If we're talking about HSBC Bank then the problem is what they did was legal... so what should have been done was firing the top two or three layers of management with clawback of their bonuses.
But what do you make of the argument that we shouldn’t prosecute people who loot and steal, since it would simply be too much effort, and disruption?
I think it's politically motivated.
Parts of the Left wants it done to let everyone know that the next group of rioters can do their thing without consequences... so we (society) had darn well knuckle under to their demands.
The only thing some of these groups put on the table is a lack of their own bad behavior, i.e. make nice with us or we'll burn something and wreck your whatever.
The GOP? The Biden rule was created by former Vice President Biden.
And mostly it's about political power and costs, but the fig-leaf ethical covering is that we have a President attempting to make a Supreme Court choice in an election year while Congress (who faced the voters more recently) was elected on a mandate to stop him.
The question of which groups are more dangerous in aggregate doesn’t seem like it has any real policy implications for this problem.
We make policy decisions based off of aggregate group behavior all the time.
Not every doctor is going to be competent, but imho "brain drain" is a good thing for us. Similarly not every immigrant is going to be a entrepreneur, but enough are that it's a really good thing. Some of the smartest people in the world come to our colleges.
There are all sorts of policy implications from all that. For example IMHO we should be handing out free green cards with every Masters Degree from the top 200(ish) colleges.
We're actively bombing groups of people because their culture does nasty things and isn't willing to play nice with ours. There are immigration policy implications in that too.
It’s capped at 85,000, and is pretty much entirely full every year.
Yeah but that's all countries combined. If we're talking about just these 7 countries, or even just Muslims, then it's a lot less.
And, yeah, we really do have that many mass shootings.
Only if "mass shootings" includes "drug dealers killing drug dealers" and "man shoots wife and wife's lover". Exclude dealers, gangs, and families and those numbers go way down.
But this is mostly because every Muslim that snaps turns into a ‘terrorist’ (Both because the media assumes it, and because they’ve spent three days reading ISIS stuff and yell something about Allah.), whereas 99% of other people that snap become a ‘mass shooters’ with no obvious goals.
Afaict, excluding outliers, the terrorism done by 1% of the population roughly matches the rest of the population. Include outliers and it's even more lopsided. Further while McVay discredited his organization, 911 and that gay bar didn't discredited theirs.
The world is fighting an organization and ideology which actively promotes terrorism and encourages losers to become terrorists. That ideology isn't just channeling violence that would happen anyway, it's also creating violence.
We have lunatics who have been given a cause who would have killed anyway. We also have losers, small time criminals, and engineers being turned into terrorists.
So sometimes we get Bill and Ted, and sometimes we get a professional gun bunny (thus that gay bar).
The nasty part is at the moment, most serious players go elsewhere in the world to do their thing and/or get training... but that doesn't have to be true forever.
Having said all that, I don't have better ideas on what to do differently than what we have... but trying to claim there isn't a problem is basically trying to avoid uncomfortable cultural questions. There clearly is a problem.
@davidtc
@nevermoor
You're presenting the "Bork" arguments at face value, often ignoring the context it itself often supplies.
In big every large bold letters it says he said "The NAACP (etc) are Anti-American", and in the fine print it turns out he was talking about their support for murderous Pro-Communist rebels in foreign countries, and how that costs them moral authority.
He said "I thought those guys [the KKK] were OK until I learned they smoked pot", while he was trying them for murder and the like.
And Thomas Figures, the now-dead star "witness" for all this (although he wasn't under oath), is known for things like bribing witnesses, paranoia, and thinking Dan Rather was talking to him specifically through the television.
(replying to David)
So when he's not executing members of the Klan and racially integrating schools, he's suppressing the black vote?
Or maybe legit policy differences are being exaggerated and misrepresented so the Dems can once again play the "he's a racist" card on anyone who isn't a Dem?
Since him executing a member of the Klan is portrayed as an act of racism, I find it hard to trust his critics.
You seem to be assuming there are two distinct groups of protestors, my expectation is that it's more like shades of grey. So people can switch sides, and WTO protests saw that. Anarchy and defying the man is fun.
Further, the purpose of some of these protests is to "create" a police response. You can much more easily claim to be a victim if the police are beating you, and what you did to earn that beating can be forgotten.
MLK picked the stupidest most brutal sheriff to march against because he wanted images, those images did great things for his moment and only cost a few bruises.
