General US Politics

[Slumber]

Just now, Glennstavos said:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is out of the hospital, thank god. Justice slots have been opening up once per year this administration so I'm sure even she's disturbed at the thought of who might take her place if her health took a turn for the worst.

We lucked out that Kavanaugh didn't turn out to be as big of a Trump stooge as we thought he would. Still a totally vile man who shouldn't be in the court, but it could have been worse.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

34 minutes ago, XRay said:

But do you realize it is that language that also creates division and scares moderates, independents, and conservatives? As much as I dislike the Republicans, lumping them all together as if they are trash is like Republicans lumping all Democrats together as communists. My own harsh language against Trump no doubt creates division too.

Before we can work on things like abolishing gerrymandering and reducing or removing money from politics, we need to save the Union first as Lincoln puts it. I do not think our country is on the verge of civil war, but I think our country is politically dysfunctional and divided, and that needs to be addressed first before we can advance any significant policies from the left.

Policy is what ultimately wins. Independents and moderates will veer towards the policy the think is best while conservatives will either ditch the Trump train or just continue to embrace. The Republicans are only all being lumped together because regardless of what they say in the public eye, they're typically just voting with the party anyway. Are there Republicans that aren't total Trumpists? naturally, we saw Justin Amash as one that already believes Trump should face impeachment and yes there may be others but again, they're not making their case a good one if they just keep voting with Trump and their party instead of with their voters. If you wanna look at language, it's the language from the president projecting on the opposition when he calls them "Do Nothing Democrats" and yet the current House has been passing good policy while the Senate just blocks it. That's what should be looked at. The founding fathers were against political parties and to destroy one that reeks of corruption like the Republicans would be a gift to the country.

I disagree, money in politics and gerrymandering are issues that the country is actually united on. The HR1 bill that was passed by the Democrats included steps to take to address Gerrymandering and saw 100% of the Republicans in the house voting against it with no vote in the Senate because of fucking Mitch McConnell. Republicans politicians won't oppose Gerrymandering, it's what helps keep them in power and if you ever pondered "how the hell is Jim Jordan in Congress?", it's due to his district being so grossly gerrymandered

34 minutes ago, XRay said:

Walking across the aisle and compromising with the other side is the most effective way to get things done in the meantime.

Obama tried it when Republicans had control of the house and senate. It didn't work then and it wouldn't work now. McConnell has made it clear that as long as he holds power, he gets to decide what's voted on. You don't try to compromise with someone that's taking this position, you destroy them and their allies.

Lindsay Graham may say that they can work with Biden but these Senate Republicans are not in a position of trust as evidenced with the Kavanaugh fiasco where they suggested no Supreme Court should be taken during an election back when Obama suggested Merrick Garland and then fast-forward to 2018 and they just rammed Kavanaugh through confirmation during the midterm elections. When asked "what about in 2020?", the motherfucker just says "oh we'd fill it"

Seriously, trying to work with them after shit like that is to enable them to pull this off again and let them get away with it. McConnell in particular needs to be removed and trying to work WITH them has proven to be ineffective.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque

[eclipse]

On 11/24/2019 at 8:03 AM, Shoblongoo said:

Don’t sleep on Pete Bettigieg 

He's probably the best balance between "someone whose stances I apparently agree with" and "someone who has a shot of getting in".

[XRay]

14 hours ago, Slumber said:

It's really not more than those 3. The republicans vote distressingly in unison. Bare minimum in the senate, republicans vote with the president 70% of the time. And that's accounting for the few outliers, who you would call "moderate". The vast majority of senate republicans vote with Trump over 90% of the time.

There is also Lisa Murkowski. She, Collins, and Romney are the only Senate Republicans who have not denounced the impeachment inquiries.

I am pretty sure there are more moderates in the House if we do a little more digging.

14 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

I disagree, money in politics and gerrymandering are issues that the country is actually united on. The HR1 bill that was passed by the Democrats included steps to take to address Gerrymandering and saw 100% of the Republicans in the house voting against it with no vote in the Senate because of fucking Mitch McConnell. Republicans politicians won't oppose Gerrymandering, it's what helps keep them in power and if you ever pondered "how the hell is Jim Jordan in Congress?", it's due to his district being so grossly gerrymandered

Just because Republican voters agree with Democratic voters on those issues does not mean prioritize it the same way. If they did, they would have elected politicians that would prioritize those issues.

