Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Alan Klein on June 15, 2017, 09:29:32 am

Title: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on June 15, 2017, 09:29:32 am
Yesterday's shooting of congressmen presents the question, how do we stop this?  My feeling is that there are too many people on both sides taking violent positions in social media as well as in more public displays.    It just inflames nuts like this guy and pushes them over the edge.    We really have to tone down the rhetoric.   What do you think? 
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: amolitor on June 15, 2017, 09:37:06 am
Well, we start with ourselves and recognize that the other guy is often just as a informed and just as bright and just as human.

I have a largely fallow project which I invite all to consider making contributions (of pictures, not money):

tusoas.blogspot.com

Feel free to promote it, copy it, mock it, or send pictures to it.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: James Clark on June 15, 2017, 10:02:36 am
Yesterday's shooting of congressmen presents the question, how do we stop this?  My feeling is that there are too many people on both sides taking violent positions in social media as well as in more public displays.    It just inflames nuts like this guy and pushes them over the edge.    We really have to tone down the rhetoric.   What do you think?

Alan, I agree completely.  One of the unfortunate side effects of the Internet is that it allows people to spew vile, hateful language anonymously and without repercussions or shame, and then it takes only one nut job to bring those thoughts into the real world, often with tragic consequences. It's also allowed groups of radicals who might otherwise never connect to coordinate and magnify their destructive potential.

I remain a free speech absolutist, more or less, but it's disheartening to realize that in doing so I become reliant on self-moderation :(
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Otto Phocus on June 15, 2017, 11:00:57 am
It is difficult to come up with only one reasons why people choose violence.

One of the reasons might be that they feel there is no alternative; that the only way their views can be expressed is through violence.  In a way, I am sorry this person died as I think trying to learn why he choose this activity would be useful.

Throughout our history, there have been hundreds millions of people who are angry about stuff who do not choose violence.  Why?  Why not?  And then we can apply that to these people who do choose violence.

If we can understand why (truly understand and not just make emotional generalizations) we might be in a better position to lessen instances of this sort of violence.  We may never be able to eliminate it totally, but that should not be our only goal.

As previously posted, I agree that the Internet is an enabler.  Prior to the Internet, we had crazy guys, but they tended to be lonely and mostly ignored by sane people.  Other than "I would like to subscribe to your newsletter" the ability of these crazy guys to interact with other crazy guys was more limited.

Then came the Internet.  The advantage of the internet is that everyone can share their opinions.  The disadvantage of the internet is that everyone can share their opinions.

Now it is a lot easier for Crazy Guys to not only share their opinions but to virtually meet with other Crazy Guys.  When Crazy Guys get together, even virtually, they can enforce and perpetuate the crazy.  Crazy Guys get affirmation and a sense of community with other Crazy Guys. This can, in my opinion, embolden them.

These "lone wolf attacks" are really not made by "lone wolfs", but by members of an unorganized but emotionally supportive virtual group.  I bet you a scooby snack that this guy was active on some nut-case forums where he was getting affirmation and confirmation bias that enabled him to justify such a terrible act.

So what can we do about this?  Unfortunately not much.

Shaming and ridiculing the nutters won't do anything as they can find their affirmation from other nutters.   For the same reason ignoring them won't work.  It certainly does not work on this site nor would it work on other sites.  Has anyone's radical/extreme opinion ever been changed because of a thread on an internet forum?  Doubtful.

Restricting or monitoring the Internet?  Yikes! that might be a case where the cure may be worse then the disease.

Which gets back to my original statement -- they feel there is no alternative; that the only way their views can be expressed is through violence.  I don't know what the solution is.

Mature people recognize that sometimes elections don't go the way they want.  In pretty much every presidential election, about half of the citizens are not happy.... but almost of them don't resort to violence. Why?   But some do resort to violence.  Why?  Those are the questions we need to answer in order to start finding a solution, or more accurately solutions as I don't think this is a simple problem where one solution will take care of the problem.  People are more complex and their motivations even more complexer  ;)

I feel it starts with everyone in our society taking a stand that this sort of political violence is not acceptable.  Even the nutters have to understand that no matter what they vent on the Internets Tubes, political violence is never acceptable.  We need to remove that level of affirmation.  Easy to type, very hard to implement.

We may have to consider the possibility that this is an insolvable problem.  We can't take the internet away, we can't suppress expression, we can't take away the guns...and we may not be able to affect the violent motivations.

JFK once said  "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man."  May be solved, not always solvable.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: RSL on June 15, 2017, 11:11:05 am
Oh boy! This thread is going to go nowhere fast and furious, and it's gonna keep on going far beyond its sell by date. It may even exceed Trump II in its vacuousness.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: stamper on June 15, 2017, 12:42:46 pm
Oh boy! This thread is going to go nowhere fast and furious, and it's gonna keep on going far beyond its sell by date. It may even exceed Trump II in its vacuousness.

Agreed. I am surprised Alan started this thread. He probably had the most posts in the Trump II thread. Time for the moderator to close this type of thread and get back to disagreeing about photography ???
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: scyth on June 15, 2017, 01:06:34 pm
Agreed. I am surprised Alan started this thread. He probably had the most posts in the Trump II thread. Time for the moderator to close this type of thread and get back to disagreeing about photography ???
Trump II trumps Rhein II for sure here
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 15, 2017, 01:24:06 pm
Agreed. I am surprised Alan started this thread. He probably had the most posts in the Trump II thread. Time for the moderator to close this type of thread and get back to disagreeing about photography ???

I disagree.  :D

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: 32BT on June 15, 2017, 02:02:14 pm
I wonder in how far internuts has anything to do with it other than the availability and immediate intake of visually horrific events. I have no doubt that this can cause PTSD in some viewers which we know can result in those irate and irrational actions.

Additionally, i don't think television and movies have helped our generation much since the standard hollywood theme in 90% of the cases has been "trial and retribution" by some individual. Not a very useful representation of reality for children to grow up with....
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Schewe on June 15, 2017, 02:06:24 pm
What do you think?

I think we need to wait for the investigation to determine what series of events led to this guy going to Washington, living in his van then asking if the baseball players were GOP and then shooting. We don't know enough now to know much of anything other than it's a sad day and I hope everybody recovers.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Rand47 on June 15, 2017, 02:32:13 pm
Yesterday's shooting of congressmen presents the question, how do we stop this?  My feeling is that there are too many people on both sides taking violent positions in social media as well as in more public displays.    It just inflames nuts like this guy and pushes them over the edge.    We really have to tone down the rhetoric.   What do you think?

I don't think we do.  Or perhaps we do by becoming some version of a totalitarian state - that may likely be the solution.  Government as enforcer of the peace.  History is replete . . .

The root problem in my opinion is that the US has abandoned the Judeo-Christian ethic as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.  AND FOR THE RECORD I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT STATE RELIGION, OR ABANDONING CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATION.  What I am talking about is an ethical consensus that used to exist based upon the Judeo-Christian ethic.  While the founders were not all either Christians or Jews, they were at least deists whose underpinning worldview assumptions were firmly rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic.  I.e., there is a God who is creator, and who has in fact, endowed mankind with unalienable rights.  This, when you think about it, is an appeal to the transcendent.  Something outside of, and "above" individuals' opinions or preferences.  It was the basis upon which we told the King of England to go take a hike.  We appealed to the transcendent as being of "greater authority" than the King.

We abandoned that.  Now everything is determined by who can garner 51% of the vote.  Which is a form of "might makes right."  People intuitively know that "might might garner power" but it doesn't "make right."  The left is incensed that an evil bastard like Trump could have "garnered power" (their intuitive reach for transcendent values is the basis for their being incensed, IMO).  The right is reveling in having triumphed even though they have to hold their nose and plug their ears when Trump tweets.  An indication that they know that something is fundamentally amiss and missing.

So, now, with no transcendent to appeal to for respect for all people, civility, a sense of propriety (all of these, and very many others, are elements of the Judeo-Christian ethic) we're down to "who can win at whatever cost."  And the nut-jobs on the fringes of all positions will do the kind of things the more moderate propose with their inflamed, ugly, accusatory, ad hominem, rhetoric. 

It is sad, but inevitable, and I don't think there is a way (other than my opening remark about totalitarian government enforcement of the peace) to recover.  And, I think that as violence increases, Americans will be more and more amenable to having the government assume greater power to enforce the peace.  And so the great experiment that the US has been for the last 200+ years will go the way of all civilizations in recorded history and become one kind of dictatorship or another.  Probably not a single dictator, more likely some sort of oligarchy.  But at least there will be peace.  The price will be liberty.

