Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Tech priest support]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/senate-does-nras-bidding-lets-75000-mentally-ill-people-buy-guns

 

https://thinkprogress.org/the-nra-wants-ex-felons-to-have-guns-but-not-voting-rights-84540fc6553b/

 

So much for the NRA advocating responsible gun ownership.

[Old Man]

I also try to link sources that at least attempt to maintain some impartiality when reporting on politics.  Don't get me wrong, I read a lot of kos, but I don't link to it because people tune it out the same way I would instantly disregard anything on Breitbart or Fox.

 

For background, I should point out that the gun control debate has raged here in this very forum for decades with seasonal flareups.  There are good people on both sides, but it's a touchy subject, and opinions will only change gradually if at all.

[Burrito Boy]

Sir Thomas More would probably disagree with you, since he was executed for treason for not publicly supporting the primacy of Henry VIII over the Pope in religious matters, despite More never openly declaring his opposition, or even expressing any opinion on the matter. Legally he was in the right, but they railroaded him anyway.

 

I'm also guessing you don't have much experience with indoctrination or brainwashing.

But does the infringement of rights mean those rights don't exist?

[Cancer]

For background, I should point out that the gun control debate has raged here in this very forum for decades with seasonal flareups.  There are good people on both sides, but it's a touchy subject, and opinions will only change gradually if at all.

I go back and forth on gun control, and it annoys me greatly that you can't get good information for assessing what effects it has. But what I really object to is the prohibition on gathering real data and doing an exhaustive analysis of that subject. I admit to some hyperbole there; it is not illegal to do it, but there is a prohibition on federal funding for such a study, and I expect it would take everything short of coercion (i.e., "do it, and do it this way, or the federal dollars go away in the morning") to get systematic, complete reporting from local governments. But under existing law, none of that is permitted.

[Doc Democracy]

But does the infringement of rights mean those rights don't exist?

I think there is a huge variety of things in what people think of as a right. We often speak of them but we rarely, and I think for very good reasons, try to define what a right is.

 

I think that it is difficult to say any right is inalienable and absolute under all circumstances. The right to think what I want had me stumped until I thought about juries. I will not be allowed to sit on some juries if I think that religion is a good reason to attack people, or that one race is inherently bad or greedy or any number of other things. So I will have my ability to sit on a jury impinged by what I think, even if I have never acted detrimentally to someone due to those beliefs.

 

I think there are likely to be other cases but this is the HERO forums dammit - we should all be bought into the no absolutes rule!!! (Or is that, in itself an absolute....)

 

 

Doc

[Heroic Halfwit]

Sir Thomas More would probably disagree with you, since he was executed for treason for not publicly supporting the primacy of Henry VIII over the Pope in religious matters, despite More never openly declaring his opposition, or even expressing any opinion on the matter. Legally he was in the right, but they railroaded him anyway.

 

I'm also guessing you don't have much experience with indoctrination or brainwashing.

Sir Thomas More was executed for a failure to speak, not for anything that he thought.  Similarly, there were no doubt many people who were not executed because they spoke what the king wished to hear rather than honestly disclose what they believed in their heads.  Sir Thomas More's execution was simple tyranny and rightfully condemned by history.

 

Your assertion that speech is the same as thought, however, is totally incorrect.  We have yet, though for how much longer who knows, to actually prosecute someone for their thoughts, only their actions or their failure to act when there is a legal duty to act.

 

As far as your assertion about me personally, know that I did at great expense escape a religious cult and I am intimately failure with brainwashing and indoctrination.  It cost me my entire family to leave that cult.  You don't know me.  Your comment on brainwashing is simply irrelevant to a discussion of whether there are "unfettered rights" to think one's own thoughts.  Sir Thomas More's tragic execution is similarly irrelevant as he was executed for his refusal speak rather than for the content of his mind.

 

The following are excerpts from the Nazi Party's political platform.  

The Program of the German Workers’ Party is a program for our time.

 

We therefore demand:

7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

.....

9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.

10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.

Breaking the Servitude of Interest.

11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.

 

12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).

14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.

15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.

17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.

18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.

19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law.

20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.

21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.

 

23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press. In order to make it possible to create a German press, we demand:

a) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers appearing in the German language must be German by race;

non-German newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication. They may not be printed in the German language;

c) any financial participation in a German newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Germans and the penalty for any breach of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-Germans involved.

Newspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned. We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our national life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race.

25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.