14 hours ago, Slumber said:

You're arguing for unison and cooperation in a senate where that's absolutely not going to happen. There's not a chance the senate republicans will cooperate with a democratic president to help pass any meaningful change. The Overton Window has shifted drastically to the right for the republican party since Barack Obama took office. These are not the same republicans we grew up with. Well, physically, many of them are, but on the inside, they're absolutely not.

14 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Seriously, trying to work with them after shit like that is to enable them to pull this off again and let them get away with it. McConnell in particular needs to be removed and trying to work WITH them has proven to be ineffective.

Until Democrats can secure a solid majority consistently, there is no way significant progress will happen if Democrats do not work with Republicans. We can all complain about how Republicans are obstructing this or ruining that, but that does not really do anything.

Obama might not be successful, but others might. If Obama is already having issues with working with Republicans, what makes anyone think electing a far left candidate would have any success? Once you elect a far left President, you also have to elect a Democratic House and Senate to make things work, and there is also a conservative Supreme Court to deal with right now.

Until Democrats can prove they can win a landslide election, I do not see a point in backing a far left candidate who is unlikely to win and unlikely to get anything done once elected.

[Interdimensional Observer]

I'm sure the more politically-informed people here wouldn't need this statistic, but I found it worth bookmarking:

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/11/25/20981946/charity-billionaire-jeff-bezos-bill-gates-wealth-tax

The article admits to several faults with this: promises of money to be given away made, this accounting for only one year of charitable givings, not taking into consideration yearly income. But, it still makes the point that from 2000-2018, Bezos gave away only 0.12% of his total net worth.

The point being that that, although it's nice that wealthy people do give away money to charity at all, they could afford to give away much more. Or, for those of the political leaning, taxed.

 

[Slumber]

6 hours ago, XRay said:

Obama might not be successful, but others might. If Obama is already having issues with working with Republicans, what makes anyone think electing a far left candidate would have any success? Once you elect a far left President, you also have to elect a Democratic House and Senate to make things work, and there is also a conservative Supreme Court to deal with right now.

Until Democrats can prove they can win a landslide election, I do not see a point in backing a far left candidate who is unlikely to win and unlikely to get anything done once elected.

Obama was a moderate Democrat. He was still rebuked almost universally in his attempts to work across the aisle. What, besides him being a white dude, makes you think Joe will have any more success at actual progress than Obama? Being even more willing to bend over and spread for the Republicans, again, is not a good argument for Biden. 

Trumpism is an evil ideology. You don't eradicate evil by negotiating with it. We need a president who will stand up to the Republicans. There's not a single bone in my body that believes Biden can do that. 

And yes, I'm aware you'll need leverage in the senate to get anything done, and a huge part of that is getting rid of McConnell. While Republicans in the senate are a cancer, I don't think any of them want to be in his position. The only reason McConnell can get away with what he does is because of his nearly limitless coffer, and him being from possibly the most comfortable state for a republican politician. Even with those two things in mind, McConnell still barely scrapes by with a win in all of his elections. 

I don't think any other republican will pick up his position as Vanguard of the Stupid and Feckless because quite frankly, they can't afford it. 

In a scenario where McConnell is still in the senate, I'd rather have a president who wouldn't make concessions, because working with the animals across the aisles is just going to lead to the same shit that happened with Obama, but 10x worse. In a scenario where McConnell is out, I'd rather have a president who will put the screws to the republicans, because they need a MAJOR course correction. 

Neither of those scenarios is one with Biden in it. 

EDIT: And for clarification, so we can stop this nonsense about what Biden is, he's not a "moderate" or "centrist" Democrat. He's a right-leaning Democrat. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by Slumber

[XRay]

7 minutes ago, Slumber said:

Trumpism is an evil ideology. You don't eradicate evil by negotiating with it. We need a president who will stand up to the Republicans. There's not a single bone in my body that believes Biden can do that. 

And yes, I'm aware you'll need leverage in the senate to get anything done, and a huge part of that is getting rid of McConnell. While Republicans in the senate are a cancer, I don't think any of them want to be in his position. The only reason McConnell can get away with what he does is because of his nearly limitless coffer, and him being from possibly the most comfortable state for a republican politician. Even with those two things in mind, McConnell still barely scrapes by with a win in all of his elections. 

We cannot avoid working with Republicans. We have nowhere enough votes nor resources to ignore Republicans. McConnell is not going anywhere unless the Democrats suddenly migrate to Kentucky in significant numbers to vote him out.