Rand
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: scyth on June 15, 2017, 03:01:20 pm
While the founders were not all either Christians or Jews

And who was not a christian (as considered by peers at the moment, not as some dudes consider now) there, btw ? just curious ... also - who among them was considered by peers then as a jew ?
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: MattBurt on June 15, 2017, 03:30:35 pm
I think we should follow Australia's lead for gun laws but I'm pretty doubtful it would actually happen.

This one is particularly complex as the victims are typically pro gun and people who might agree with (at least some of) the shooter's political leanings would more typically be in favor of gun control.
I'm genuinely curious how this will be spun by both sides.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: James Clark on June 15, 2017, 04:29:48 pm
And who was not a christian (as considered by peers at the moment, not as some dudes consider now) there, btw ? just curious ... also - who among them was considered by peers then as a jew ?

There was a book out last year that argues that Hamilton or Hamilton's parents might have been Jewish.  (I haven't read it).  As for the others, if we can agree that belief the divinity of Jesus Christ is a prerequisite for being "Christian," then a number of the Founders might not meet that definition (Jefferson is famous for - among other things of course - creating a "Bible" that omits much of the supernatural aspect of Jesus' existence, for example).  As Rand stated, they ran the gamut from active church members, to devotees of Enlightenment religious philosophies extending to and encompassing a "natural law" of sorts.  Rand, again above, rightly considers this as indicative of a Judeo-Christian (i.e. western) ethical basis in the founding of the United States, and he's right, but it's important not to conflate that ethos with the literal and strict belief in traditional Christian (or Jewish) dogma.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: scyth on June 15, 2017, 05:22:56 pm
There was a book out last year that argues that Hamilton or Hamilton's parents might have been Jewish.  (I haven't read it).

oh... a book  ;D ... might have been... a crypto-jew... face it - they were a bunch of white christian men presenting themselves as such and any suggestion back then otherwise 'd cause you to kill Hamilton /upon his challenge/ on a duel (instead of Burr)  :P
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: James Clark on June 15, 2017, 10:30:43 pm
oh... a book  ;D ... might have been... a crypto-jew... face it - they were a bunch of white christian men presenting themselves as such and any suggestion back then otherwise 'd cause you to kill Hamilton /upon his challenge/ on a duel (instead of Burr)  :P

You asked a question.  I answered it with the benefit of my degree (history, American colonial concentration) and my knowledge of both primary and third-party research on the subject.  Again, don't confuse "Not Christian" with "21st century secular humanist." 

Ben Franklin's letter to Ezra Stiles (http://www.questioningchristian.com/2004/11/benjamin_frankl.html)
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Rand47 on June 16, 2017, 12:39:37 am
oh... a book  ;D ... might have been... a crypto-jew... face it - they were a bunch of white christian men presenting themselves as such and any suggestion back then otherwise 'd cause you to kill Hamilton /upon his challenge/ on a duel (instead of Burr)  :P

Wow, that's quite a mouth full.  Sources please.

Also, I think you may have missed my rhetorical device:  Judeo-Christian = worldview, and that this can be held without being either "Christian, or Jew."  I was not specifically claiming that any, most, some, all, none were specifically either - though some undoubtedly were (in the case of Christian), and perhaps some were Jewish.  As an aside, "Jewish" has at least three aspects/meanings unique to it, that may be singular or combined in some way(s):  ethnicity, religious worldview, nationality.  And, to further complicate matters, within the "religious worldview" category are many subcategories. 

Apologies to the OP.  It was not my intention to drag the topic off point.  However, my original response I feel is very much on point.

Rand
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on June 16, 2017, 12:56:13 am
I don't think we do.  Or perhaps we do by becoming some version of a totalitarian state - that may likely be the solution.  Government as enforcer of the peace.  History is replete . . .

The root problem in my opinion is that the US has abandoned the Judeo-Christian ethic as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.  AND FOR THE RECORD I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT STATE RELIGION, OR ABANDONING CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATION.  What I am talking about is an ethical consensus that used to exist based upon the Judeo-Christian ethic.  While the founders were not all either Christians or Jews, they were at least deists whose underpinning worldview assumptions were firmly rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic.  I.e., there is a God who is creator, and who has in fact, endowed mankind with unalienable rights.  This, when you think about it, is an appeal to the transcendent.  Something outside of, and "above" individuals' opinions or preferences.  It was the basis upon which we told the King of England to go take a hike.  We appealed to the transcendent as being of "greater authority" than the King.

We abandoned that.  Now everything is determined by who can garner 51% of the vote.  Which is a form of "might makes right."  People intuitively know that "might might garner power" but it doesn't "make right."  The left is incensed that an evil bastard like Trump could have "garnered power" (their intuitive reach for transcendent values is the basis for their being incensed, IMO).  The right is reveling in having triumphed even though they have to hold their nose and plug their ears when Trump tweets.  An indication that they know that something is fundamentally amiss and missing.

So, now, with no transcendent to appeal to for respect for all people, civility, a sense of propriety (all of these, and very many others, are elements of the Judeo-Christian ethic) we're down to "who can win at whatever cost."  And the nut-jobs on the fringes of all positions will do the kind of things the more moderate propose with their inflamed, ugly, accusatory, ad hominem, rhetoric. 

It is sad, but inevitable, and I don't think there is a way (other than my opening remark about totalitarian government enforcement of the peace) to recover.  And, I think that as violence increases, Americans will be more and more amenable to having the government assume greater power to enforce the peace.  And so the great experiment that the US has been for the last 200+ years will go the way of all civilizations in recorded history and become one kind of dictatorship or another.  Probably not a single dictator, more likely some sort of oligarchy.  But at least there will be peace.  The price will be liberty.

Rand

I think many people have abandoned their religious background.  The government and popular culture just reflect that.  But the founders and framers of our Constitution understood man's baseness.  They hopefully have written into our Constitution enough formulas to protect us from ourselves. 
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Rand47 on June 16, 2017, 02:46:37 am
I think many people have abandoned their religious background.  The government and popular culture just reflect that.  But the founders and framers of our Constitution understood man's baseness.  They hopefully have written into our Constitution enough formulas to protect us from ourselves.

I genuinely appreciate the thought.  Don't bet the farm on it. Those who see the Constitution as elastic are becoming dominant (for reasons previously stated re general consensus shift). As a result, what the founders intended becomes increasingly irrelevant.   

Rand
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on June 16, 2017, 05:08:20 am
As opposed to the vast changes in society, culture, technology, politics, and so on affecting the degree of relevance, scope, and application?

The US constitution has been elastic since day 1.  Jefferson expressed his opinion that constitutions should be regularly rewritten, for example.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Rand47 on June 16, 2017, 08:39:38 am
As opposed to the vast changes in society, culture, technology, politics, and so on affecting the degree of relevance, scope, and application?

The US constitution has been elastic since day 1.  Jefferson expressed his opinion that constitutions should be regularly rewritten, for example.

I rest my case.

Rand
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on June 16, 2017, 10:58:47 am
As opposed to the vast changes in society, culture, technology, politics, and so on affecting the degree of relevance, scope, and application?

The US constitution has been elastic since day 1.  Jefferson expressed his opinion that constitutions should be regularly rewritten, for example.

People don't change.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: James Clark on June 16, 2017, 11:12:12 am
I rest my case.

Rand

Phil's right, though. To think a scientist like Franklin, or a scholar like Jefferson, or a federalist like Hamilton would subscribe to strict originalism based on a document without the benefit of 250 years of progress is absurd.   

(In fact, many Federalists didn't even want to codify the Bill of Rights - not because they didn't believe in them, but because they feared that listing them would use that document to assert that those were the ONLY protected rights.)   

Lo and behold, 260 years later, that seems very prescient, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Rand47 on June 16, 2017, 11:31:30 am
Phil's right, though. To think a scientist like Franklin, or a scholar like Jefferson, or a federalist like Hamilton would subscribe to strict originalism based on a document without the benefit of 250 years of progress is absurd.   

(In fact, many Federalists didn't even want to codify the Bill of Rights - not because they didn't believe in them, but because they feared that listing them would use that document to assert that those were the ONLY protected rights.)   

Lo and behold, 260 years later, that seems very prescient, doesn't it?