The police could, I don’t know, try *not* arresting people who are not causing any harm to anyone, and whose worst crime appears to be loitering.
I know it sounds crazy, but it Just. Might. Work.
It works if there actually is a difference between the good protestors and the bad ones. And if the two groups don't support each other. And if people don't switch from "good protest" to "loot/burn" on the drop of a dime. And if the good protestors don't view part of their mission to deliberately fire up a fight with the police.
And if the police can tell the difference between the two. And if there really is a difference.
There's also something to the idea that if you're hanging out with arsonists and helping them break the law, then maybe the police aren't obligated to treat you with kid gloves and you're part of the problem.
For the most obvious and relevant one, they, like workplaces, are not allowed to have hostile environments.
"hostile" seems to mean "anything any snowflake disagrees with".
A lot of these accusations seem to be more about projecting power than protecting people. Like how any GOP guy running for Prez is accused of racism until the definition apparently means "not a Dem".
if the college *does* allow access to the room, they are supposed to allow it *equally*…but saying they can’t have other restrictions (as long as those restrictions apply *equally*) seems dubious.
Saying you can use it as long as you don't offend any SJW seems inherently unequal.
3) People who are going out, and they’ve decided the person to blame is actually *an entire group of people*, and they turn into mass shooters or terrorists.
Not always "blame". IMHO many of these just want to make a name for themselves. It's probably related to why young men often do stupid things that get them killed.
Unfortunately "make a name" can also be "get the largest body count ever", which can mean "head to a gun free zone and start shooting".
And then we have ideology, if you're a massive screw up then your only chance at heaven is to kill your way into it.
He's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, very well situated to carry out the actions he laid out.
didn’t follow up on,
He didn't have the opportunity because none of the Supremes died.
As a matter of policy, it actually makes a lot of sense. The Senate's personal election chances go up by putting their guy on the court. Politicians are unlikely to go out on a limb to help an opposing Prez tilt the Court the "wrong" direction from the standpoint of their constituents.
That was doubly true in this case because a fair bit of the GOP ran on the platform of reigning in Obama, and their election was more recent than his. And yes, I understand that this rule was only supposed to be used to prevent Republican Presidents from making Supreme choices but whatever.
The interesting question is "was Biden correct"? Did past Presidents in this situation avoid painting themselves into this corner? Looking at a graph... I don't think so, although I don't think the issue comes up a lot. However this is the fifth time a nomination has been killed via lack of action.
it’s pretty hard not to notice that the outcome depends 100% on whether or not you start your impartial data-driven analysis on 9/10/2001 or 9/12/2001. Statistically dangerous or statistical nothingburger?
All of my comments on numbers allowed them to avoid that day.
...although we really shouldn't. It's tempting to ignore outliers because they're not "typical", but really bad outliers affects the total risk of the system.
This is true in Wall-Street, i.e. "picking up pennies in front of a steamroller" like "Long-Term Capital Management" did. And it's also true for things that risk war or natural disaster or whatever.
Moving us back on topic, the numbers posted don't adjust for a tiny population percentage.
Behavior of one group of idiots who should all be arrested does not mean the College Republicans should be allowed to break rules by proxy.
I'm not convinced these "rules" should exist, i.e. that the value they create is worth the cost they inflict. The rest of society functions reasonably well without snowflake protection. Forcing colleges to set up their own parallel legal system seems like a power grab to remove various protections and processes which we've spent centuries creating.
The usual things which are illegal or banned should be illegal or banned. High on that list is violence, what the College GOP is doing (or even what Milo is doing) isn't comparable to setting fires and breaking stuff.
Assume Milo's supporters are correct and he's not that bad, and the Left is just going nuts because making unsupported accusations and using mob violence to shut people down is fun and powerful. That would put a lot of this in a different light... and I haven't personally reviewed his act so maybe we're actually there.
And Sessions was deemed to racist to become a judge in the freaking 80s.
I spent a minute or two checking on this and he was Borked. The "racist" thing was while Sessions was attempting to put to death a Klan member for killing a black man, Sessions told a gallows humor joke. Everyone in the room knew exactly how heinous the Klan was and exactly what Sessions thought of them.
That's the context of Sessions' "racism". So the charge is a lie. The Left always trots out the racism charge and that you're repeating it says more about you than about him.
No one has ever picked a less qualified secretary of state.