The Party leadership promises to take an uncompromising stand, at the cost of their own lives if need be, on the enforcement of the above points.

Munich, Germany

February 24, 1920.

 

 

Are these not socialist positions?  Are socialist in favor of profits from the wealthy propertied classes?  against public education, healthcare, old age pensions?  Are they against any limitation on war profiteering?    Are socialists in favor of the "Materialisitc World Order?"  Since when have socialists been violently opposed to the nationalization of private enterprise?

 

Be honest.  While Nazis may fairly be described as fascists, they are also fairly described as socialists.  As to the assertion that the left is not socialist, I would beg to differ.  Bernie Sanders has regularly self identified as a "Democratic Socialist" and he was very nearly the presidential candidate for the Democrats.  Many believe that Bernie Sanders defeat in the primary may have significantly contributed to Donald Trump's victory in so far as it is alleged that some of those Sanders supporters either did not cast a ballot or cast "protest ballots" for persons other than Hillary Rodham-Clinton?

[Heroic Halfwit]

If America has the absolute freedom of belief, and has always maintained that high standard, please explain "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?"

 

For that matter, please reconcile the belief that Muslims should not be permitted entry into the United States with the holding of Muslim religious beliefs while residing in the United States.

 

A less controversial perspective, perhaps, but if I believe in my own mind that everyone in a position of authority is a three-armed alien from Alpha Centauri working to enslave the Earth, I suspect I will end up locked up for the protection of myself and others.

 

Now, one could split hairs - you can believe something as long as you never act on, or share, that belief in any way. But I question the sincerity of such a belief.

 

There are no absolutes.

1.  Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party-  The act of joining a group that has as its central political platform abolishing the Constitution of the United States of America and replacing it with a Communist state is different than entertaining the unexpressed thought in one's mind that perhaps that would be a good idea.  For the same reason, I can think in quite a bit of detail precisely how I might go about murdering someone, I could plan it out to the nth degree, but until I take some overt act I am still not guilty of any crime.  Many of the people, though not all particularly during the McCarthy era, were asked that question because those people were also required to swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  It is simply illogical to believe that a person can be sincere at both defending and abolishing the same thing.

 

2.  Excluding Muslims on the basis of being oh holding Muslim beliefs.  This is not an actual legal position.  Please find me the regulation, statute, executive order or whatever that proposes to exclude persons from the United States for holding Muslim beliefs in the privacy of their own mind.  One of the fundamental freedoms in the United States is the ability to hold opposing (and in the opinion of those opposed stupid, wrong, false, irrational, etc. views).  I am not myself a racist, but I have a right to be a racist and I have the right to discriminate on race in a vast number of things, except those covered specifically by applicable laws, such as the Civil Rights Act.  So I could choose to express my racist beliefs by not having any white friends, not dating white women, refusing to watch movies and television that prominently feature white actors, etc.

 

By contrast, I could not legally express my racism by refusing to employ someone on the basis of race, or refuse to rent out a property to a person on the basis of race.

 

3.  Your belief in 3-armed aliens bent on world domination will not, and legally cannot, get you "locked up" for your own good, unless and until it can be demonstrated that as a consequence of a disease that manifests in part with that belief that you at that moment present an imminent threat to yourself or the public. 

 

4.  You are free to question whatever you like, in the privacy of your own mind.  You can, in the US, in most circumstances even express that doubt about another's beliefs.  Some expression of your doubt may result in granting the other party the right to slug you, for example if you expressed doubts about the legitimacy of my birth, then in the State of Georgia I would be within my rights to slug you for your outrageous behavior.  Similarly, I could sue you for slander if you spoke it, or libel if you published it.

 

But in any event, I do not believe that in the US you are only entitled to hold "sincere beliefs."  I assert that you are free to think any thought that comes into your mind regardless of how irrational, stupid, crazy, or offensive others might think it to be.  If you can find a single statute, case, regulation, etc. that contradicts that position in the United States, then I will pledge my legally services pro bono to getting that law voided and declared Unconstitutional.

[Simon]

Heroic Halfwit will no longer be joining us on the forums.

[Hugh Neilson]

Referring to the NRA as the fourth branch of government is clearly sarcasm and satire, based on the fact it has an inordinate amount of influence on government policy and law.

 

As to the NRA being for reasonable gun laws, WOW! And you had the noive to say my statement was "factually inaccurate and knowingly so". I mesan, seriously, I don't even know where to begin. The NRA has opposed every single act of gun control in 20 years. They're even on a jihad to make it easier for people diagnosed with mental illness to get guns. They want ex convicts to be able to get guns. Great machine god how can anyone say the NRA is in favor of responsible gun ownership?!