I completely agree.  I guess my point is that the founders did, indeed, know this... and they put in a process for amending, re-writing, etc.  When was the last time the elastic was stretched using the prescribed process?  As I said earlier, the legislative and judicial "stretching" amounts to the beginnings of oligarchy to my way of thinking.  As legitimate adjustments are deemed appropriate, why doesn't the legislature develop appropriate amendments and then "run the process" to have them ratified?  It has happened (appropriately, me thinks) in the past.  Today, and moving forward, I doubt you'll see that happen.  The acrimony dividing "pretty much everything" renders the process unworkable.  So, we'll slide along doing it "other ways" with the oligarchs (and I'm not talking about new world order conspiracy nonsense or the like here, just what happens as described earlier) garnering more power along the way.

Rand
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on June 16, 2017, 11:39:57 am
I'm sure the founders never thought in their wildest dreams that the Supreme Court Justices would write law based upon their own personal beliefs and biases. The founders didn't even want to have too much power through legislation coming out of congress.

They mainly wanted to have people run their own lives in their own States based upon their state laws and how they wanted to live personally.  If they knew how the Supreme Court justices have created so many of the laws we have today, they would be astounded and disappointed.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: James Clark on June 16, 2017, 01:27:46 pm
I completely agree.  I guess my point is that the founders did, indeed, know this... and they put in a process for amending, re-writing, etc.  When was the last time the elastic was stretched using the prescribed process?  As I said earlier, the legislative and judicial "stretching" amounts to the beginnings of oligarchy to my way of thinking.  As legitimate adjustments are deemed appropriate, why doesn't the legislature develop appropriate amendments and then "run the process" to have them ratified?  It has happened (appropriately, me thinks) in the past.  Today, and moving forward, I doubt you'll see that happen.  The acrimony dividing "pretty much everything" renders the process unworkable.  So, we'll slide along doing it "other ways" with the oligarchs (and I'm not talking about new world order conspiracy nonsense or the like here, just what happens as described earlier) garnering more power along the way.

Rand

Thanks for the clarification - I think we are on the same page then.  The problem now, as you said, is that the process is broken.  Whether by design to benefit said oligarchs, or by chance due to the perniciousness of "factions" (i.e. partisanship - another paramount worry of this nation's founders (see federalist 9 & 10, for example), the fact remains that the idea of a living document is largely reliant on compromise and forethought, both of which are currently in short supply.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: James Clark on June 16, 2017, 01:31:55 pm
I'm sure the founders never thought in their wildest dreams that the Supreme Court Justices would write law based upon their own personal beliefs and biases. The founders didn't even want to have too much power through legislation coming out of congress.

They mainly wanted to have people run their own lives in their own States based upon their state laws and how they wanted to live personally.  If they knew how the Supreme Court justices have created so many of the laws we have today, they would be astounded and disappointed.

I'm not sure I agree with you, Alan.  I know it's a common to complain about "activist judges" (basically when they decide a case that goes against one's own idea of Constitutional scholarship ;)  ), in reality, once one accepts the (honestly rather obvious) fact that the Constitution was never meant to *limit* rights in excess of those explicitly stated in the original documents and amendments, the idea that the USSC "creates" laws by extending implied rights is sort of goofy.   

Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on June 16, 2017, 01:58:02 pm
I'm not sure I agree with you, Alan.  I know it's a common to complain about "activist judges" (basically when they decide a case that goes against one's own idea of Constitutional scholarship ;)  ), in reality, once one accepts the (honestly rather obvious) fact that the Constitution was never meant to *limit* rights in excess of those explicitly stated in the original documents and amendments, the idea that the USSC "creates" laws by extending implied rights is sort of goofy.   


The constitution doesn't grant rights.   It limits power.   It doesn't say the people have free speech.   Rather it says  the government cannot block free speech.  It doesnt say we can practice whatever religion we want or none at all..   It says the government cannot impose it's religious standard or doctrine.  Whatever power is not granted to government remains with the people.  We are less free with more government power.

The problm is that the supreme court has rewritten the constitution to extend additional  powers to the government.   For example,  social security,  Medicare,  Obama care,  etc have nothing to do with congresses right to regulate interstate commerce or taxation which power is granted in the constitution.   Yet we've allowed the courts to approve those thjngs.  Note these may or may not be good things to have.   But the constitution should be amended to allow them just like taxes were included by amendment.   Remember,  every law takes away someone's rights and freedom.   So the court is not extending freedom but rather limiting it by giving more power to the government.   You're becoming less rather than more free.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on June 16, 2017, 02:25:51 pm
The constitution doesn't grant rights.   It limits power.

Correct, that's how most constitutions work. It protects the people from an 'all' mighty government that might want to overstep the limitations of its mandate.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: James Clark on June 16, 2017, 02:41:58 pm
The constitution doesn't grant rights.   It limits power.   It doesn't say the people have free speech.   Rather it says  the government cannot block free speech.  It doesnt say we can practice whatever religion we want or none at all..   It says the government cannot impose it's religious standard or doctrine.  Whatever power is not granted to government remains with the people.  We are less free with more government power.

Yes, but that's not what I said :)  I'm totally fine with the concept as presented, but in practice, what we hear coming from originalists is, "...there's no right to privacy (for example) because the Constitution doesn't spell it out."  When a court affirms the implied right, it isn't *creating law,* it's asserting that the right already exists and cannot be infringed, which is totally in line with the founder's thinking.

Quote from: Alan Klein
The problm is that the supreme court has rewritten the constitution to extend additional  powers to the government.   For example,  social security,  Medicare,  Obama care,  etc have nothing to do with congresses right to regulate interstate commerce or taxation which power is granted in the constitution.   Yet we've allowed the courts to approve those thjngs.  Note these may or may not be good things to have.   But the constitution should be amended to allow them just like taxes were included by amendment.   Remember,  every law takes away someone's rights and freedom.   So the court is not extending freedom but rather limiting it by giving more power to the government.   You're becoming less rather than more free.

These things you're talking about were duly created in Congress, by the people's representatives, not by courts.  What's your point? ;)
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on June 16, 2017, 04:30:18 pm
Yes, but that's not what I said :)  I'm totally fine with the concept as presented, but in practice, what we hear coming from originalists is, "...there's no right to privacy (for example) because the Constitution doesn't spell it out."  When a court affirms the implied right, it isn't *creating law,* it's asserting that the right already exists and cannot be infringed, which is totally in line with the founder's thinking.

These things you're talking about were duly created in Congress, by the people's representatives, not by courts.  What's your point? ;)
The power of congress to create these laws was not given ("enumerated") in our constitution.  The Congress created that power out of whole cloth, and the Supreme Court let them do it under the guise that Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare somehow was included in the constitutionally allowed power to tax and regulate interstate commerce.  I do not believe that it was the intent of the constitution to use those powers to create these other things. 

Think about Medicare and Obamacare and Medicaid.  Around 17% of our economy possibly going up to 25% is under the control of government bureaucrats.  How much we pay, how much doctors and pharmaceutical  and medical supply companies will make, which doctors we will be able to see, etc. will no longer be under our personal control.  And this is the point.  That it was done without an amendment to the constitution.  Major legislation that effect life and death and health issues and our freedom to decide how we want it done. 

Our friends in Europe were disconcerted that it only required a 51% vote for Brexit.  At least the people voted on it.  But here, bureaucrats have seized the power supported by a liberal court who decides things on what they think best for us rather than relying on what the constitution says.  Rand was right.  We may have given up our rights already and it's too late to get them back.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on June 16, 2017, 07:36:37 pm
People don't change.

Of course they do.  Individually and collectively.  You think you're conservative?  Go back just 50 years and you're quite progressive.  100?  You're left of centre.  200?  You're out of your mind on many issues.

Jefferson didn't just want people to be able to amend the constitution (which of course is a good thing to be able to do, and suitably difficult), he was proposing complete re-writes.  Constitutional process as they had just done, to reflect the new realities.

Alan you complain that the original framers couldn't have imagined the power of the presidency or the supreme court or the congress - basically, the power of the nation itself.  That's entirely correct - they couldn't.  The US was dispersed geographically with the fastest method of transport being a horse or a ship, and no means of communications that could exceed that save over a very short distance (signals).  The concept of more than a quarter of a billion people being in the same nation.  The population of the US in 1776 is estimated at about 2.5 million.  The entire world is estimated at a population barely twice that of the US now by itself around 1750.  50 states compared to 13?  Australia has just been "discovered" by Cook 6 years earlier and Antarctica just 3 years.  The world was hardly known by modern standards.


As James points out, the courts affirm that rights exist when there is an attempt to limit them.  They don't create new ones.  ALL other rights already exist and are held by the states and the people.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on June 16, 2017, 07:41:16 pm
Our friends in Europe were disconcerted that it only required a 51% vote for Brexit.  At least the people voted on it.  But here, bureaucrats have seized the power supported by a liberal court who decides things on what they think best for us rather than relying on what the constitution says.  Rand was right.  We may have given up our rights already and it's too late to get them back.

