Senate The US Politics discussion

Does anyone know why that statue of Robert E Lee was put up ? I mean I assume it wasn't to honor him as a slave owner but for something else - ?

 

I would hesitate to call an assemblage of gun-toting Nazis "peaceful".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

 

And here we go: http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/18/new...ago-fundraisers/index.html?category=companies

Three companies canceling events at Mar-a-Lago. This is how it will end for Trump: Not one major scandal or incident, but death by a thousand self-inflicted cuts. The more businesses cut ties with him, the more money he loses, the more angry he will get and the cycle will continue until he finally leaves, gets removed, or dies. And the more that leave, the more cover they give to others and the more pressure they put on the rest. Every time the purse strings are harmed, that's when we see action. The more companies that feel the pressure of having anything to do with the Trump Organization, the more likely we see Trump's eventual demise.

 

This is actually an interesting thing I've noticed about J-Rod's analyses. And, for the record, I'm not suggesting J-Rod is unintelligent, or anything like that. But I've noticed that for J-Rod to identify something, it has to be explicit. Let's go all the way back to an ancient debate regarding poverty, and the concept of "food security/food insecurity," a concept which he ridiculed entirely. This was due to the fact that food insecurity was one step above explicit poverty. The same thing applies to these Nazi protests. To J-Rod, unless the mob is explicitly fighting, it's a peaceful protest. Threats, implications of violence, using symbols that imply future violence, being armed and threatening others, all precursors to violence still count as 100% peaceful in his eyes. And therefore if the other side fights back, they're escalating. This is just like how all precursors to poverty don't register to him.

I wonder if maybe there's a way to make him see this.

 

Take what kind of stand? Attack and punish people who chose to be a hateful idiot on their own time and aren't breaking the law? Absolutely not. To save time, I will copy/paste something very similar that I have already replied to:

As for their right to march and spread any message of violence insinuated or otherwise, I do believe that something could be said about not allowing that but I still 100% believe that nothing would be gained by a citizens' use of violent force against them. What they have is a heart problem, a compassion problem. Punching them and telling them that they are wrong is not going to change their ideology, you are only going to prove to them that they too must be prepared to fight. See how well that this tactic has been working out in the Middle East for more than the last decade for our men and women in uniform.

 

take whatever kind of stand you feel comfortable with. you can use your words, i'm not asking you to punch anyone. but i'll tell you where the line gets drawn, it gets drawn at actual nazis. when people subscribe to an ideology that advocates the extermination of entire races of people you can't equivocate that with any other "belief". fascism has no place in our society and does need to be removed by whatever means necessary.

 

Please elaborate.

We rarely see eye to eye. But you at least understand me.

Now, I get it that people talk about "violent hate speech." But violent hate speech isn't physical violence.

I realize that this generation is different, but all previous generations rightfully knew that "Sticks and stones my break my bones, but words will never hurt me." So yes, I see a difference between hate speech and violence. If hate speech is so effectively violent, then why not use that against lawful protests? I can answer...speech isn't really violence when compared to, you know, actual violence.

If you notice, BTW, I've been trying to use "Lawful protest" as opposed to "Peaceful protest" because I do understand the difference between a peaceful protest and what these ass hats are doing. But physical violence is an escalation from...I don't know...verbal violence?

There is a definite dividing line between the two. Legally as well as morally.

Couldn't someone say the exact same thing about Communism? Lord knows it's killed 100's of millions of people.

 

This is what I don't understand.

1 - which left wing protestors assaulted peaceful / lawful white supremacists (genuine question here)?

2 - in an act of domestic terrorism, one of these neo-Nazis murdered an innocent women. How is that not the main focus of condemnation here?

 

I've seen this line get trotted out recently, and here's why it's baloney.

1) America does have a history of routing out Communists.
2) Communism isn't an ideology that's inherently about bloodshed. It's been used by struggling dictators to crack down on dissent, but so has ideals like "democracy" and "capitalism". Subscribing to the Marxist theory that there should be no such thing as personal possessions and that it would be fairer if everything was pooled together and handed out to the masses by the central state doesn't make you any more likely to grab a gun and start exterminating people. Yet that's the central pillar of the Nazi ideology, exterminating minorities and wiping out anything that is deemed to be immoral and repugnant.

 

well sure, they could if they want to willingly ignore the difference that communism at its core is not a hateful ideology but rather has been corrupted and twisted by ruthless dictators. like i'm not going to equivocate amercian democracy with fascism either even though u.s. militarism has been responsible for millions of civilian deaths since world war ii. look, as soon as you try to paint naziism as one side of a coin where the other side is just as bad it doesn't matter how many times you say "i'm not defending nazis but...", because that's exactly what it looks like you're doing. it's not a good look.

 

Often it is incitement to physical violence though.

Until fairly recently, duelling over words was common by those with power. These days, it's more usual to sue over words. So, in that sense, this generation is more advanced than past ones.

 

Because the resident alt-right posters are trying to deflect from being associated to an act of terrorism. Hard to post about "dem moslim b terrorizt!11" if you're Nazi friends are doing it, too.

[edit]

Ol' Mitt chimes in..

 

White supremacists might in some cases not break the law, but by their very nature, are lawless.

 

On the bright side, Trump has brought peace to the Middle East

 

Dear God, what kind of world has it become when I find myself instinctively saying, "I wish Mitt Romney were president."

 

Reports via Conservative media that Bannon is out.

Don't tease me.

 

We all knew this would happen one day.

Gesendet von meinem SM-J510FN mit Tapatalk

 

CNN is reporting it as well.

 

There goes our Leninist mastermind.