Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Tech priest support]

Look, people can dog pile on the ” But they do...!” issue all they want, it does not change the fact that when one person is investigated endlessly despite earlier investigations finding no evidence of guilt and investigated for trivial matters by her political opponents it creates a situation where questioning the motives of the investigators is reasonable and valid.

 

And again remember a republican basically admitted openly that the hearings were meant to hurt hillary in the poles.

 

[Tech priest support]

Double post.

 

 

[Ranxerox]

4 hours ago, Armitage said:

The latest decree from the Ministry of Truth.

 

 

 

 

Yes, the phrases "science-based" and "evidence-based" are now forbidden, along with other scary words.

 

I came across this article also.  I couldn't figure whether the decree was coming from outside the CDC, or if it was CDCs leadership making the decree to avoid having budget items shot down summarily by congress.

 

It is tempting to say that self censorship is as bad or worse than external censorship, but if the CDC wants to do the research but wants to spare it from Republican law makers' budget cutting at least research still gets done.  On the other hand, if the administration has simply decided to nix all such research, valuable time and data could be lost, and the American people lose out.  So, where this decree is coming from matters.  

[Old Man]

Congresswoman Speier predicted today that Trump will fire Mueller next Friday while the House GOP simultaneously terminates the congressional Russia investigation. 

[Tech priest support]

At which time I believe a huge number of Americans should declare the trump presidency a criminal enterprise and refuse to recognize or obey it.  You know, exactly what trump supporters would do if a democrat President shut down investigations against him.

 

 

[Ragitsu]

3 hours ago, Old Man said:

Congresswoman Speier predicted today that Trump will fire Mueller next Friday while the House GOP simultaneously terminates the congressional Russia investigation. 

 

How does this make any sense? In what other career field can you fire someone leading an official investigation against you?

[Tech priest support]

This is why democrats should if necessary force Jones into the senate and strange out before the vote.

 

[Lectryk]

10 hours ago, Tech priest support said:

At which time I believe a huge number of Americans should declare the trump presidency a criminal enterprise and refuse to recognize or obey it.  You know, exactly what trump supporters would do if a democrat President shut down investigations against him.

 

 

 

So... exactly how do you imagine this would look?  

[Old Man]

7 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

How does this make any sense? In what other career field can you fire someone leading an official investigation against you?

 

Might makes right.

[Tech priest support]

1 hour ago, eyocum said:

 

So... exactly how do you imagine this would look?  

Well, I could see some states declaring that they would not follow directives emanating from the current government in washington. Several federal agencies might begin a covert campaign to sabotage policies. Perhaps some police openly refuse to enforce laws handed down from Washington under the current government.  There could be mass acts of defiance of draconian laws and orders, like when people armed themselves to feed and help poor and homeless people in defiance of laws making helping the homeless illegal . see here: https://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/well-armed-activists-openly-defy-texas-law-to-feed-the-homeless-hundreds-clothed-and-fed.html

[Lectryk]

12 hours ago, Tech priest support said:

Well, I could see some states declaring that they would not follow directives emanating from the current government in washington. Several federal agencies might begin a covert campaign to sabotage policies. Perhaps some police openly refuse to enforce laws handed down from Washington under the current government.  There could be mass acts of defiance of draconian laws and orders, like when people armed themselves to feed and help poor and homeless people in defiance of laws making helping the homeless illegal . see here: https://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/well-armed-activists-openly-defy-texas-law-to-feed-the-homeless-hundreds-clothed-and-fed.html

 

Your solution to the problems caused by a president who calls into question just about every established norm of modern political life is to cause more problems, sow more dissent and strife, and actively rebel against lawful authority?  Basically, do Trump stuff, just moreso?  Just making sure I got you right.  

[Tech priest support]

Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

 

Also defying the law isn't automatically wrong. Some if the worst horrors in human history were perfectly legal. Likewise many great things started as illegal act.

 

Personally I view America law as utterly corrupt and not simply unjust but actively hostile to justice. As is the America legal system is something that one must often  defy to do the right thing. I have as much respect for the law as it deserves, which is virtually none. Democrats Pollard by the rules and the law for 8 years with Obama and republicans basically shut down the presidency the people overwhelmingly elected for 8 years. Now we have a republican president talking and acting like a dictator. Time to take the gloves off.

[Sociotard]

Sometimes you fight fire with fire. Sometimes you realize you are fighting in your house and if you fight back with fire you'll just burn your home down faster and the only hope is to be the most super reasonable person ever and hope that you can calm the pyro down.

 

Sometimes you have to lead from the front.

 

Sometimes you have to be a calm, rational adult.

 

[Tech priest support]

This is a question for British people: how is that brexit thing going? What's the current status on it? How do people feel about it now in Britain?

 

[Ragitsu]

Civil disobedience seemed to work pretty well half a century ago. At the least, it was a catalyst that could not be ignored.

[Tech priest support]

1 minute ago, Sociotard said:

Sometimes you fight fire with fire. Sometimes you realize you are fighting in your house and if you fight back with fire you'll just burn your home down faster and the only hope is to be the most super reasonable person ever and hope that you can calm the pyro down.