The last 80 years have, on balance, been under a conservative SCotUS, and before the last 5(ish) years, you need to go back to 1970 to find a time when it was liberal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices#/media/File:Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on June 16, 2017, 09:20:38 pm
The last 80 years have, on balance, been under a conservative SCotUS, and before the last 5(ish) years, you need to go back to 1970 to find a time when it was liberal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices#/media/File:Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png
The conservatives on the court look conservative compared to the liberals.  But conservatives have also bought into the  movement of the law to a more powerful and centralized government, something the framers would have been aghast at.  They wanted minimum centralized power.  That's how they wrote the constitution.  But we have develop is a federal system that rules roughshod over the people. 

Looking up line graphs you present does not tell the story.  Having lived the last 72 years, I can tell you control and regulation and laws are much more oppressive than it's been.  Plus we have a media, a culture from Hollywood, and an educational system that has bought into big government and social oversight.  They have conditioned regular folks to accept this loss of their personal freedoms by being brow beaten with phony guilt and political correctness.  People also have personal greed in looking for something that's "free".  Of course nothing is free; something for nothing always comes at a great price.   Independence and personal freedoms are lost.  Maybe forever.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on June 16, 2017, 09:33:42 pm
But conservatives have also bought into the  movement of the law to a more powerful and centralized government, something the framers would have been aghast at.

The original framers would have no concept of how to rationalise the modern world without a lot of time and research and education to catch them up.  Essentially, they would have no frame of reference by which to even consider the modern world in a meaningful way, let alone judge it.  It's the same when people moralise over decisions made in the past - comparing it to the modern frame of reference is utterly unfair on those who made the decisions at the time.

I think the original framers would be mostly aghast at the fact that the US hadn't managed to update its constitution to represent the needs of the modern society and that partisanship and extremism, and by the growing rejection of learning and understanding.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on June 16, 2017, 09:36:35 pm
Of course they do.  Individually and collectively.  You think you're conservative?  Go back just 50 years and you're quite progressive.  100?  You're left of centre.  200?  You're out of your mind on many issues.

Jefferson didn't just want people to be able to amend the constitution (which of course is a good thing to be able to do, and suitably difficult), he was proposing complete re-writes.  Constitutional process as they had just done, to reflect the new realities.

Alan you complain that the original framers couldn't have imagined the power of the presidency or the supreme court or the congress - basically, the power of the nation itself.  That's entirely correct - they couldn't.  The US was dispersed geographically with the fastest method of transport being a horse or a ship, and no means of communications that could exceed that save over a very short distance (signals).  The concept of more than a quarter of a billion people being in the same nation.  The population of the US in 1776 is estimated at about 2.5 million.  The entire world is estimated at a population barely twice that of the US now by itself around 1750.  50 states compared to 13?  Australia has just been "discovered" by Cook 6 years earlier and Antarctica just 3 years.  The world was hardly known by modern standards.


As James points out, the courts affirm that rights exist when there is an attempt to limit them.  They don't create new ones.  ALL other rights already exist and are held by the states and the people.
When I say people don't change I'm referring to their DNA, their ego, their fears, etc.  The COnsitution works whether it would have been implemented in 1000BC, 1776 or today.  Sure modes of transportation and other things change.  But the basis of human psychology is built into his genes. 

The constitution was implemented to protect men from being ruled by other men a situation that has existed in human psychology for millions of years.

Also you keep going back to rights but fail to recognize that the constitution limits power to do things like Social Security or Obamacare.  The right to be left alone by government is also a right.  That's the purpose of the Constitution as well.  But we've grown into an all powerful government that imposes its will on all areas of our lives. That diminishes all our rights especially the main one to be left alone to decide how we wish to run our lives with minimum interference from government and other men.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on June 16, 2017, 09:40:27 pm
The original framers would have no concept of how to rationalise the modern world without a lot of time and research and education to catch them up.  Essentially, they would have no frame of reference by which to even consider the modern world in a meaningful way, let alone judge it.  It's the same when people moralise over decisions made in the past - comparing it to the modern frame of reference is utterly unfair on those who made the decisions at the time.

I think the original framers would be mostly aghast at the fact that the US hadn't managed to update its constitution to represent the needs of the modern society and that partisanship and extremism, and by the growing rejection of learning and understanding.
You're justifying big government over man who knows better than the individual what they want and how they should live.  I want a small government as the framers had intended.  They would be astonished how much government has grown despite a constitution that intended otherwise.  I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about what's best.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: amolitor on June 16, 2017, 10:31:06 pm
Way to go on the political violence issue. You can definitely fix this by continuing to endlessly bicker over minutiae.

If you guys were face to face over a beer, and made an honest effort, it would take you 5 minutes to determine that you agree on 99% of stuff that actually matters (will I be OK? are my children going to be OK? do you like dogs? or are you a cat person?) and you'd be able to set aside the irrelevant 1% without much effort.

But, nope, it's bicker bicker bicker, with the occasional murderous explosion.

Way to go, guys. I'm proud.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on June 16, 2017, 11:33:47 pm
Ah, yes.  "You all need to stop bickering and posting on the internet", says someone who just posted on the internet to bicker about people posting on the internet.

If you're so disinterested, how is it you speak as if you have detailed knowledge of the thread?
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: amolitor on June 16, 2017, 11:39:31 pm
Unlike you, I am addressing the underlying problem head on, which is that we're polarizing ourselves over trivialities, and thus generating hate and anger when what we need is to grasp that we're a humans with roughly the same hopes, dreams, aspirations.

Who cares what some guys 200 years dead might or might not have thought privately?

Seriously. I know it's fun, but it's not what the world needs.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: James Clark on June 16, 2017, 11:40:55 pm
Way to go on the political violence issue. You can definitely fix this by continuing to endlessly bicker over minutiae.

If you guys were face to face over a beer, and made an honest effort, it would take you 5 minutes to determine that you agree on 99% of stuff that actually matters (will I be OK? are my children going to be OK? do you like dogs? or are you a cat person?) and you'd be able to set aside the irrelevant 1% without much effort.

But, nope, it's bicker bicker bicker, with the occasional murderous explosion.

Way to go, guys. I'm proud.

The only one getting upset here is you. :). I thought we were kind of having an interesting discussion about the various ideas of governance that lead to disputes, but in a friendly way.  I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't have this exact same conversation with Alan (and Phil and Rand) face to face, or why you think I'm even the slightest bit upset with anyone here?
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on June 17, 2017, 12:31:02 am
Correct, that's how most constitutions work. It protects the people from an 'all' mighty government that might want to overstep the limitations of its mandate.

Cheers,
Bart
Bart, I think this is the first time we agree 100%. 
Cheers,
Alan.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on June 17, 2017, 02:30:26 am
Unlike you, I am addressing the underlying problem head on, which is that we're polarizing ourselves over trivialities, and thus generating hate and anger when what we need is to grasp that we're a humans with roughly the same hopes, dreams, aspirations.

Who cares what some guys 200 years dead might or might not have thought privately?

Seriously. I know it's fun, but it's not what the world needs.

And how exactly does doing this (and enjoying the discussion and learning things) work against improving things in "real life"?  And how do you know I'm not dealing with issues head on in my own way?  Why are "dealing with the issues" and "having an interesting discussion" mutually exclusive?

The discussion is robust at times, but like James, I'd happily be sitting down with everyone here and having a drink and talking about it.  I think some of Alan's perspectives are absurd, for example - I really do - but I wouldn't hesitate to have a drink with him (assuming he was also happy to do so), and on any other subject our disagreements on these ones have no impact. I understand that he likely feels exactly the same way about many of my perspectives.  It's fine.  It's a grand idea that we should all just get along and celebrate our similarities and I agree, but ignoring the differences is, by definition, seeking to indulge in ignorance.  I can't abide that.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Rand47 on June 17, 2017, 08:38:47 am
The only one getting upset here is you. :). I thought we were kind of having an interesting discussion about the various ideas of governance that lead to disputes, but in a friendly way.  I'm not sure why you think I wouldn't have this exact same conversation with Alan (and Phil and Rand) face to face, or why you think I'm even the slightest bit upset with anyone here?

+1  I've been enjoying and learning from the exchange. 