Of course the NRA is in favor of responsible gun ownership.

 

They are also in favor of irresponsible gun ownership, crazy stupid gun ownership and any form of gun ownership one can imagine. They are in favour of all gun ownership, without regulation or restriction.

 

At least that is how I interpret their actions to indicate their views.

[Joe Walsh]

The NRA is simply the marketing, lobbying, and PR arm of the gun industry. They will do, say, or support whatever is necessary to increase gun sales. Like all industries, they don't care about their customers -- they just care about getting as much money from them as possible. It's not about gun rights, per se -- it's about gun sales, period.

 

All industries have such lobbying groups, but in this case it intersects with the US constitution, public safety, and a whole host of other issues that affect our democracy. So it's a problem.

 

They're very good at manipulating their customers for the industry's benefit. Again, lots of industries do that. But it's one thing to increase sales by saying "Oooga, booga, Obama's gonna steal your guns!" when they know perfectly well that he's going to do nothing of the sort. But where their con game has gone over the line is that they effectively have veto power over who gets elected in much of the country. All they have to do is give a low rating to a Republican candidate whose polices they don't like. Even if those policies have nothing to do with gun sales or use. That's far too much power for one industry to have.

 

But, they got that power because their customers gave it to them. All those customers have to do to solve the problem is to take their own power back by disbelieving the lies and thinking for themselves.

[Pattern Ghost]

The gun control lobby isn't exactly without influence, either.

 

Both sides are guilty of clouding the issue so much that it's nearly impossible for the average voter to make a rational decision, which is what they want. It's easier to use emotion to manipulate voters than it is to use reason. There have been plenty of studies pointing to people making major decisions being driven by emotional needs more than logic.

[Joe Walsh]

The difference is that the gun control lobby isn't the marketing/lobbying/PR arm of an industry. Also, they're nowhere near powerful enough to be a threat to our democracy.

[Pattern Ghost]

I think you have an antecedent problem with "they're" in your second sentence. As written it's indicating that you don't think the NRA is powerful enough to represent a threat to our democracy, which isn't what I think you meant.

 

If I'm correct in thinking that you meant to refer to the gun control lobby, I'll have to disagree with your assessment of their relative power level (to the NRA/pro gun lobby) and point out that "threat to our democracy" is too vague to address. In fact, it's one of the types of emotional catchphrases that clouds the issue.

 

Let's break those two things down:

 

Relative power levels: I don't honestly know the best way to measure this, but my take on it is that you need to be heard first. The gun control lobby is easily the superior side here. I hear gun control messages constantly in the mass media, including straight political commercials, while the NRA tends to preach to the choir by occasionally pestering me with a fear mongering phone call that gets derided and hung up on. (The last one was that I needed to send them money because of the imminent threat of a Constitutional Congress being called to eliminate the 2nd. I asked the moron on the other end if they understood what was required for that to happen, called him an idiot and hung up on him.) The gun control lobby is a lot more effective at spreading their message and packages it better IMO.

 

Threat to out democracy: IMO, it's a bit silly to tie gun ownership to defending our democracy. Sure, the connection is there historically, but at a practical level, nobody is going to overthrow our current government with small arms. IMO, bringing any form of weaponry to a gathering to intimidate the other side invalidates your right to peaceful assembly as well. I suppose that some people could point to "successful" uses of violence or threat of violence to settle disputes between our government and its citizens, but those cases usually boil down to the government side exercising restraint to avoid bloodshed.

[Joe Walsh]

I'm sorry, I made a huge typo error yesterday. It was supposed to read, "...the gun control lobby isn't the marketing/lobbying/PR arm..."

 

D'oh!

 

(I corrected my post, now.)

 

I think we're pretty much in agreement.

[Tech priest support]

Gun control in the u.s. summed up.

[Tech priest support]

Gun control in the u.s. summed up.

[Pattern Ghost]

I'm sorry, I made a huge typo error yesterday. It was supposed to read, "...the gun control lobby isn't the marketing/lobbying/PR arm..."

 

D'oh!

 

(I corrected my post, now.)

 

I think we're pretty much in agreement.

 

LOL. Those typos!

[Pattern Ghost]

Gun control in the u.s. summed up.

 

I don't think the penguin has quite given up yet. Gun control was front and center on the Democratic platform in 2016. The cartoon seems more appropriate for the Obama administration, when the issue was somewhat back burnered for the party. (Though not entirely.)

