have a country that was defeated by war. He just simply did what any other American Republican does: complains about the opposition and appeals to his party's agenda (although good lord this agenda is a trainwreck and still very cruel). I'd say there is more room for arguing that Trump is a fascist thing, rather than a Nazism thing (both are similar, but not exactly the same in my opinion).

9 hours ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

Trump's saying it's all him though. This tough talk with North Korea is probably to score some points in the polls.

It really saddens me that all politicians/leaders have to do in this country is go "we will destroy you" and they immediately get support. It doesn't matter what the conflict is, who the "tough talk" (there's nothing tough about being a bullying ass) is being directed towards, the fact loss of life is going to happen, how high the stakes are, or how flawed the politician/leader is. This side of Americans that obsess over war because it's "tough" is beyond scary.

[Tani Coyote]

Latest controversy:

The ACLU's decision to support Milo Yiannopoulos' lawsuit against the DC Metro Transit Authority, which removed his advertisements after people complained.

This DC Metro has removed a variety of ads for various causes, and one of the ACLU's Directors explains here this motivated their decision to jump in, only technically on Milo's side.

Basically, the ACLU probably would have jumped in anyway, they just happened to side with Milo out of coincidence. As the Director states, the ACLU routinely argues on behalf of the minorities Milo antagonizes. But they think crushing government censorship in all its forms is important for Civil Rights efforts.

15 hours ago, Meta77 said:

Didn't Obama want to get rid of our nukes?

That's a misunderstanding.

Obama wanted a world free from nukes, yes.

But he also admitted it probably wouldn't happen in his lifetime, and just because that's his end goal doesn't mean he'd unilaterally disarm. This is the kind of thing handled with treaties.

15 hours ago, Meta77 said:

History channel documentaries cause no one took him serious or reports he was raising an army?

Closest we come to "no one took him seriously" would be his declining vote margin between two elections leading the Government to decide to bring him on board. It was assumed the Nazis were a fad and that they'd lose power in future elections.

Unfortunately, that same deal gave the Nazis control of most German police forces. Said forces had a right-wing bias to begin with but were easily misused to imprison left wing leaders, allowing the Nazis to storm the March 1933 election. They gained enough seats to form a coalition vote to give Hitler dictatorial powers.

Even if he hadn't been assumed a fad, however, I think it's obvious the result might not have changed much. The Reichstag fire still happened, the Depression was still ongoing, etc. There was plenty of room for a right-wing regime to take power to curb the somewhat real, somewhat perceived threat of Communist takeover. It's worth remembering Hitler got 37% of the vote in the 1932 Presidential election.

[Dizcrybe]

1 hour ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

Latest controversy:

The ACLU's decision to support Milo Yiannopoulos' lawsuit against the DC Metro Transit Authority, which removed his advertisements after people complained.

This DC Metro has removed a variety of ads for various causes, and one of the ACLU's Directors explains here this motivated their decision to jump in, only technically on Milo's side.

Basically, the ACLU probably would have jumped in anyway, they just happened to side with Milo out of coincidence. As the Director states, the ACLU routinely argues on behalf of the minorities Milo antagonizes. But they think crushing government censorship in all its forms is important for Civil Rights efforts.

Can't wait to see anti-BLM ads on the train if this succeeds.

And of course they're pulling the "we need to have a public debate about these things", as if a debate is gonna change or has ever changed anyone's minds.

[Tani Coyote]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/09/politics/trump-mcconnell-scavino/index.html

While enjoying his vacation, Trump is picking fights with McConnell over Twitter. This is from yesterday, but he just tweeted about McConnell again today.

I don't think he realizes that the Senate is his only hope if the House ends up going with impeachment. He really should not piss off Mitch.

His inability to let healthcare go might just end up sinking tax reform efforts later this year.

1 minute ago, Dizcrybe said:

Can't wait to see anti-BLM ads on the train if this succeeds.

Depends whether or not they'd meet the criteria for incitement.

In Milo's case, it's just the cover of his book with some reviews in quotes.

[Dizcrybe]

1 minute ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

 

 

Dude, make up your mind. Do you wanna repeal and replace it or "let it fail"?

4 minutes ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

In Milo's case, it's just the cover of his book with some reviews in quotes.

If this lawsuit succeeds, then, and that ad is put on trains, I have no doubt that someone will decide to check it out and conclude that "you know, this Milo guy might be onto something." And that'll be just swell.

[Tani Coyote]

Just now, Dizcrybe said:

Dude, make up your mind. Do you wanna repeal and replace it or "let it fail"?

He's just desperate for a real victory at this point.

Most "victories" Trump supporters invoke have been curtailed by the courts or are out of his hands.

I'm hopeful Trump's continued antagonism prompts lot of primaried GOP incumbents and split ticket votes, paving the way to a Democratic majority next year.

Trump may be the best Democratic President ever.

Just now, Dizcrybe said:

If this lawsuit succeeds, then, and that ad is put on trains, I have no doubt that someone will decide to check it out and conclude that "you know, this Milo guy might be onto something." And that'll be just swell.

Quite possibly. Rather like Neo-Nazi recruiters who go near campuses and find some young idiots to bring into the group.