Rand
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 17, 2017, 09:12:36 am
Somehow this has ended up being a discussion about US constitutional issues. Foundational words are important, of course, but lots of countries have adopted pretty words from time to time. But conservative (small c) adherence to the precepts of 200 year old documents written by landed gentry who have nothing in common with present times can be a distraction. You should not overthrow things that have stood the test of time, but neither should you be in adoration of old ideas. For instance, the US constitution didn't do much to prevent slavery, the genocide of native indians, and the 14th amendment didn't prevent Jim Crow. (As a personal aside, referring to them as "Founding Fathers" sounds a little obsequious to me, they were a bunch of rich guys who got sick of paying British taxes. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but keep it in perspective. Setting aside one lame aristocracy for another serves little purpose.)

Harkening back to 18th century ideas of state rights may not necessarily be a good model today. In the "Loving" case, a Virginia law outlawing interracial marriage was upheld by the Virginia supreme court in the mid 1960s (yes 1960, not 1860), so if some of you believe that the US would be better off by letting states have their way and that the US Supreme Court shouldn't have a say in the matter, well, all I can say is that a lot of people won't agree with you.

Anyway, I just wanted to point this podcast, http://podbay.fm/show/1242537529 (http://podbay.fm/show/1242537529) , which may turn out to be interesting as it develops further.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on June 17, 2017, 10:59:58 am
Somehow this has ended up being a discussion about US constitutional issues. Foundational words are important, of course, but lots of countries have adopted pretty words from time to time. But conservative (small c) adherence to the precepts of 200 year old documents written by landed gentry who have nothing in common with present times can be a distraction. You should not overthrow things that have stood the test of time, but neither should you be in adoration of old ideas. For instance, the US constitution didn't do much to prevent slavery, the genocide of native indians, and the 14th amendment didn't prevent Jim Crow. (As a personal aside, referring to them as "Founding Fathers" sounds a little obsequious to me, they were a bunch of rich guys who got sick of paying British taxes. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but keep it in perspective. Setting aside one lame aristocracy for another serves little purpose.)

Harkening back to 18th century ideas of state rights may not necessarily be a good model today. In the "Loving" case, a Virginia law outlawing interracial marriage was upheld by the Virginia supreme court in the mid 1960s (yes 1960, not 1860), so if some of you believe that the US would be better off by letting states have their way and that the US Supreme Court shouldn't have a say in the matter, well, all I can say is that a lot of people won't agree with you.

Anyway, I just wanted to point this podcast, http://podbay.fm/show/1242537529 (http://podbay.fm/show/1242537529) , which may turn out to be interesting as it develops further.
Well, I wouldn't call the Constitution just "pretty words....precepts of 200 year old documents written by landed gentry who have nothing in common with present times can be a distraction."  It really dismisses the fundamental change it instituted in the way humans are governed. They have withstood the test of time and have been foundationally for nations around the world who created their own constitutions from America's.  Certainly America has it's faults.  But I wouldn't include our founding document as one of them.  It's not perfect because it was written by men who were not perfect.  But it was set up to be Amended in a legal way as the wisdom of time presents to us.  But, the method to do that was to be through a democrat process not by the whims of justices biases and personal beliefs.  Otherwise, you go back to the blood of the past where men dictate how we should live rather than allowing the governed to rule.

The Constitution is very much part of discussion about political violence.  Because it provides the right of free speech, especially free political speech, it gives everyone the opportunity to present their views and get support for implementing them through legislation.  So violence acted out to implement a viewpoint is anathema to the Constitution and our way of living.  We change how we live through law and not with a gun. 
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Robert Roaldi on June 17, 2017, 03:24:46 pm
All I'm saying that I find it difficult to be reverential towards a political document. Constitutions are codified rules, not the infallible words of the creator. They can lead to good things, but sometimes they can be magically ignored when it's convenient to do so. It is probably a good idea to get the point of of those who were NOT protected by the codified rules to get a complete picture, is all I'm saying.

I understand that some people may not like activist supreme courts. But isn't it the supreme court's job to interpret the constitution? Would it have been better to let the Virginia ruling in favour of outlawing interracial marriages stand?

And anyway, one person's activism is another's rant du jour. Allowing corporations to achieve the level of "personhood" came about because of a series of court judgements (some lower court, some higher court, I believe). Wasn't that judicial activism?
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Rand47 on June 18, 2017, 11:21:00 am
All I'm saying that I find it difficult to be reverential towards a political document. Constitutions are codified rules, not the infallible words of the creator. They can lead to good things, but sometimes they can be magically ignored when it's convenient to do so. It is probably a good idea to get the point of of those who were NOT protected by the codified rules to get a complete picture, is all I'm saying.

I understand that some people may not like activist supreme courts. But isn't it the supreme court's job to interpret the constitution? Would it have been better to let the Virginia ruling in favour of outlawing interracial marriages stand?

And anyway, one person's activism is another's rant du jour. Allowing corporations to achieve the level of "personhood" came about because of a series of court judgements (some lower court, some higher court, I believe). Wasn't that judicial activism?

Your points are well taken.  I think they argue "for" the appeal to the transcendent as expressed in the Declaration and how critically important the worldview consensus that the Declaration represents was (is/should be) to the Consitiution working as intended to limit governmental power so as to ensure to the greatest extent possible life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as rights, endowed by the creator, without governmental interference, suppression/oppression.  So, while it is true that the words are not "infallible words of the creator," they are derivative of those truths that are "self evident" as regards the creator having endowed mankind with unalienable rights.  Absent this, from what source do our rights derive?  51%?

I realize that this aspect of the discussion may seem far removed from the OP's original, "We need to tone down the rhetoric..."   But I believe it is foundational to "why we should" tone down the rhetoric.

Rand

Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Otto Phocus on July 05, 2017, 06:37:21 am
I would imagine that if we could talk to the Founding Fathers, they would collectively tell us:

"What the hell are you doing still following a 200+ year old document?  Are you stupid to think that we could anticipate everything that happens today?  Crikey, times have changed, write a new one!"   ;D 

I think the reason we have not written a new one is the realization of the impossibility of getting a new constitution approved.  We have hard enough problems with amendments.

Could you imagine trying to get a new constitution passed these days. Yikes.  No wonder we stick with the old one.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 05, 2017, 09:06:38 am
I would imagine that if we could talk to the Founding Fathers, they would collectively tell us:

"What the hell are you doing still following a 200+ year old document?  Are you stupid to think that we could anticipate everything that happens today?  Crikey, times have changed, write a new one!"   ;D 

I think the reason we have not written a new one is the realization of the impossibility of getting a new constitution approved.  We have hard enough problems with amendments.

Could you imagine trying to get a new constitution passed these days. Yikes.  No wonder we stick with the old one.
The Founding Fathers would be very pleased that their document has kept American free , secure and prosperous since they adopted it.  If certain aspects of it can be improved, there is an amendment process.  You don't burn your house down if you need to redecorate your den. 
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Schewe on July 05, 2017, 03:12:51 pm
"What the hell are you doing still following a 200+ year old document?  Are you stupid to think that we could anticipate everything that happens today?  Crikey, times have changed, write a new one!"   ;D 

Well, you may be surprised...over the 4th, NPR tweeted the entire Declaration of Independence line by line–which is an annual tradition for NPR. However, some Trump supporters got "triggered" thinking that NPR was posting lines that were directed at Trump and they lit up twitter with their criticisms. Pretty fun actually...

Trump Supporters Cry Bias After NPR Tweets the Declaration of Independence (https://gizmodo.com/trump-supporters-cry-bias-after-npr-tweets-the-declarat-1796633566)

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--BZboyZwM--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/nwhyu2ijje5yl4oz3eof.jpg)

Quote
NPR tweeted the entire Declaration of Independence in 140-character chunks yesterday to celebrate Independence Day. But more than a few people thought that the tweets were a political stance against Donald Trump. Seriously.

––––––––––
NPR  ✔@NPR
241 years ago today, church bells rang out over Philadelphia as the Declaration of Independence was adopted http://n.pr/2smWbYR (http://n.pr/2smWbYR)
2:00 PM - 4 Jul 2017
––––––––––

The Declaration of Independence is one of the most cherished documents in the United States. We even make movies about it like it’s the Ark of the Covenant. But some Trump supporters were a bit confused yesterday, and saw phrases like “unworthy the Head of a civilized nation” as biased. They assumed that NPR was blasting the current president rather than King George in 1776.

NPR has been reading the Declaration of Independence on air in a tradition that dates back 29 years. And in fairness, the Declaration of Independence is a pretty anti-authoritarian document. So it makes sense that people might believe that it’s a statement against all tyrants.

But you’d think that people who want to “make America great again” might recognize the words of the Declaration of Independence. I guess not.