[DShomshak]

So I was reading Scruton's A Dictionary of Political Thought to brush up on the actual meanings of some of the Big Emotive Words that have been mentioned recently -- rights, socialism, that sort -- and found something else that seemed insightful.

 

Sentimentalism is an attitude in which objects, concepts or other entities are valued for the opportunities they give to feel and express "heroic, dignified or tender emotions." To use Scruton's example about love, the true lover thinks, "X deserves my love." The sentimental lover thinks, "I am admirable for loving X."

 

Or I would add: "See how admirable I am for how much I love X."

 

Sentimentalism is fundamentally self-regarding, or with an eye on an audience.

 

What does this have to do with politics?

 

For one, politicians use sentimental emotion a lot to motivate/bamboozle their audience. Associate oneself with things people feel abloiged to express approval for, inn hopes the approval rubs off on you. If anyone is so crass to point out the phoniness of your flag-waving, baby-kissing display, you can accuse them of hating the flag and babies.

 

Scruton also notes other sentimental emotions with strong political aspects. Conservatives often make a show of sentimental grief at how their country has fallen from ancient virtues and holy tradition. Sentimental anger is also common -- a deliberate search for injustices, real of imagined, so mone can feel righteously outraged by them. And, I'd add again, to show one's righteousness to others.

 

A good deal of modern politics and culture wars seem driven by sentimental anger. On the Right, you have the War On Christmas and similar frauds, in which conservative Christians are invited to search the world for any sign of loss of cultural and political dominance. On the Left, you have campus obsessions with absurdly tiny microagressions and trigger warnings for every conceivable circumstance that might hypothetically, upset someone. (My "favorite" is the students who wanted trigger warnings on The Great Gatsby, on grounds that students from less affluent backgrounds might feel humiliated and traumatized by its descriptions of rich people. Not that they were traumatized, but, you know, someone might be.) But it's easy to condemn The Great Gatsby than to do something about actual poverty, or to wax wroth about not being able to put a manger scene in the town square than to address the closing of factories. It's all posturing for the crowd.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Tech priest support]

Here's something to consider about politics in america.

 

A large number of republicans are claiming trump's reaction to hurricane Harvey is far superior to president Obama's reaction to hurricane Katrina.

 

That's not a joke.

 

I....need to go scream and weep for a while, folks.

[Iuz the Evil]

Wait, what?

[Old Man]

Spoiled for language.

 

 

 

[dmjalund]

Spoiled for language.

 

 

 

"Victims are Losers. I only associate with winners. Now where is this Harvey fellow?"

[Lectryk]

Here's something to consider about politics in america.

 

A large number of republicans are claiming trump's reaction to hurricane Harvey is far superior to president Obama's reaction to hurricane Katrina.

 

That's not a joke.

 

I....need to go scream and weep for a while, folks.

 

Do you mean Bush for Katrina, or Obama for Sandy?  Both have been maligned by the hard core right for various reasons.

 

And Trump's reaction to Harvey was superior to Bush's belated and labored response to Katrina.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Do you mean Bush for Katrina, or Obama for Sandy?  Both have been maligned by the hard core right for various reasons.

 

And Trump's reaction to Harvey was superior to Bush's belated and labored response to Katrina.

Trump's attempts at symbolic gestures have traditionally been ham-fisted and/or wrong-headed, and this was no exception. That this happened less than a week after he gutted FEMA, though, showcased a pretty serious error in judgment on his part.

 

Fortunately a lot of people are stepping forward to assist in Gulf Coast Texas even without the President egging them on. So I don;t think Harvey will define Trump's presidency the way Katrina defined Bush's. Presidents can't do as much in a natural disaster as people think -- generally speaking, they are best served to provide encouragement and then step aside and let the professionals do their jobs and the volunteers do theirs. Symbolism is really the best thing they can do. Unfortunately, Trump comes off (as usual) as someone who just doesn't give a ****.

 

Disaster is a great symbolic moment in any presidency. Barack Obama's response to the Sandy Hook shootings, for example, showcased what I view as his fundamental character as a man trying to make sense of the world without it costing him his humanity. That's hard to do as the most powerful single individual on the planet. If there are positive elements of Donald Trump's character, he really hasn't displayed them in a real sense. Sitting down in front of a camera in the White House and speaking to the American people essentially one-on-one is something he just doesn't do. He needs the crowd, He can't imagine making a statement without it.