 

Sometimes you have to lead from the front.

 

Sometimes you have to be a calm, rational adult.

 

The democrats were the mature adult for 8 years while republicans threw a huge ongoing tantrum, filibustering everything democrats tried to do. McConnell even advocated a bill that Obama said he would support so he filibustered his own bill. We were the adults, and we got 8 years of childish spite thrown in our faces for it. Now we have a ranting man baby in the whitehouse who seems like his whole mission is to spit on democrats by eliminating every single thing Obama managed to do and he's getting wide support. 

 

As to burning our own house down, yes. I would rather burn it all down that let it become a country where only one party had taken over had any effective power. 

[Lectryk]

10 minutes ago, Ragitsu said:

Civil disobedience seemed to work pretty well half a century ago. At the least, it was a catalyst that could not be ignored.

 

There is a difference between civil and institutional disobedience.

[Tech priest support]

We're had some institution disobedience to the current regime. Clifornia has practiced the sanctuary city doctrine in open defiance of orders to cease it. Likewise we had institutional disobedience from the right when a judge defied the supreme court and placed a religious monument on court grounds.

 

Sheriff Arpaio famously defied federal court orders and maintained racially based harassment of Hispanics.

 

So we've had disobedience on both sides. And both sides have lately taken it to a higher level, like when supporters of cliven Bundy aimed rifles at federal agents during a standoff and very recently when people determined to feed and aid the homeless in defiance of local laws did so while carrying assault weapons after seeing people routinely stopped, cuffed and carried off for doing so while unarmed.

 

Like it or not things are escalating on both sides in America. At this point I think the only questions are when does open conflict start and who wins. Personally I'd rather it be my side.

[Lectryk]

29 minutes ago, Tech priest support said:

As to burning our own house down, yes. I would rather burn it all down that let it become a country where only one party had taken over had any effective power. 

 

Why don't you say bad things about Obama, for so totally mismanaging the Democratic Party during his tenure as President, that they lost so many elected positions and depth? 

Or about Hillary's blatant power grab (twice!)? 

Or the refusal of the party as a whole to take any appreciable stance on the reduction of the middle class and opportunity for Americans when they could have? 

At least be an equal opportunity anarchist...

 

 

[death tribble]

Guys,

 

take it down a notch. Simon patrols this thread thoroughly and consistently and you could be disciplined.

[Sociotard]

15 minutes ago, Tech priest support said:

Like it or not things are escalating on both sides in America. At this point I think the only questions are when does open conflict start and who wins. Personally I'd rather it be my side.

 

That's the attitude that leads to Republican Congressmen being shot at baseball games. Cut it out. I want the overton window shifted the other way.

[Tech priest support]

8 minutes ago, eyocum said:

 

Why don't you say bad things about Obama, for so totally mismanaging the Democratic Party during his tenure as President, that they lost so many elected positions and depth? 

Or about Hillary's blatant power grab (twice!)? 

Or the refusal of the party as a whole to take any appreciable stance on the reduction of the middle class and opportunity for Americans when they could have? 

At least be an equal opportunity anarchist...

 

 

I'm not an anarchist. I believe in a constitutional government as long as all players follow the rules.  I don't talk about some of the things you talk about because they didn't happen in the universe I live in. Some of those things only happened in the "alternate fact" based universe. You know, the one where Obama is a Kenyan born Muslim and Hillary willfully caused the deaths of the behn ghazi staff because reasons. Those things didn't happen in my reality. The democrat party may ave steered things in favor of Hillary, So be it. Recent supreme court decisions allowing unlimited big business finances of campaigns have made political campaigns a rigged game anyway.

[Simon]

Hey, TP...remind me:  have I mentioned cutting the histrionics?  I'm pretty sure I have.  Did I also mention familiarizing oneself with the rules of the thread?

[Tech priest support]

5 minutes ago, death tribble said:

Guys,

 

take it down a notch. Simon patrols this thread thoroughly and consistently and you could be disciplined.

I've been banned from forums for being "too liberal" and "too conservative". I've been banned for being " a Zionist" and for being ”a fascist". I've been banned for being "a misognyst" and for being a feminist. Icve beennbanned for being an atheost and for being too religious. It happens. 

 

One thing I've noticed is that contrary to the idea that the intrawabz were going to facilitate discussion and cm Monica at I on it tends to create a million little echo chambers where only certain views are allowed.

[Iuz the Evil]

Institutional disobedience isn't a relevant term when applied broadly to state and local government in relation to the Federal government. Neither state nor local governments have any direct responsibility to obey "directions" from the Federal in a "chain of command". That's not how our system of government works. 

 

I work in local government, I do not work for the Federal (or even state) government. If given a direction by the executive branch, I'd laugh and refer them to our counsel. But I wouldn't "obey" it under this administration or the previous one. 

 

That's not how any of this works. Jurisdictions and authority are limited. Courts can expand or restrict authority. Contracts between parties define roles (such as County contracts with the State, and State contracts with the Fed - Medicaid is a great example of this from County to DHCS to HHS).

 

Everyone should take a breath.