––––––––––
Diesel 👌🇺🇸👍 @ScandalSheet
@NPR DEFUND #NPR let the Hollywood Elites pay for your biased propaganda
2:39 PM - 4 Jul 2017
––––––––––

The line about the right of the people to abolish the current government and form a new one struck a chord with some Trump enthusiasts.

––––––––––
NPR   ✔ @NPR
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,


D.G.Davies @JustEsrafel
@NPR So, NPR is calling for revolution.
Interesting way to condone the violence while trying to sound "patriotic".
Your implications are clear.

2:08 PM - 4 Jul 2017
––––––––––

And some people were particularly offended by the line about King George being an “unworthy” leader of a civilized nation, believing that perhaps NPR was talking about a different tyrant:

––––––––––
Yes. NPR Journalists, with a 'mission'.
— Elephino (@mriendea) July 4, 2017
––––––––––

Some Trump supporters even called the Declaration of Independence “trash”:

––––––––––
Darren Mills 🇺🇸 @darren_mills
@NPR this is why you're going to get defunded

Darren Mills 🇺🇸 @darren_mills
@NPR Seriously, this is the dumbest idea I have ever seen on twitter. Literally no one is going to read 5000 tweets about this trash.
3:15 PM - 4 Jul 2017
––––––––––

While others assumed that the word “obstructed” might be a little to close the charges of “obstruction” against President Trump:

––––––––––
NPR   ✔ @NPR
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

Terry @xebec78
@NPR Horsechit
2:10 PM - 4 Jul 2017
   6 6 Retweets    7 7 likes
––––––––––

And even after it was pointed out that NPR was simply tweeting the Declaration of Independence, some people still saw an anti-Trump political motivation in the whole process:

––––––––––
Someone's An Idiot @SomeonesAnIdiot
NPR tweeted out the Declaration of Independence and people had no clue what they were talking about
(pics via @ParkerMolloy) #July4th pic.twitter.com/wn4ThfApk6

Trey Bartle @treybartle1
@SomeonesAnIdiot @ParkerMolloy No bias here, right? Move along according to @NPR.
9:39 PM - 4 Jul 2017
––––––––––

Because apparently NPR needs more “balance,” maybe by reading out the arguments made by supporters of King George in 1776?

––––––––––
NPR   ✔ @NPR
LISTEN: A July 4th Tradition: The Declaration Of Independence, Read Aloud https://n.pr/2tWz4EI  pic.twitter.com/owruPZ0wdX

Alma sanchez @Almasan93753248
@NPR Glad you are being defunded. You have never been balanced on your show.
10:36 AM - 4 Jul 2017
––––––––––

Yes, some Trump supporters believe that you gotta hear both sides. If you’re going to tweet out the Declaration of Independence, why not The Art of the Deal or other texts written by authoritarians? You don’t want to be seen as biased now, do you?

So yeah..if the DOI can trigger Trump supporters I think it's still relevant today!
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on July 05, 2017, 06:22:42 pm
That's both hilarious and downright terrifying, Schewe.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Robert Roaldi on July 05, 2017, 06:29:23 pm
To be fair though, triggering a sh*tstorm on Twitter isn't a measure of anything much. The wider web participation is mostly noise, often needlessly impolite. There are youtube posts of beautiful songs by Van Morrison that degenerate into insult fests for no apparent reason.

There is this thing that's done in pick-up truck culture. Those with diesels can rig up their trucks to spew out a large volume of black sooty exhaust (I think they have a system that causes a mis-fire but I really don't know how it functions) onto cyclists at the side of the road. Then they get on the web and brag about it, sometimes with pictures. Hating cyclists is one of those political markers, I believe, that advertizes what you believe in. I believe it's one of those generic rebel-against-the-elites things that people do, like displaying a confederate flag. I saw a truck here in town a year or so ago (Ottawa, Canada) with a bumper sticker bragging about how much gasoline he was using. I forget the wording. There are LOTS of immature people running around.

The fact that dozens of people did not recognize the DOI should not be a surprise to anyone. I suspect that the fact that it appeared on NPR is enough to start a flame war. Which is an odd thing, given that the only news media that I usually stand to listen to are the "public" ones, although they are less and less publicly funded these days. The rest of them seem to be mostly about blondes with big teeth and 15 second insult sound bites.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: MattBurt on July 05, 2017, 06:48:02 pm
As a cyclist and daily bike commuter, I know the "Coal Rollers" all too well. At least it's officially an infraction now in Colorado. I'd love to help someone help themselves get that ticket one day.

The sticker I have seen on (often needlessly) big trucks is "Prius Eater" or "Prius Repellent" near the exhaust.

I just try to avoid this willfully ignorant crowd. There's nothing I can say to them that would change anyone's mind but it might get my ass kicked.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Rand47 on July 05, 2017, 10:08:19 pm
That's both hilarious and downright terrifying, Schewe.

+1  Never underestimate the heights to which the average dumb-ass chauvinist can soar.

Rand
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 05, 2017, 11:33:44 pm
So there are dumbasses on both sides who don't know history.  Plenty of liberal lefties and democrats who think Communism is just another system and never heard of the Soviet Union.  What's worse are the people who do know but look the other way and support BS ideologies.   
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Damon Lynch on July 06, 2017, 12:00:04 am
So there are dumbasses on both sides who don't know history.  Plenty of liberal lefties and democrats who think Communism is just another system and never heard of the Soviet Union.  What's worse are the people who do know but look the other way and support BS ideologies.

There you go again Alan, projecting onto others your own deep admiration for political, cultural and economic authoritarianism.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on July 06, 2017, 12:27:39 am
What's worse?  Not knowing your OWN COUNTRY'S Declaration of Independence.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on July 06, 2017, 12:28:14 am
And for what it's worth - as a foreigner - I quite easily recognise your DOI.  Actual US citizens have no excuse.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 06, 2017, 12:55:43 am
There you go again Alan, projecting onto others your own deep admiration for political, cultural and economic authoritarianism.
I don't know what you mean.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 06, 2017, 01:01:27 am
And for what it's worth - as a foreigner - I quite easily recognise your DOI.  Actual US citizens have no excuse.
I think that's great, Phil, that you know.  It's also true, whenever they have those man-in-the-street interviews, and the questioner starts asking about politics, the country's history, and things like that, people are awfully ignorant.  It's embarrassing and funny the asinine answers they give.  But I wonder if this isn't true in most countries.  People just don't seem to have the time for what interests us in these forums.   We're into it so we know a lot.  We get the facts  right if not the interpretations of what they mean correct.    We tend to filter according to our belief system.  All these posts.  Who's changed their minds? 
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: LesPalenik on July 07, 2017, 09:13:13 pm
Democracy in action:
Here are some gruesome pictures from the G20 protest scene in Hamburg.  Looks worse than the G20 protests in 2010 in Toronto.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/g-20-newsblog-in-english-protests-as-world-leaders-meet-in-hamburg-a-1156308.html
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on July 07, 2017, 10:09:09 pm
I think that's great, Phil, that you know.  It's also true, whenever they have those man-in-the-street interviews, and the questioner starts asking about politics, the country's history, and things like that, people are awfully ignorant.  It's embarrassing and funny the asinine answers they give.  But I wonder if this isn't true in most countries.  People just don't seem to have the time for what interests us in these forums.   We're into it so we know a lot.  We get the facts  right if not the interpretations of what they mean correct.    We tend to filter according to our belief system.  All these posts.  Who's changed their minds?

This wasn't a "ask them in the street" situation, Alan.  It was people going out of their way to respond on Twitter accusing NPR of attacking Trump, when in fact all they were doing was posting the DOI in 140 character chunks (which they've done previously on the 4th).  That they don't recognise one of the seminal documents on modern democracy and western values, one that founded their own nation, is bad enough.  That they think those values are attacks on Trump is pretty much beyond description in terms of the reflection on them and Trump.

But perhaps you hit the nail on the head.  People are awfully ignorant about politics and national history.  Perhaps they should learn before they support a president who is equally ignorant?
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 07, 2017, 10:31:18 pm
This wasn't a "ask them in the street" situation, Alan.  It was people going out of their way to respond on Twitter accusing NPR of attacking Trump, when in fact all they were doing was posting the DOI in 140 character chunks (which they've done previously on the 4th).  That they don't recognise one of the seminal documents on modern democracy and western values, one that founded their own nation, is bad enough.  That they think those values are attacks on Trump is pretty much beyond description in terms of the reflection on them and Trump.