[Slumber]

49 minutes ago, XRay said:

We cannot avoid working with Republicans. We have nowhere enough votes nor resources to ignore Republicans. McConnell is not going anywhere unless the Democrats suddenly migrate to Kentucky in significant numbers to vote him out.

McConnell is literally the most unpopular senator in the whole country, and that's just comparing his approval rating at home(His approval rating in KENTUCKY is worse than Trump's is nationwide). It will be very difficult to unseat him, but it's possible. 

And again, you're going to have to elaborate on the positives of working across the aisle at the moment, other than nothing will get done. ESPECIALLY with Biden. As a reminder, and this was one of Biden's biggest bragging points when he first launched his campaign because he was super proud of this, he's directly responsible for getting one of the most right-wing criminal justice reform bills passed in recent American history. 

Something he only just recently started backtracking on(Again, he was bragging about it less than a year ago), by the way, because it turns out that marking yourself as one of the people most responsible for our awful criminal justice system is actually a wildly unpopular thing. 

It's straight up a case where him not getting involved and nothing happening would have 100% been a better option than working across the aisle. AND AGAIN, this was in the 90s, before the Republicans went super off the deep end. 

Edited November 26, 2019 by Slumber

[Dr. Tarrasque]

2 hours ago, XRay said:

We cannot avoid working with Republicans. We have nowhere enough votes nor resources to ignore Republicans. McConnell is not going anywhere unless the Democrats suddenly migrate to Kentucky in significant numbers to vote him out.

Bolded: Says who? They don't need to work with them, they can just pass bills and let the votes from the politicians speak for the politicians and the Democrats can then seize on them (which the moderates tend to not do). One thing that Democrats should be doing in office right now while Trump is still in power is to pass GOOD legislation that Trump proposed when he was running, such as paid maternity leave. Bring the legislation forward as a campaign promise that Trump made and you put the Republicans in a shitty lose-lose position where they either have to give up and pass it because Trump promised it so they can appease his base or oppose it and make Trump and themselves look bad.

You talk of insufficient resources to ignore the current Republicans but everything you're suggesting amounts to making the Democrats look complicit and willing to just let criminals get away with what they've done (like Obama when he came into office and looked the other way instead of punishing Bush officials that deserved it). That's not a party that's going to motivate voters to get out there and vote in their favor and that's what they need to gain to capitalize on 2018's results.

Additionally, Slumber's right on McConnell being the way he is due to Kentucky's voting record. If he's pushed out in 2020, the other Republicans will have to think twice about doing what he did. Biden would deflate the political pressure on McConnell and the Republican party with the "Nothing will change" attitude he's bringing. Again, you've seen what Bernie and John Stewart's political pressure has done for the benefit of folks in the country.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I say leave the centrism to the voters. Reign in our politicians when they're in danger of stepping over a line. It's easier for democratic voters to change the habits of democratic politicians and vice versa for the other guys. 

[XRay]

1 hour ago, Slumber said:

And again, you're going to have to elaborate on the positives of working across the aisle at the moment, other than nothing will get done. ESPECIALLY with Biden. As a reminder, and this was one of Biden's biggest bragging points when he first launched his campaign because he was super proud of this, he's directly responsible for getting one of the most right-wing criminal justice reform bills passed in recent American history. 

What more elaborations do we need? Nothing getting done is the worst case scenario and that is what we have now. Criminal justice reform, immigration, gun control, etc. are moving at a snail's pace if it is moving at all, and all it takes is one party controlling one portion of the government. We can still pass funding bills and budgets and stuff like that, but we are not advancing very much beyond the basic maintenance stuff.

If we want to pass stuff at a reasonable speed like how we recently passed a bill supporting Hong Kong, we need Republican support. I think that bill passed Congress with only like one vote dissenting. Trump still has to sign it though.

A bill regarding limiting weapons exports to Saudi Arabia was also passed relatively quickly with support from both sides a while ago, although Trump vetoed that one.

1 minute ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

You talk of insufficient resources to ignore the current Republicans but everything you're suggesting amounts to making the Democrats look complicit and willing to just let criminals get away with what they've done (like Obama when he came into office and looked the other way instead of punishing Bush officials that deserved it). That's not a party that's going to motivate voters to get out there and vote in their favor and that's what they need to gain to capitalize on 2018's results.

I do not think increasing voter participation by increasing division is going to work either. It will just harden both sides and give moderates in the middle a much harder time to compromise.

