One year since Trump's election

[dilligaf0]

It's sad that we even have political parties.
Wouldn't it be terrible to vote for someone because of their qualifications instead of a silly letter next to their name?

 

[justjoinedtopost]

It'll require constant vigilance, but I think a take over is possible given that the Justice Dems' platform is reflective of what the majority of registered democrats want.

This is coming from someone who has looked at movements like the Constitution Party, the Tea Party, OWS, and BLM for signs of hope...

• DEFEND FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.
  We support the right to express unpopular opinions without fear of censorship. We support free speech on college campuses. The marketplace of ideas should be embraced. A vibrant debate is healthy for democracy, and we should cherish our first amendment. We also support net neutrality for a free and open internet.
  
  
• OPPOSE BIGOTRY.
  We must speak out against racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all forms of bigotry. Non-discrimination protections that currently apply to race, religion, and gender should be expanded to include the LGBTQ community and the atheist community. Making all Americans equal is not asking for special privileges, it’s asking for the rule of law — justice and equality for all as outlined in the United States Constitution.

These two points from the platform...in reality, the second idea has already been used to attack the first, to the point I wouldn't even waste my time unless the second were eliminated entirely.

Are the Justice Dems going to be just another movement that sacrifices individual liberty in favor of some misbegotten idea that justice is based on top-down statistics?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

When other countries’ representatives hear his words, they should not have to second guess what he means. Threaten fire and fury on a hostile country at the risk of them taking you at your words.

It isn’t responsible. It isn’t professional. It isn’t safe. It’s immature and dangerous.

It is NOT presidential.

And goddamn embarrassing.

I was confident that Trump's presidency would be a disaster, it is worse than I feared. He is a Cat 5 hurricane that never diminishes but fortunately only periodically makes landfall. Because thankfully, most of the founder's checks and balance (e.g. the courts) worked as design. Trump has also been held back by a few adults in his cabinet, a depressingly small number of principled Republicans, a Democratic party united in opposition. But primarily Trump's own stupidity and incompetence have kept him from turning all of America into Puerto Rico.

Still, his generally incoherent rhetoric is a never-ending source of embarrassment, and at times downright terrifying. I really thought my days of looking at fallout patterns were behind me. I feel confident America will survive his presidency, but we are greatly diminished by it. I am hoping for impeachment, but 2020 can't come soon enough.

SAD!

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

It's sad that we even have political parties.
Wouldn't it be terrible to vote for someone because of their qualifications instead of a silly letter next to their name?

Anyone can do this, I do. Over the last 3 election cycles, I voted for one more Republican, than Democrats, and even a couple of libertarians as protest votes.

 

[dilligaf0]

Anyone can do this, I do. Over the last 3 election cycles, I voted for one more Republican, than Democrats, and even a couple of libertarians as protest votes.

That was a subtle attempt to make people realize they have that option if they choose to exercise their brain and research who they're voting for.

 

[EmiliaSong]

This is coming from someone who has looked at movements like the Constitution Party, the Tea Party, OWS, and BLM for signs of hope...

• DEFEND FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION.
  We support the right to express unpopular opinions without fear of censorship. We support free speech on college campuses. The marketplace of ideas should be embraced. A vibrant debate is healthy for democracy, and we should cherish our first amendment. We also support net neutrality for a free and open internet.
  
  
• OPPOSE BIGOTRY.
  We must speak out against racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all forms of bigotry. Non-discrimination protections that currently apply to race, religion, and gender should be expanded to include the LGBTQ community and the atheist community. Making all Americans equal is not asking for special privileges, it’s asking for the rule of law — justice and equality for all as outlined in the United States Constitution.

These two points from the platform...in reality, the second idea has already been used to attack the first, to the point I wouldn't even waste my time unless the second were eliminated entirely.

Are the Justice Dems going to be just another movement that sacrifices individual liberty in favor of some misbegotten idea that justice is based on top-down statistics?

No, and I'm not sure where you got that idea. . . Give me an example. I can defend your right to say racist, sexist, xenophobic things while simultaneously condemning you for saying it without instituting censorship laws. You're more than welcome to shove your foot as far down your throat as you'd like. "Opposing bigotry" refers to non-discrimination laws like not being able to fire someone cause they're gay and laws that institutionalize discrimination like penalizing someone more for possessing crack than the equivalent amount of cocaine. It doesn't refer to shutting people up for being assholes.