But perhaps you hit the nail on the head.  People are awfully ignorant about politics and national history.  Perhaps they should learn before they support a president who is equally ignorant?
It really gets tiring with people calling Trump ignorant.  You accused Trump of not understanding the constitution when he instituted the travel ban.  You applauded yourselves for being so smart when the lower court and appeals court showed just how unconstitutional his thinking is.  But then he was redeemed 9-0 by the Supreme Court who left most of his travel ban intact.  But you go on and on accusing him of stupidity.  Yet you lack in any kind of humility when you are proven wrong.  There's more than ignorance when you just get the facts wrong.  Being humble enough to admit that maybe, just maybe, you had been wrong is often the character trait that is the most important. 
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 07, 2017, 10:51:38 pm
Democracy in action:
Here are some gruesome pictures from the G20 protest scene in Hamburg.  Looks worse than the G20 protests in 2010 in Toronto.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/g-20-newsblog-in-english-protests-as-world-leaders-meet-in-hamburg-a-1156308.html

I remember back in the 1950's when Soviet inspired attacks on America around the world were pushed.  Nothing new what's happening in Germany.  Here is a newspaper clip when Vice President Nixon under President Eisenhower was attacked by Venezuelans.  Now the people there are rioting against their own president.  Must be karma.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1958/05/14/page/1/article/first-nixon-riot-pictures
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 07, 2017, 11:00:17 pm
Regarding the newsclip.  I like the one called "Anti-American Riots Spread Around the World"  It explain how the Democrats were opposed to the Republican president sending troops to protect the VP.  Of course, the Republicans in Congress supported such a move.  So in 60 years, nothing much has changed.  It's a good lesson to show that we shouldn't get too excited with things the parties argue about.  It's all politics.  They've always been fighting with one another and will continue to do so.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1958/05/14/page/1/article/anti-american-riots-spread-around-world
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on July 08, 2017, 01:00:31 am
It really gets tiring with people calling Trump ignorant.  You accused Trump of not understanding the constitution when he instituted the travel ban.  You applauded yourselves for being so smart when the lower court and appeals court showed just how unconstitutional his thinking is.  But then he was redeemed 9-0 by the Supreme Court who left most of his travel ban intact.  But you go on and on accusing him of stupidity.  Yet you lack in any kind of humility when you are proven wrong.  There's more than ignorance when you just get the facts wrong.  Being humble enough to admit that maybe, just maybe, you had been wrong is often the character trait that is the most important.

Again, Alan, you're telling lies at this point.  The SCotUS has not ruled on the constitutionality of any aspects of Trump's EO.  You know this.  It has been explained countless times.  Stop telling lies.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: LesPalenik on July 08, 2017, 01:11:33 am
I remember back in the 1950's when Soviet inspired attacks on America around the world were pushed.  Nothing new what's happening in Germany.  Here is a newspaper clip when Vice President Nixon under President Eisenhower was attacked by Venezuelans.  Now the people there are rioting against their own president.  Must be karma.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1958/05/14/page/1/article/first-nixon-riot-pictures

Yes, what's happening in Germany is nothing new. However, the scale of these "protests" and inflicted damage on buildings, shops, cars, policemen and innocent bystander lives is increasing every year.
According to German press, there were 3,500 disturbers (the bad guys, dressed in black, not peaceful protesters), and 21,000 policemen were engaged so far (plus some army units). When you add the cost of the aftermath cleanup, you could build a good size hospital with all that money.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 08, 2017, 06:54:39 am
Again, Alan, you're telling lies at this point.  The SCotUS has not ruled on the constitutionality of any aspects of Trump's EO.  You know this.  It has been explained countless times.  Stop telling lies.
Phil, I realize that when you're stuck with lemons, the best thing is to make lemonade.  But, you're the only person who doesn't think Trump won on his travel ban.  SCOTUS reversed the restraining order of the lower courts.  They allowed Trump to implement his travels ban against 99.9% of the people in those 6 countries.  They cannot get a visa to come to the US.  You're not going to convince anyone that SCOTUS is going to overrule their 9-0 vote when the final ruling is issued.  Good try.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on July 08, 2017, 09:04:00 am
But, you're the only person who doesn't think Trump won on his travel ban.
You are lying again here. Several others have also pointed out just here on LuLa that SCOTUS has not ruled on the content of the travel ban yet. It looks to me as if you are the only person who does think Trump has won on his travel ban, at least to judge from the sampling of posts on LuLa.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on July 08, 2017, 05:43:30 pm
Alan, the only over ruling SCotUS could do in this matter is decide that the lower court did consider the matter sufficiently in the first place, but that will never happen because they're not required to re-rule on that.  They can consider the matter to the degree required and either support or reject the EO without any effect on their commentary on the lower court.  Or they can send it back to the lower court to show due consideration and then accept the ruling.

You are deliberately making up BS and refusing to understand the detailed explanations that have been given as to what the SCotUS has actually ruled on.  You're a troll, and it's pathetic.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 08, 2017, 09:02:55 pm
Alan, the only over ruling SCotUS could do in this matter is decide that the lower court did consider the matter sufficiently in the first place, but that will never happen because they're not required to re-rule on that.  They can consider the matter to the degree required and either support or reject the EO without any effect on their commentary on the lower court.  Or they can send it back to the lower court to show due consideration and then accept the ruling.

You are deliberately making up BS and refusing to understand the detailed explanations that have been given as to what the SCotUS has actually ruled on.  You're a troll, and it's pathetic.
Explain that to the 99.9% of the people from those 6 nations who can no longer come to the USA since the SCOTUS ruling. 
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 08, 2017, 09:41:14 pm
Explain that to the 99.9% of the people from those 6 nations who can no longer come to the USA since the SCOTUS ruling.

They know it's a pathetic Muslim ban (excluding Saudi Arabia as real funders of radical Islamism, for short-term monetary gain) and a great recruiting tool for terrorists. Besides, the 90-day higher level of scrutiny for imminent danger should have passed by now, unless the Trump administration has been sitting on its hands, or the ban is plain Muslim/religion-based discrimination. Who's next, Jews, or people with red hair, or photographers, or ...?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 08, 2017, 10:12:11 pm
They know it's a pathetic Muslim ban (excluding Saudi Arabia as real funders of radical Islamism, for short-term monetary gain) and a great recruiting tool for terrorists. Besides, the 90-day higher level of scrutiny for imminent danger should have passed by now, unless the Trump administration has been sitting on its hands, or the ban is plain Muslim/religion-based discrimination. Who's next, Jews, or people with red hair, or photographers, or ...?

Cheers,
Bart
Stop with the liberal "it's a recruiting tool" for the terrorists.  So maybe we shouldn't have bombed German cities during WWII because it was a recruiting tool for the Nazis? Because of Trump and Mattis, our bombing and toughness against Raqqa is about to force out ISIS from their last city stronghold.  No one seems to be giving credit to Trump who said during the election campaign that he intended to destroy ISIS.  Obama did little but talk a lot about toughness.  Trump gets the job done.

Regarding the 90 days, the lower court held up the government from working out the details of the ban.  It wasn't  until June 12 that the Appeals court allowed the government to continue.  Now that the SCOTUS has ruled, Trump has already announce the new procedures for visas for these 6 countries.  Only those with close ties to America will be let in.  So the new procedures are set.

Regarding the Muslim faith, it is true that most of the people in the 6 countries are Muslim.  But that's the point.  So are the terrorists.  But there are many more Muslims in other countries who were not banned.  They were blocked from the 6 nations only because those are failed states or a terrorist state in the case of Iran.  But SCOTUS didn't even address the religious argument that was addressed by the lower court.  SCOTUS assessed that the lower courts had no right to stop the president from banning certain countries and non Americans from entering this country as is his right by congressional legislation.  Religion played no part in the SCOTUS decision. It wasn't even mentioned.   
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on July 09, 2017, 01:30:01 am
SCOTUS assessed that the lower courts had no right to stop the president from banning certain countries and non Americans from entering this country as is his right by congressional legislation.

Lies.  They did no such thing.  Quote anything from the SCotUS that says this at all, or stop telling lies.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Rob C on July 09, 2017, 05:53:09 am
Lies.  They did no such thing.  Quote anything from the SCotUS that says this at all, or stop telling lies.



Look, there comes a time in the heart of every devotee to a cause that the difference between fact and fiction does not exist: belief is all.

Never has this been more clear than in this set of (written!) threads. One can just click on anywhere in the lengthy list and see that nothing has changed one iota. It's religion, baby.

Rob
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 09, 2017, 06:52:26 am
Regarding the 90 days, the lower court held up the government from working out the details of the ban.  It wasn't  until June 12 that the Appeals court allowed the government to continue.