Obama's first Sec of State's big qualification was being married to a successful and popular politician.
As for terrorists travelling *here*…they have, oddly, been spectacularly incompetent in wildly improbable ways, except that one time they were super-competent in pretty improbable ways. It’s a bit weird, and makes risks hard to judge.
At the moment, it's *easier* to get into Europe, so that's the low hanging fruit. You don't need to be faster than the bear, you just need to NOT be the slowest guy he's chasing.
Note this is actually a pretty grim answer, it suggests sooner or later we'll see something news making until these groups are destroyed, which might be a century or two.
I suspect everyone is *underestimating* how much vetting already happens.
Given how many years it takes, my expectation is that it's already a LOT.
Refugees…haven’t been a hole.
Unclear because at the moment, we basically don't allow them in. We let in maybe (tens of?) thousands compared to other countries millions.
And I have a feeling that Trump…is just making stuff up.
Sure. He's playing on the crowd's emotions.
Yeah. I kinda wonder how we’d see other sorts of terrorism if, for example, every white supremacist yelled ‘For the KKK!’ during their attack. (Even if their ‘connection’ to the KKK was ‘reading a website’.)
What did Chip's link suggest? Maybe 40 bodies over the last 15 years, with the Islamic groups doing about the same (before that gay bar). It's cherry picking to avoid 911 but whatever.
But you basically have to slap two zeros, x100, to adjust for size of population. So call it 4,000 bodies. We just went from there not being a problem at all to there is a problem and the Left is determined to ignore it for the sake of political correctness.
To be fair I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm a guy who wants to solve most immigration problems by handing out green cards, but Trump's emotional manipulation has a basis in reality. My feeling is we let them in and they assimilate to the same degree as everyone else, that Europe does a bad job with this just because they've always done a bad job.
However there really are bombs being both dropped and thrown.
To be fair that link is to a report written before Pulse. However wiki suggests it's numbers are off even with that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
Of course the biggest problem is it's not adjusting for population percentage.
Don Zeko:
His nomination is, however, the first time a sitting President has been unable to confirm a nominee to a vacancy to the Supreme Court before the end of his term.
That's right, the Senate invoked the "Biden Rule", created by Vice President Joe Biden back when he was a Senator.
Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.
“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.
“That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me,” he added, “we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”
Garland is hardly the first, nor will he be the last, Judge to fail to be confirmed by the Senate. There's a lot to be said to send the balance of the Court to the voters to decide. The voters appointed Obama in 2012, and they appointed the GOP in 2014 to stop him.
Think about what happens if Trump sends Garland in there right now. We have a party line vote saying "no", and then Trump goes back to his list.
Personally, I find the distinction, “Speech is OK, hitting people over speech is not,” a lot easier to adjudicate in an objective and consistent manner than, “Your speech was used for bad ends, so it’s not protected.”
It's not about speech, it's about power.
The Left *wants* to be able to riot, burn down buildings, and claim it's because the Right is violent and hateful.
And we haven’t heard boo from principled conservatives.
You mean, other than "never Trump" and the 3% (ish) of the GOP voted for Hillary. Awkwardly this was balanced or outweighed by the Dems who voted for Trump.
But now he's in office, and we'll see how he does. It's possible my vote against him was a mistake and I shouldn't have judged his words so literally. Maybe he'll do good things. It's also possible we're in the middle of a great reshuffle which will end with me flipping parties.
He must actually be the Antichrist.
Or the media could be having a melt down and exaggerating yet again.
Almost every time, someone clearly snaps, and goes out *looking* for a cause to murder people for. That is what is *actually* happening here, not ‘terrorism’.
Well put, and agreed about this covering pretty much every lone wolf shooter.
However there are groups of problems it doesn't cover. The 19 attackers from 911, ISIS, and the mass sex assaults in Germany on new years. And it is very easy to confuse the lone wolves with ISIS with both of them proclaiming they're one and the same.
which is one of the arguments against Trump’s executive order.
You lost me. What has he done that's comparable? His order is basically against the countries we're bombing that don't have effective governments plus Iran.
So what speech does Milo fight for? Simply this: the right to harass transgender people, to mock fat people, etc. In other words, his free speech is the freedom to be a bully.
Gee, you all on the right should sure feel proud.