 

[dilligaf0]

I stated this weeks ago in another thread, but it seems worth repeating here.
You have the right to say what's on your mind.
I have the right to ignore what you say if I think it's bullshit.
And vice-versa.

 

[Val Vega]

Hate speech has no place in society. And should enjoy absolutely no protection under free speech laws. Those that engage in it should be systematically opposed. People that engage in it, like Nazis, use society's tolerance to infiltrate and undermine it all the while crying "Free speech." Richard Spencer uses a veneer of 'civility' to spread his message and gain followers. He and those like him should be violently opposed.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Hate speech has no place in society. And should enjoy absolutely no protection under free speech laws. Those that engage in it should be systematically opposed. People that engage in it, like Nazis, use society's tolerance to infiltrate and undermine it all the while crying "Free speech." Richard Spencer uses a veneer of 'civility' to spread his message and gain followers. He and those like him should be violently opposed.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled differently.

Here is the fundamental problem with your view that Hate Speech deserves no protection. Who in the hell, decide what is or isn't hate speech? You, me, the city council, the hate speech committee, the beat cop, judges?.

 

[JickyJuly]

Here is the fundamental problem with your view that Hate Speech deserves no protection. Who in the hell, decide what is or isn't hate speech? You, me, the city council, the hate speech committee, the beat cop, judges?.

That makes sense. I would, though, be totally supportive of flagging groups whose core goals and history are violent (like the KKK and Westboro Baptists for instance) as hate groups and taking away their right to public assembly since peace is a requirement. People who are going around inciting violence shouldn't be allowed to hide behind police, clog up public areas creating a safety issue for others and cost tax payers money while they act a fool.

 

[dilligaf0]

That makes sense. I would, though, be totally supportive of flagging groups whose core goals and history are violent (like the KKK and Westboro Baptists for instance) as hate groups and taking away their right to public assembly since peace is a requirement. People who are going around inciting violence shouldn't be allowed to hide behind police, clog up public areas creating a safety issue for others and cost tax payers money while they act a fool.

I agree with your premise here but unfortunately those hate groups (for the most part) have managed to go right up to that line between speech that stays within the freedom of speech boundaries and actual commitment of violence.
And when violence does happen, they have the "he was an individual that was not acting as a part of us" excuse.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

No, and I'm not sure where you got that idea. . .

I hope you are right. Still watching to see, still open minded (about where the Justice Democrats might be headed).

Almost everything on the platform I agree with btw. But the PC/SJW shit is toxic. No more appealing than some of the theocratic shit I heard from Constitution Party members.

Give me an example. I can defend your right to say racist, sexist, xenophobic things while simultaneously condemning you for saying it without instituting censorship laws. You're more than welcome to shove your foot as far down your throat as you'd like. "Opposing bigotry" refers to non-discrimination laws like not being able to fire someone cause they're gay and laws that institutionalize discrimination like penalizing someone more for possessing crack than the equivalent amount of cocaine. It doesn't refer to shutting people up for being assholes.

Sure, from a right wing source, no doubt as laden with hyperbole as its left wing counterparts...
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/25/c...ing-people-who-dont-use-transgender-pronouns/

If as much attention had been paid to the overreaches by the government in the name of "protecting" us from drugs, as has been wasted on pandering jackasses who have encouraged this "we must speak out against racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all forms of bigotry" idiocy, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. Pointless to exchange one form of "protection" for another.

Hate speech has no place in society. And should enjoy absolutely no protection under free speech laws. Those that engage in it should be systematically opposed. People that engage in it, like Nazis, use society's tolerance to infiltrate and undermine it all the while crying "Free speech." Richard Spencer uses a veneer of 'civility' to spread his message and gain followers. He and those like him should be violently opposed.

It is irrational hate-filled voices like yours that make the civility of Richard Spencer seem appealing.

 

[AmberCutie]

It is NOT presidential.

And goddamn embarrassing.

This is the bullshit I'm talking about:

 

[justjoinedtopost]

This is the bullshit I'm talking about:

Or this one. That there/they're typo makes me want to poke my eyeballs out.