That's clearly nonsense. Courts cannot stop the government working on details, they can only judge the legality of final decisions, executive orders, interpretation of laws.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: jeremyrh on July 09, 2017, 09:11:30 am
Quote
My feeling is that there are too many people on both sides taking violent positions in social media as well as in more public displays.

When the President of the United States posts videos of himself purportedly showing him physically assaulting journalists, you can bet that the real life violence will soon follow.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2017, 11:24:21 am
That's clearly nonsense. Courts cannot stop the government working on details, they can only judge the legality of final decisions, executive orders, interpretation of laws.

Cheers,
Bart
Your post is clearly nonsense.  Courts can and did in this case stop all executive review.  The lower federal court enjoined the government from undertaking internal executive review of the procedures.  That was not reversed until June 12 by the Appeals Court of the Ninth Circuit as referred to in the SCOTUS decision pg 6.  Here's that paragraph - see the last sentence.  Note that subsequent to the SCOTUS decision of June 26, the government did issue the new procedures within the 20 day period the EO called for.  They are now in the 50 day period (corrected from 70 day) for the nations to be notified of the new rule to give them time to adjust their procedures. 

"...On the same day respondents filed, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Hawaii. ___ F. 3d ___, 2017 WL 2529640 (June 12, 2017) (per curiam). A unanimous panel held in favor of respondents the State of Hawaii and Dr. Ismail Elshikh, an American citizen and imam whose Syrian mother-inlaw is seeking entry to this country. Rather than rely on the constitutional grounds supporting the District Court’sdecision, the court held that portions of EO–2 likely exceeded the President’s authority under the INA. On that basis it upheld the injunction as to the §2(c) entry suspension, the §6(a) suspension of refugee admissions, and the§6(b) refugee cap. The Ninth Circuit, like the Fourth Circuit, concluded that the injunction should bar enforcement of these provisions across the board, because they would violate the INA “in all applications.” Id., at *28. The court did, however, narrow the injunction so that it would not bar the Government from undertaking the internal executive reviews directed by EO–2."

Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2017, 11:49:50 am
Lies.  They did no such thing.  Quote anything from the SCotUS that says this at all, or stop telling lies.
From page 11 of the SCOTUS decision.  The decision was 9-0.  While three judges wrote a concurring opinion, their opinion was even more restrictive not allowing any foreigners into the country including those with close ties.  Think about this.  Not one of the liberal justices wrote a dissenting opinion. Even Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer agreed.   It was 9-0.  Yet you want us to believe that when the full review process is completed in a few months, that the court is going to reverse what they already acknowledged in their stay of most of the lower court's  injunction. 


From the SCOTUS decision:  (pg 11)  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

"...But the injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all. The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context. Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national. And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant hardship on the foreign national himself. See id., at 762 (“[A]n unadmitted and nonresident alien . . . had no constitutional right of entry to this country”). So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of §2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below.

At the same time, the Government’s interest in enforcing §2(c), and the Executive’s authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States. Indeed, EO–2 itself distinguishes between foreign nationals who have some connection to this country, and foreign nationals who do not, by establishing a case-by-case waiver system primarily for the benefit of individuals in the former cate- gory. See, e.g., §§3(c)(i)–(vi). The interest in preserving national security is “an urgent objective of the highest order.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. 1, 28 (2010). To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c) against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else."
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on July 09, 2017, 05:56:30 pm
From page 11 of the SCOTUS decision.  The decision was 9-0.  While three judges wrote a concurring opinion, their opinion was even more restrictive not allowing any foreigners into the country including those with close ties.  Think about this.  Not one of the liberal justices wrote a dissenting opinion. Even Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer agreed.   It was 9-0.  Yet you want us to believe that when the full review process is completed in a few months, that the court is going to reverse what they already acknowledged in their stay of most of the lower court's  injunction. 


From the SCOTUS decision:  (pg 11)  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdf

"...But the injunctions reach much further than that: They also bar enforcement of §2(c) against foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all. The equities relied on by the lower courts do not balance the same way in that context. Denying entry to such a foreign national does not burden any American party by reason of that party’s relationship with the foreign national. And the courts below did not conclude that exclusion in such circumstances would impose any legally relevant hardship on the foreign national himself. See id., at 762 (“[A]n unadmitted and nonresident alien . . . had no constitutional right of entry to this country”). So whatever burdens may result from enforcement of §2(c) against a foreign national who lacks any connection to this country, they are, at a minimum, a good deal less concrete than the hardships identified by the courts below.

At the same time, the Government’s interest in enforcing §2(c), and the Executive’s authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States. Indeed, EO–2 itself distinguishes between foreign nationals who have some connection to this country, and foreign nationals who do not, by establishing a case-by-case waiver system primarily for the benefit of individuals in the former cate- gory. See, e.g., §§3(c)(i)–(vi). The interest in preserving national security is “an urgent objective of the highest order.” Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U. S. 1, 28 (2010). To prevent the Government from pursuing that objective by enforcing §2(c) against foreign nationals unconnected to the United States would appreciably injure its interests, without alleviating obvious hardship to anyone else."

You literally proved I was right.  The SCotUS did not rule on the constitutionality of anything.  As has been said multiple times, they determined that the lower court did not adequately consider the case of foreign nationals with no ties to the US.  I don't think they're going to decide that the lower courts were right to prevent the government from stopping all persons from entry, but that (my opinion) and your opinion, have nothing to do with the constant claims you're making that the SCotUS has ruled on the constitutionality of the issue.  They have not.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 09, 2017, 09:52:22 pm
You literally proved I was right.  The SCotUS did not rule on the constitutionality of anything.  As has been said multiple times, they determined that the lower court did not adequately consider the case of foreign nationals with no ties to the US.  I don't think they're going to decide that the lower courts were right to prevent the government from stopping all persons from entry, but that (my opinion) and your opinion, have nothing to do with the constant claims you're making that the SCotUS has ruled on the constitutionality of the issue.  They have not.
Phil, you're spinning.  The Supreme Court reversed the lower court and the appeals court.  99.9% of the people in those 6 nations cannot enter the USA.  Trump won.  You know they say that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on July 10, 2017, 12:51:14 am
It did NOT reverse it.  You either really are just trolling or you have absolutely no understanding of law.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 10, 2017, 01:10:47 am
Are the 99.9% of those people going to get into the US now?  Are they going to get in after SCOTUS decides the final case?


I say NO for both.  Trump won.  What do you say?
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on July 10, 2017, 02:03:27 am
From the 7 countries on the list, the total level of immigration to the US is just 2% of all immigrants, and immigrants make up 13% of the total population.  So that's 0.26% of the population from those places.  That's about 837,000 people in total.  In total - ever to have immigrated to the US.  It's less than about 25,000 people a year.  0.1% of that is 25.  Trump has, at most, managed to stop 25 people a year from entering the US, and that assumes that such people, particularly those intent on unleashing terror attacks, follow the laws.

Well done.

/golf clap

Do you feel safe yet?
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 10, 2017, 09:21:07 am
From the 7 countries on the list, the total level of immigration to the US is just 2% of all immigrants, and immigrants make up 13% of the total population.  So that's 0.26% of the population from those places.  That's about 837,000 people in total.  In total - ever to have immigrated to the US.  It's less than about 25,000 people a year.  0.1% of that is 25.  Trump has, at most, managed to stop 25 people a year from entering the US, and that assumes that such people, particularly those intent on unleashing terror attacks, follow the laws.

Well done.

/golf clap

Do you feel safe yet?
So now you skirted answering the question with phony statistics.   You calculated that only 25 people per year from 6 nations total have no relationship to America who come to the US.  That's the equivalent of one family of 4 from each country visit the US.  Nonsense number.

Well I hope they enjoy Disneyland.





Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Farmer on July 10, 2017, 03:39:11 pm
No, I looked at actual numbers of people who have come from those counties to the US since 1980.  Actual numbers.
Title: Re: Political Violence
Post by: Alan Klein on July 10, 2017, 04:06:10 pm
You said 25,000 per year and then multiplied by .1% and got 25.  Are you saying only .1% were people with no relationships to America?  1 out of 1000?  Only 4 people per country came to America from these 6 countries?  That's a screwball number. 

Here's an article I just found that shows about 53000 people from the 6 countries came in 2016. It's hard to distinguish the exact amount that were not connected to America but it could be about 80% or 40,000, certainly a lot more than 25.

 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/whos-visiting-the-us-from-the-6-countries-on-trumps-travel-ban-we-break-it-down-2017-03-29