[Excellen Browning]

On 11/25/2019 at 4:30 AM, XRay said:

Not every Republican is like that. There are still people like Susan Collins on the right, and maybe Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush if they count? They seem more moderate.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. The large majority of Republicans weren't willing to cross the aisle, or collaborate at all during the Obama years. And they've gone all in on Trump, a candidate on who controversial amongst the republicans themselves, and not well-liked either.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

At this point it's probably best to just agree to disagree. You believe that it's possible to compromise with Republicans to pass legislation. I don't believe that's the case unless you include additional tax cuts the rich or something to fuck the non-rich because that's what they've been about since Reagan. I believe it's best to just remove them and put the conversation on things like getting money out of politics, removing the filibuster so that votes can happen more frequently and removing all partisan gerrymandering as well as putting the pressure on politicians to hold them accountable for what they campaigned on.

Some folks say that the Republican party has basically become the "Undemocratic party" and I can see that, specially when the politicians and right-wing pundits smugly respond with "We're a Republic" like a Republic and Representative Democracy are mutually exclusive concepts. Ah it would wonderful if we got out of this 2-party system.

Edited November 26, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Shoblongoo]

The large majority of elected Republicans are cravens doing what they think they need to do to get elected again, and are more opportunistic than ideological in their posturing.

Which is to say the way to make them 'compromise' is to win elections in states and districts that make them feel like they won't get reelected again, unless they move closer to the Democrats. (Some are hardline ideologues who will never come around regardless. Most aren't; and the ones that are don't have the numbers to put up any real opposition if they lose the opportunists.)  

However,  its being overly generous to say "most Republicans are willing to cross the aisle."

They'll do it. But they won't do it willingly. You have to force their hand.

You have to put the fear of getting electorally wiped out into them. 
 

Edited November 26, 2019 by Shoblongoo

[Johann]

On 11/23/2019 at 3:26 AM, Tediz64 said:

Okay so I got to like 7:30 and couldn't continue. Within the first few seconds I knew this video was gonna be bad cause he said "white people shit" when referring to content around games, anime, and so forth. Like since when did white people own that content and those hobbies? Plus this video seems very much like the intended audience is just for one group. A group I'm not part of. Needless to say, I understand that to a certain extent this video covers some legit info that is real but the way the info is presented is very off putting and narrow in scope. I get your good intentions about sharing the video. But now I'm stuck on that fact that some dude out there think white people own those hobbies and interests. Which bothers me greatly. So I kinda wanna end this part of the discussion while still have more composure.

It's a joke, fella. He later calls anime and video games mainstream. Don't tune out just because you didn't like a joke early on.

The video is made for anyone. The key points are:

• People who generally feel socially isolated and disillusioned with the world are more likely to be swayed by ideas that propose explanations/solutions for their problems
• Communities for niche or hobby interests (video games, anime, etc) have significant populations of said people
• Alt-right groups deliberately target those communities for recruitment by first gaining trust ("they're nice to me") of those disillusioned people, and then finding ways to push them further into alt-right camp and away from their usual communities.

The end result is that a community gets co-opted by white supremacists, with some members chased out, and the remaining members radicalized. Ironically, many of the problems these disillusioned people face have left-aligned solutions that stand up much better to scrutiny compared to the alt-right (video's example being that the left blames capitalism, while the alt-right blame Jews), and it's likely they could have shifted left.

On 11/23/2019 at 3:26 AM, Tediz64 said:

Suffice to say, I know my type and that I'm easily susceptible to being indoctrinated into a cult. I took a test once. It was kinda funny. But I got a few people who keep me in check so I'm safe.

Part of the threat is that the strategy used by these groups involves isolating you from the people who would keep you in check.

On 11/24/2019 at 1:22 AM, eclipse said:

And Pokemon is the worst if you're PETA, BUT that might fall under the robot category.  Oh, and some of the really religious people, but again, robots.

Hypocrisy is a form of lying, so PETA falls into the goddamn liar camp

[Excellen Browning]

18 minutes ago, Johann said:

The video is made for anyone. The key points are:

• People who generally feel socially isolated and disillusioned with the world are more likely to be swayed by ideas that propose explanations/solutions for their problems
• Communities for niche or hobby interests (video games, anime, etc) have significant populations of said people
• Alt-right groups deliberately target those communities for recruitment by first gaining trust ("they're nice to me") of those disillusioned people, and then finding ways to push them further into alt-right camp and away from their usual communities.

Part of the threat is that the strategy used by these groups involves isolating you from the people who would keep you in check.

What's weird to me is that I fit the socially isolated stereotype very well, and the communities I do slot into are hardly fertile ground for racists and other unsavoury types. Some of them commonly run out the racists, or just ban them. 