 

[JickyJuly]

How have they not gotten a wrangler to keep tabs on his Twitter account yet? They don't even send rock bands on the road without a babysitter. He needs constant supervision for his online presence.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

the civility of Richard Spencer seem appealing.

This must be another joke, right?
Mr Richard Spencer is BANNED from Europe, his presence and his speeches are not welcomed here. And for those who may wonder why and don't quite get it, it's because he is a f*uckin Nazi.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

Eta: I mean Mr Spencer's ideas and speeches may only appeal to those who share the same ideas, aka Nazis.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

This must be another joke, right?
Mr Richard Spencer is BANNED from Europe, his presence and his speeches are not welcomed here. And for those who may wonder why and don't quite get it, it's because he is a f*uckin Nazi.

It is not a joke at all. I don't care for Richard Spencer at all. Not the least bit interested in going to hear him speak, or going to a rally of his, or anything like that. I do understand why he attracts some followers though.

It is irrational hate-filled voices like yours that make the civility of Richard Spencer seem appealing.

I'm not saying Richard Spencer isn't a f*cking Nazi. I am saying @JizzyJezebel is every bit as much of one (if not more, considering he is rumored to be controlled opposition lol).




Difficult to sort out the truth when we are inundated with propaganda. Everything I am about to say comes with a big IF, because I am not certain whether it is completely true or not...some of it is from voices I have come to trust, some I do not know whether to trust or not.

Nazis are bad.
I am told there are a great deal of Nazis in Ukraine. I watch horrified as schoolchildren march and chant, even give a Nazi salute for the camera.
I see politicians in the USA who voice support and promise aid to the Nazis in Ukraine, while simultaneously decrying Charlottesville Nazis.

So, am I supposed to support Nazis, or am I not?

Eta: I mean Mr Spencer's ideas and speeches may only appeal to those who share the sam ideas, aka Nazis.

Some of Mr Spencer's ideas and speeches are valid. Some are not.

As for banning him from Europe...well, I wouldn't have him over for dinner, I can tell you that.

 

[EmiliaSong]

Sure, from a right wing source, no doubt as laden with hyperbole as its left wing counterparts...
http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/25/c...ing-people-who-dont-use-transgender-pronouns/

If as much attention had been paid to the overreaches by the government in the name of "protecting" us from drugs, as has been wasted on pandering jackasses who have encouraged this "we must speak out against racism, sexism, xenophobia, and all forms of bigotry" idiocy, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. Pointless to exchange one form of "protection" for another.

The punishment is draconian, but the principle of it actually makes a lot of sense. This isn't aimed at random people. This specifically for caregivers. People in nursing homes and care facilities are at the complete mercy of their caregivers, and abuse of the elderly and disabled by paid caregivers is more common than you'd think. The people in nursing homes have limited power and resources and are sometimes completely unable to speak for themselves, so potential abusers have little to dissuade them from mistreating their wards. That's where the state comes in, to offer protection for those who have no one else. Repeatedly, intentionally misgendering a person can be a form of psychological abuse. They aren't policing "oops, I made a mistake by calling this person 'he' instead of 'she' a few times, my bad!" This is for caregivers who intentionally, maliciously insist that the people whose lives they pretty much control are something that they're not. Imagine being a 94 years old man and having the same nurse who feeds you, bathes you, administers medications, wheels you around, and changes your catheter every day, insist that your name is "Dolores" and you're a woman and corrects you when you protest. Sure, you'd be angry, but you have no real power to stop her, and that feeling of powerlessness grates on you, grinding down your psyche. Making a person feel powerless is a classic form of psychological abuse. Caregivers can't call their black patients the n-word and make racist jokes, they can't call their gay patients "fags" and mock their mannerisms, and they can't call their trans patients by their dead names and insist their gender is the same as the one assigned at birth, because constantly being told that you're inferior or damaged by the person who cares for you can really fuck with your head.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