I don't see how Milo's behavior is different from Serrano's "piss Christ". He's deliberately offensive for the purpose of attracting attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
The part I don't get is why you'd go to one of his shows. You know who he is, you know what he does, it's presumably pay-to-go. There's a disconnect between you claiming you're a victim because of what he's saying to you and you paying to hear it.
...but now that I am seeing actual far-right figures take power...
...It doesn’t mean you don’t call a spade a spade but I recognize I made a mistake in employing that type of language inappropriately.
How many dead bodies are these far-right figures responsible for? How much domestic terrorism? How much violence? Is anyone on the Right endorsing violence? Say, claiming Dylan Roof is misunderstood and should be let go? Has Trump written a book somewhere calling for mass murder?
As far as I can tell you're still screaming wolf.
The Left needs a violent genocidal villain to justify how violent the Left itself is, and there is nothing around like that short of ISIS.
There are policy differences, opposing open borders, opposing free trade, endorsing school choice, etc, but screaming wolf worked so well for so long that it's a reflex.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Stop Feeding Milo Yiannapolous”
If we're talking about HSBC Bank then the problem is what they did was legal... so what should have been done was firing the top two or three layers of management with clawback of their bonuses.
I think it's politically motivated.
Parts of the Left wants it done to let everyone know that the next group of rioters can do their thing without consequences... so we (society) had darn well knuckle under to their demands.
The only thing some of these groups put on the table is a lack of their own bad behavior, i.e. make nice with us or we'll burn something and wreck your whatever.
"
The GOP? The Biden rule was created by former Vice President Biden.
And mostly it's about political power and costs, but the fig-leaf ethical covering is that we have a President attempting to make a Supreme Court choice in an election year while Congress (who faced the voters more recently) was elected on a mandate to stop him.
On “Trumpwatch: on prioritizing Christian refugees”
We make policy decisions based off of aggregate group behavior all the time.
Not every doctor is going to be competent, but imho "brain drain" is a good thing for us. Similarly not every immigrant is going to be a entrepreneur, but enough are that it's a really good thing. Some of the smartest people in the world come to our colleges.
There are all sorts of policy implications from all that. For example IMHO we should be handing out free green cards with every Masters Degree from the top 200(ish) colleges.
We're actively bombing groups of people because their culture does nasty things and isn't willing to play nice with ours. There are immigration policy implications in that too.
"
Yeah but that's all countries combined. If we're talking about just these 7 countries, or even just Muslims, then it's a lot less.
Only if "mass shootings" includes "drug dealers killing drug dealers" and "man shoots wife and wife's lover". Exclude dealers, gangs, and families and those numbers go way down.
Afaict, excluding outliers, the terrorism done by 1% of the population roughly matches the rest of the population. Include outliers and it's even more lopsided. Further while McVay discredited his organization, 911 and that gay bar didn't discredited theirs.
The world is fighting an organization and ideology which actively promotes terrorism and encourages losers to become terrorists. That ideology isn't just channeling violence that would happen anyway, it's also creating violence.
We have lunatics who have been given a cause who would have killed anyway. We also have losers, small time criminals, and engineers being turned into terrorists.
So sometimes we get Bill and Ted, and sometimes we get a professional gun bunny (thus that gay bar).
The nasty part is at the moment, most serious players go elsewhere in the world to do their thing and/or get training... but that doesn't have to be true forever.
Having said all that, I don't have better ideas on what to do differently than what we have... but trying to claim there isn't a problem is basically trying to avoid uncomfortable cultural questions. There clearly is a problem.
On “Stop Feeding Milo Yiannapolous”
@davidtc
@nevermoor
You're presenting the "Bork" arguments at face value, often ignoring the context it itself often supplies.
In big every large bold letters it says he said "The NAACP (etc) are Anti-American", and in the fine print it turns out he was talking about their support for murderous Pro-Communist rebels in foreign countries, and how that costs them moral authority.
He said "I thought those guys [the KKK] were OK until I learned they smoked pot", while he was trying them for murder and the like.
And Thomas Figures, the now-dead star "witness" for all this (although he wasn't under oath), is known for things like bribing witnesses, paranoia, and thinking Dan Rather was talking to him specifically through the television.
(replying to David)
So when he's not executing members of the Klan and racially integrating schools, he's suppressing the black vote?
Or maybe legit policy differences are being exaggerated and misrepresented so the Dems can once again play the "he's a racist" card on anyone who isn't a Dem?