Now that I think about it, I'm worried of what will happen to the folk scene when the trash starts attending.

[Johann]

1 minute ago, Excellen Browning said:

What's weird to me is that I fit the socially isolated stereotype very well, and the communities I do slot into are hardly fertile ground for racists and other unsavoury types. Some of them commonly run out the racists, or just ban them. 

Now that I think about it, I'm worried of what will happen to the folk scene when the trash starts attending.

Effective moderation keeps the overt racists away, yeah. I figure they can still potentially get through the cracks by adhering to the rules (nothing overt, such as by using dogwhistles) or by influencing people outside of mod vision (PMs, links that aren't overt).

[Slumber]

4chan's a good example. It's always been full of degenerate racists, but they were left-leaning degenerate racists for a long while. A site with virtually no moderation and complete anonymity.

For the last 6ish years, it's been a breeding ground for literal neo Nazis. And that's after they tried to contain it(In /pol/) and took steps to stamp it out(Which led to 8chan).

[Etrurian emperor]

17 hours ago, Johann said:

• Communities for niche or hobby interests (video games, anime, etc) have significant populations of said people
• Alt-right groups deliberately target those communities for recruitment by first gaining trust ("they're nice to me") of those disillusioned people, and then finding ways to push them further into alt-right camp and away from their usual communities.

Sadly the opposing side often makes it very easy for those groups to try this whole recruiting scheme. Its not hard to find the ''sjw'' fringe overreact at something and get combative about it. Right Wing channels then stockpile footage from this minority and say ''See! Do you see! Gaming is under attack! Go GamerGate!'' 

Then the more mainstream channels and sources not being on the side of the alt right gets used as an excuse for the alt right to go ''See! Do you see! Those gosh darn sjw's CORRUPTED the main stream media! Gaming is under attack! Go Gamergate!''

And by all accounts that strategy seems to have been rather successful. From what I understand a lot of channels that started out positively covering Gamergate and railing against the ''corrupt'' gaming press are now deep into the Trump rabbit hole, now positively covering Trump and railing against the ''corrupt'' regular press. This radicalization could have taken place within their audience too. 

And we see the trick getting repeated pretty regularly. I believe ''animegate'' and ''comicsgate'' already happened though I don't think either really got off the ground. It might also be happening with Star Wars. The admiral pinkhair subplot was kinda poorly written and not long after I see tons of channels going ''See! Do you SEE! Those gosh darn sjw came for Star wars! Star wars is under attack!'' 

The Youtube algorithm really isn't helping. I remember watching one video about Star Wars leaks and then suddenly my recommended feed gets bombarded with videos that have titles such as ''George Lucas BETRAYED!''  ''Starwars BOWS down to PURITANS! Rey is a MARRY SUE!''.

 

[Shoblongoo]

19 hours ago, Slumber said:

4chan's a good example. It's always been full of degenerate racists, but they were left-leaning degenerate racists for a long while. A site with virtually no moderation and complete anonymity.

For the last 6ish years, it's been a breeding ground for literal neo Nazis. And that's after they tried to contain it(In /pol/) and took steps to stamp it out(Which led to 8chan).

So I know @eclipse is going to gut me over the suggestion that there may actually be something in the Patriot Act worth salvaging...but here me out...

Remember that thing we were doing after 9/11 where we had entire buildings full of NSA agents going onto jihadist websites. Monitoring their forum boards. Taking particularly egrigious statements to FISA court, and using them to obtain search warrants and set-up sting operations and compile terror watchlists?

...thats what we should be doing right now with 4chan and Stormfront and the like...

I'm less bothered that that whole surveillance apparatus exists.

And more bothered that we created it in fit of post-9/11 paranoia, used it just to go after the Muslims, then in retrospect decided it was a thing we shouldn't be doing + never used it again to go after--you know--the actual primary terror threat facing the homeland. 

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Shoblongoo

[Dr. Tarrasque]

47 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

So I know @eclipse is going to gut me over the suggestion that there may actually be something in the Patriot Act worth salvaging...but here me out...

Remember that thing we were doing after 9/11 where we had entire buildings full of NSA agents going onto jihadist websites. Monitoring their forum boards. Taking particularly egrigious statements to FISA court, and using them to obtain search warrants and set-up sting operations and compile terror watchlists?

...thats what we should be doing right now with 4chan and Stormfront and the like...

I'm less bothered that that whole surveillance apparatus exists.