The punishment is draconian, but the principle of it actually makes a lot of sense. This isn't aimed at random people. This specifically for caregivers. People in nursing homes and care facilities are at the complete mercy of their caregivers, and abuse of the elderly and disabled by paid caregivers is more common than you'd think. The people in nursing homes have limited power and resources and are sometimes completely unable to speak for themselves, so potential abusers have little to dissuade them from mistreating their wards. That's where the state comes in, to offer protection for those who have no one else. Repeatedly, intentionally misgendering a person can be a form of psychological abuse. They aren't policing "oops, I made a mistake by calling this person 'he' instead of 'she' a few times, my bad!" This is for caregivers who intentionally, maliciously insist that the people whose lives they pretty much control are something that they're not. Imagine being a 94 years old man and having the same nurse who feeds you, bathes you, administers medications, wheels you around, and changes your catheter every day, insist that your name is "Dolores" and you're a woman and corrects you when you protest. Sure, you'd be angry, but you have no real power to stop her, and that feeling of powerlessness grates on you, grinding down your psyche. Making a person feel powerless is a classic form of psychological abuse. Caregivers can't call their black patients the n-word and make racist jokes, they can't call their gay patients "fags" and mock their mannerisms, and they can't call their trans patients by their dead names and insist their gender is the same as the one assigned at birth, because constantly being told that you're inferior or damaged by the person who cares for you can really fuck with your head.

Yeah. Bullshit laws and victim routines work better if you use children.

You should have stopped before you got to your first "but".

 

[Deleted member 37064]

That makes sense. I would, though, be totally supportive of flagging groups whose core goals and history are violent (like the KKK and Westboro Baptists for instance) as hate groups and taking away their right to public assembly since peace is a requirement. People who are going around inciting violence shouldn't be allowed to hide behind police, clog up public areas creating a safety issue for others and cost tax payers money while they act a fool.

What about individuals such as Jizzy's posts?

Hate speech has no place in society. And should enjoy absolutely no protection under free speech laws. Those that engage in it should be systematically opposed. People that engage in it, like Nazis, use society's tolerance to infiltrate and undermine it all the while crying "Free speech." Richard Spencer uses a veneer of 'civility' to spread his message and gain followers. He and those like him should be violently opposed.

Violently opposed?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

How have they not gotten a wrangler to keep tabs on his Twitter account yet? They don't even send rock bands on the road without a babysitter. He needs constant supervision for his online presence.

Sadly shutting down his twitter is beyond anyone control Ivanka, Melania, Jared, Gen. Kelly, his social media manager, even his dumb as rock son Don Jr., have said that it would be better if tweeted less.

 

[dilligaf0]

This is the bullshit I'm talking about:

Then who was it that referred to Kim Jung Un as "little rocket man"?
He's a liar. When he gets caught, he lies more.
If that's not the case, then he's mentally unstable.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

As for banning him from Europe

He should have attended a far right meeting in Poland yesterday. He didn't, guess he knew he would have been arrested for the 2nd time.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

I am told there are a great deal of Nazis in Ukraine

You are correct on this. But answering the question why they are in Ukraine, who funded them and why, well, I guess this will derail this thead and frankly I believe it should belong to a geopolitical blog/forum/or newspaper. My 2 cents.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

You are correct on this. But answering the question why they are in Ukraine, who funded them and why, well, I guess this will derail this thead and frankly I believe it should belong to a geopolitical blog/forum/or newspaper. My 2 cents.

There is no need for such a question. We do not need to bother with understanding Nazis, or how they come to be, or what drives their movements. Only that we must hate them.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

Only that we must hate them

I'm quite shocked by your hate speech right here. Anyway, jokes aside, totally agree with you. And that's precisily why, as I told in another thread discussing with you trying to making my point and letting you know some of the european laws, Nazis don't ever get to pull the free speach card, they get to go to jail instead, where they can enjoy their free time having all the free talk they want with themselves.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I'm quite shocked by your hate speech right here. Anyway, jokes aside, totally agree with you. And that's precisily why, as I told in another thread discussing with you trying to making my point and letting you know some of the european laws, Nazis don't ever get to pull the free speach card, they get to go to jail instead, where they can enjoy their free time having all the free talk they want with themselves.

Yes, it is a cultural difference I suppose.

The incarceration rates of our countries are vastly different. Mine has a fetish for mass incarceration. Of all the reforms I would like to see my rogue state make, adding something as open to abuse as hate speech laws is not one of them.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

it is a cultural difference

I guess so, and also it has to do with historical reasons. Just like in some of the ex Soviet Union countries the communist party is banned. On incarceration rates topic I don't know anything about, so I can't really say anything.

 

[JoleneBrody]

This is the bullshit I'm talking about:

Another one for the BURN BOOK!