Though I think the fact he's been so routinely banned from so many venues to the point the only place he finds an audience is on grimy buses and trains makes him look like a loser in the public eye.

It's the one cent tip versus the no tip principle, I suppose.

[Dizcrybe]

5 minutes ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

Though I think the fact he's been so routinely banned from so many venues to the point the only place he finds an audience is on grimy buses and trains makes him look like a loser in the public eye.

I'd rather not share said grimy buses and trains with that audience is the thing.

[Tani Coyote]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345809-mccain-not-sure-trumps-rhetoric-on-north-korea-is-helpful

Asked about Trump's remarks on North Korea, Senator McCain offered the following:

"I don't know what he's saying and I've long ago given up trying to interpret what he says," McCain said of Trump during an interview with a local Arizona radio station first reported by NBC.

Like, ouch, damn.

3 minutes ago, Dizcrybe said:

I'd rather not share said grimy buses and trains with that audience is the thing.

I don't think most of us would want to either, but that's probably not changing.

Even if courts rule in favor of Milo and all the other banned ads, there will still be incitement provisions that keep a lid on things.

[SSF1991]

Quote

It was assumed the Nazis were a fad and that they'd lose power in future elections.

The left thought he was crazy and a madman, but they never thought he was just a fad. There was one point where people thought that his election defeats meant the end for him, but that was it.

Quote

Unfortunately, that same deal gave the Nazis control of most German police forces. Said forces had a right-wing bias to begin with but were easily misused to imprison left wing leaders, allowing the Nazis to storm the March 1933 election. They gained enough seats to form a coalition vote to give Hitler dictatorial powers.

Actually, it was primarily the SA and SS that did most of the 'enforcing". It wasn't until later, when Hitler obtained full power, that the German military and police had to do an oath to him personally. Imprisonments didn't really become a problem until the Reichstag Fire happened. And even then, it was just dozens of Communists jailed and not the thousands that Hitler would do later on. It didn't impact those in the Reichstag and the Communist Party as a whole yet, and it certainly didn't stop the division in the Reichstag.

Because of the Reichstag Fire, however, Hitler was able to pressure Hindenburg to take note of Article 48 of the Weimar Consitution. The Article allows the president the power to "take emergency measures to protect public safety and order". Because of this, Hitler was able to get Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended civil liberties (freedom of press, speech, et cetera), put Germany under a "state of emergency", and transfered state powers to the Reich government. Since the Reichstag Fire became negatively directed towards Communists, and the Decree allowed Hilter to do "detention without trial" on "suspects", this is how the supression and imprisonments began. The German Communist Party was basically destroyed, including their seats in the Reichstag and 4,000 party members being arrested. There were also some Social Democrat deputies arrested following the Decree, but not too many. They still had a significant presence.

As for police violence, this didn't begin to ramp up until the days leading up to a March 6th, 1933 election, and it was mainly anti-Communist propaganda, suppression, and paramilitary violence being done by the SA and SS. The election itself didn't give them enough votes for a majority, as they got 43.9% of the vote, even though they were doing some suppression, violence, and limiting their opposition's ability to campaign effectively. However, coalition votes were already in play by then. This made it a bit easier to make coalitions, yes, but I think the support that the Nazis were getting in the Reichstag was already giving them a small majority by then. In fact, the Decree had already been passed by Election Day, so Hitler had already gotten a good chunk of dictatorial powers by then. The election was also heavily influenced by the Nazis newly obtained power. As I said, they were already doing some supression.

This leads to me mentioning the German National People's Party (DNVP) and the Centre Party, who are the key to understanding how, once Hitler became Chancellor, how power was slowly granted to him. The DNVP were the ones that helped add to the pressure in passing the Fire Decree, they allied with the Nazis for a small majority even before the election, and most importantly, both parties were able to give the Nazis a supermajority needed in passing the Enabling Act. The Enabling Act was already given a boost thanks to a good chunk of its opposition being gone by that point, and the Nazis managed to suppress some Social Democrats as well and keep them from attending. The party's leadership had already fled to Prague, were unable to campaign effectively for the election, and the party had been operating underground by this point. The Enabling Act, which gave Hilter unlimited powers "for 4 years", was passed with a vote of 441–84. All 84 of those votes were Social Democrats, with the Centre Party being the deciding one. Why? Because Hilter told their party chairman, Ludwig Kaas, that Hindenburg would still retain his power of vetoing. Kaas was already in favor of the bill himself, but this is what he needed for the party to vote for it.

And so, with the Decree and Act passed, Hitler became a dictator, and the Reichstag was effectively rendered useless (although it still voted to renew the Enabling Act twice for 8 further years, but this was because the Reichstag was turned into a pro-Nazi farce by then). He could now actively suppress and imprison the opposition (including Social Democrats) at will. Opposition parties were banned over the course of the coming months. Even then, Hindenburg still had some power over Hitler. It took until his passing in mid-1934 for Hitler to have 100% power as the role of President was outlawed and its powers combined with that of Chancellor. With that, Hitler became the Head of State as well, and the rest was (also very very bad) history.