And more bothered that we created it in fit of post-9/11 paranoia, used it just to go after the Muslims, then in retrospect decided it was a thing we shouldn't be doing + never used it again to go after--you know--the actual primary terror threat facing the homeland. 

 

While it would be practical to use the Patriot Act against White Nationalists on paper, it would realistically come with worse results than you'd expect depending on when it's used. Let's say it's used under Trump or with the next president...

A. Under Trump it wouldn't really work out, while Wray testified that most domestic terrorism in the country is currently perpetrated by White Nationalists, the FBI currently views other extremists as bigger threats even though their own data points to White Nationalists being the more common and actual threat. These are still Trump's people even though they dislike that he's not as racist as they wish he were and the FBI's bias is clear.

B. Execute it under the next Democratic President and that's more ammo for right-wing media to push White Nationalist bullshit onto the mainstream. "This is the next step in the Socialist White Genocide agenda, they claim authoritarian power to monitor just white people. We're being persecuted in our own land!". Sure, it's just more propaganda like they do today but it makes it easier for them to convince white folks that should have no worry because that's just it: the politics of fear work. You'd be opening the path for more of them to get in office and a more malicious Donald Trump if the Electoral College isn't gone.

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Zapp Branniglenn]

"Policing of memes" or "banned memes" would become the next buzzword. While I think you can generally get away with whatever invasion of privacy you'd like when it comes to the internet, if government intelligence agencies were public about doing this, people'd get way more mad about it than they do with google mining and selling our search histories. If intelligence agencies did keep an eye on radical forums and message boards but did so in secrecy (and I imagine they already do, at least with any person they've been tipped off about through official channels) then it's probably fine until a Snowden outs the whole process to the public and sells the film rights to his story.

But yeah I have no idea how to combat the memes you see online that express a half-truth but frame it in a way that blames one person or party. They're memes, not dissertations, there's no use critiquing them and you have to imagine the poster probably cares less than you do if you feel an urge to respond. When these appear on a generic forum or a friend's discord or twitter feed I'd let it pass without comment.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Glennstavos

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

B. Execute it under the next Democratic President and that's more ammo for right-wing media to push White Nationalist bullshit onto the mainstream.  This is the next step in the Socialist White Genocide agenda, they claim authoritarian power to monitor just white people

 

29 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

"Policing of memes" or "banned memes" would become the next buzzword. 

But yeah I have no idea how to combat the memes you see online that express a half-truth but frame it in a way that blames one person or party.

I really don't think we should be making decisions about what government should and should not be doing based on how we think Nazis and right-wing talkshow hosts are going to react to it + efforts to make sure we don't give them cause for complaint.

I mean apply that standard to any hot-button issue--guns, immigration, healthcare, education--and try getting any sense of workable policy going within the constraints of we can only do things that aren't going to be propagandized by the extreme right and used as ammunition + buzzwords to radicalize more wingnuts. 

The problem with that approach quickly becomes self-evident. 
____

Do everything they don't want you to do. Let them cry about it.

And if those cries start to sound like terroristic threats, throw the book at them. 


 

Edited November 27, 2019 by Shoblongoo

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

So I know @eclipse is going to gut me over the suggestion that there may actually be something in the Patriot Act worth salvaging...but here me out...

Remember that thing we were doing after 9/11 where we had entire buildings full of NSA agents going onto jihadist websites. Monitoring their forum boards. Taking particularly egrigious statements to FISA court, and using them to obtain search warrants and set-up sting operations and compile terror watchlists?

...thats what we should be doing right now with 4chan and Stormfront and the like...

I'm less bothered that that whole surveillance apparatus exists.

And more bothered that we created it in fit of post-9/11 paranoia, used it just to go after the Muslims, then in retrospect decided it was a thing we shouldn't be doing + never used it again to go after--you know--the actual primary terror threat facing the homeland. 

 

Consider yourself gutted.  😛

Ahem. . .the thing about power is that it can and will be misused eventually.  Do you think Trump would aim the surveillance at those elements that are supporting him?  Or would he use it to sniff out his opposition?

As for the extremism, we can sort-of thank Google for that, too.  Maybe not directly, but I'm a firm believer that search results shouldn't be tailored to the person.  Dissent should be very much in sight and mind, not hidden on page 3 of the search results.

[Excellen Browning]

I'm all for starting to seriously prosecute the extreme/alt right, but I still think the Patriot Act should be repealed or seriously curtailed. Much of it has to do with institutional unwillingness, not with the law.