Since him executing a member of the Klan is portrayed as an act of racism, I find it hard to trust his critics.
"
(combining two posts)
You seem to be assuming there are two distinct groups of protestors, my expectation is that it's more like shades of grey. So people can switch sides, and WTO protests saw that. Anarchy and defying the man is fun.
Further, the purpose of some of these protests is to "create" a police response. You can much more easily claim to be a victim if the police are beating you, and what you did to earn that beating can be forgotten.
MLK picked the stupidest most brutal sheriff to march against because he wanted images, those images did great things for his moment and only cost a few bruises.
It works if there actually is a difference between the good protestors and the bad ones. And if the two groups don't support each other. And if people don't switch from "good protest" to "loot/burn" on the drop of a dime. And if the good protestors don't view part of their mission to deliberately fire up a fight with the police.
And if the police can tell the difference between the two. And if there really is a difference.
There's also something to the idea that if you're hanging out with arsonists and helping them break the law, then maybe the police aren't obligated to treat you with kid gloves and you're part of the problem.
"
"hostile" seems to mean "anything any snowflake disagrees with".
A lot of these accusations seem to be more about projecting power than protecting people. Like how any GOP guy running for Prez is accused of racism until the definition apparently means "not a Dem".
Saying you can use it as long as you don't offend any SJW seems inherently unequal.
On “Trumpwatch: on prioritizing Christian refugees”
Not always "blame". IMHO many of these just want to make a name for themselves. It's probably related to why young men often do stupid things that get them killed.
Unfortunately "make a name" can also be "get the largest body count ever", which can mean "head to a gun free zone and start shooting".
And then we have ideology, if you're a massive screw up then your only chance at heaven is to kill your way into it.
On “Stop Feeding Milo Yiannapolous”
He's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, very well situated to carry out the actions he laid out.
He didn't have the opportunity because none of the Supremes died.
As a matter of policy, it actually makes a lot of sense. The Senate's personal election chances go up by putting their guy on the court. Politicians are unlikely to go out on a limb to help an opposing Prez tilt the Court the "wrong" direction from the standpoint of their constituents.
That was doubly true in this case because a fair bit of the GOP ran on the platform of reigning in Obama, and their election was more recent than his. And yes, I understand that this rule was only supposed to be used to prevent Republican Presidents from making Supreme choices but whatever.
The interesting question is "was Biden correct"? Did past Presidents in this situation avoid painting themselves into this corner? Looking at a graph... I don't think so, although I don't think the issue comes up a lot. However this is the fifth time a nomination has been killed via lack of action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
On “Trumpwatch: on prioritizing Christian refugees”
All of my comments on numbers allowed them to avoid that day.
...although we really shouldn't. It's tempting to ignore outliers because they're not "typical", but really bad outliers affects the total risk of the system.
This is true in Wall-Street, i.e. "picking up pennies in front of a steamroller" like "Long-Term Capital Management" did. And it's also true for things that risk war or natural disaster or whatever.
Moving us back on topic, the numbers posted don't adjust for a tiny population percentage.
On “Stop Feeding Milo Yiannapolous”
Many ethical systems have serious problems on what to do about "evil" and make the mistake of thinking it will go away if they wish really hard.
Assume the group of violent "protesters" aren't thinking in grand concepts and aren't meta about police brutality and such.
Assume they just like setting fires, breaking things, and stealing stuff, and they can do that in a protest.
Now all of a sudden, if the police back off, the mob gets out of control and stuff burns.
"
I'm not convinced these "rules" should exist, i.e. that the value they create is worth the cost they inflict. The rest of society functions reasonably well without snowflake protection. Forcing colleges to set up their own parallel legal system seems like a power grab to remove various protections and processes which we've spent centuries creating.
The usual things which are illegal or banned should be illegal or banned. High on that list is violence, what the College GOP is doing (or even what Milo is doing) isn't comparable to setting fires and breaking stuff.
Assume Milo's supporters are correct and he's not that bad, and the Left is just going nuts because making unsupported accusations and using mob violence to shut people down is fun and powerful. That would put a lot of this in a different light... and I haven't personally reviewed his act so maybe we're actually there.
"
The Constitution.
That's the legal document which lays out how the President is elected and how many Senators each state gets.
"
I spent a minute or two checking on this and he was Borked. The "racist" thing was while Sessions was attempting to put to death a Klan member for killing a black man, Sessions told a gallows humor joke. Everyone in the room knew exactly how heinous the Klan was and exactly what Sessions thought of them.
That's the context of Sessions' "racism". So the charge is a lie. The Left always trots out the racism charge and that you're repeating it says more about you than about him.
Obama's first Sec of State's big qualification was being married to a successful and popular politician.
On “Trumpwatch: on prioritizing Christian refugees”
At the moment, it's *easier* to get into Europe, so that's the low hanging fruit. You don't need to be faster than the bear, you just need to NOT be the slowest guy he's chasing.
Note this is actually a pretty grim answer, it suggests sooner or later we'll see something news making until these groups are destroyed, which might be a century or two.
Given how many years it takes, my expectation is that it's already a LOT.
Unclear because at the moment, we basically don't allow them in. We let in maybe (tens of?) thousands compared to other countries millions.
Sure. He's playing on the crowd's emotions.
What did Chip's link suggest? Maybe 40 bodies over the last 15 years, with the Islamic groups doing about the same (before that gay bar). It's cherry picking to avoid 911 but whatever.
But you basically have to slap two zeros, x100, to adjust for size of population. So call it 4,000 bodies. We just went from there not being a problem at all to there is a problem and the Left is determined to ignore it for the sake of political correctness.
To be fair I'm not sure what the answer is. I'm a guy who wants to solve most immigration problems by handing out green cards, but Trump's emotional manipulation has a basis in reality. My feeling is we let them in and they assimilate to the same degree as everyone else, that Europe does a bad job with this just because they've always done a bad job.
However there really are bombs being both dropped and thrown.
"
To be fair that link is to a report written before Pulse. However wiki suggests it's numbers are off even with that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
Of course the biggest problem is it's not adjusting for population percentage.
On “Stop Feeding Milo Yiannapolous”
That's right, the Senate invoked the "Biden Rule", created by Vice President Joe Biden back when he was a Senator.
Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.
“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.
“That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me,” he added, “we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html
"
Haven't you gotten into enough trouble by ignoring the voters?
"
Garland is hardly the first, nor will he be the last, Judge to fail to be confirmed by the Senate. There's a lot to be said to send the balance of the Court to the voters to decide. The voters appointed Obama in 2012, and they appointed the GOP in 2014 to stop him.
Think about what happens if Trump sends Garland in there right now. We have a party line vote saying "no", and then Trump goes back to his list.
"
It's not about speech, it's about power.
The Left *wants* to be able to riot, burn down buildings, and claim it's because the Right is violent and hateful.
"
You mean, other than "never Trump" and the 3% (ish) of the GOP voted for Hillary. Awkwardly this was balanced or outweighed by the Dems who voted for Trump.
But now he's in office, and we'll see how he does. It's possible my vote against him was a mistake and I shouldn't have judged his words so literally. Maybe he'll do good things. It's also possible we're in the middle of a great reshuffle which will end with me flipping parties.
Or the media could be having a melt down and exaggerating yet again.
On “Trumpwatch: on prioritizing Christian refugees”
Well put, and agreed about this covering pretty much every lone wolf shooter.
However there are groups of problems it doesn't cover. The 19 attackers from 911, ISIS, and the mass sex assaults in Germany on new years. And it is very easy to confuse the lone wolves with ISIS with both of them proclaiming they're one and the same.
"
You lost me. What has he done that's comparable? His order is basically against the countries we're bombing that don't have effective governments plus Iran.
On “Stop Feeding Milo Yiannapolous”
I don't see how Milo's behavior is different from Serrano's "piss Christ". He's deliberately offensive for the purpose of attracting attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ
The part I don't get is why you'd go to one of his shows. You know who he is, you know what he does, it's presumably pay-to-go. There's a disconnect between you claiming you're a victim because of what he's saying to you and you paying to hear it.
"
How many dead bodies are these far-right figures responsible for? How much domestic terrorism? How much violence? Is anyone on the Right endorsing violence? Say, claiming Dylan Roof is misunderstood and should be let go? Has Trump written a book somewhere calling for mass murder?
As far as I can tell you're still screaming wolf.
The Left needs a violent genocidal villain to justify how violent the Left itself is, and there is nothing around like that short of ISIS.
There are policy differences, opposing open borders, opposing free trade, endorsing school choice, etc, but screaming wolf worked so well for so long that it's a reflex.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.