How To Stop The Alt-Right

LOL....you so funny....

 

I agree pretty much with all that. And I do think that's a danger now - if things go badly for Trump in the USA, divert attention by starting a war, and in the process give a boost to the military industrial complex.

 

Here in the UK, the government have rejected a petition on the UK gov website protesting Trump's state visit here. 1.8 million signed. It will be debated on Friday 20th Feb, but it will go in favour of a state visit. 309,000 people signed a counter petition which will also be up for debate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38967075

 

Safe spaces and microaggressions, we are doomed.

 

As a an amusing aside (black humour) I wonder who he’d choose to fight

Now in any sane times it wouldn’t be someone with access to nuclear weapons such as China or even North Korea but we are living in ‘alternative’ times with a rather dysfunctional US President so….

Russia seems off the table (although love can often turn to hate)

He’d want somewhere that his supporters would know or at least recognise the name so that rules out most of Africa.

My wife with a grin suggests Mexico.

Me, I’m going to say Iran. I mean in the spirit of Trumps anti-Obama ideology he has already criticised the last administration’s Iran nuclear deal and has attacked the country numerous times in speeches and on tweeter.

And the man Trump choose as his secretary of defence, retired Marine Corps Gen. James [mad dog] Mattis supposedly had such a dislike of Iran that Obama had to replace him as Central Command commander. Then add to that that Michael Flynn when national security adviser publically but Iran ‘on notice’. Also to be noted is Trumps desire to make any war pay for itself through plundering the conquered peoples natural resources.

So Iran is not nuclear (as far as is known)

It has name recognition

Americans have been taught to hate it for years

It has oil.

 

Iran or maybe a limited war with China.

Iran would be a tough nut to crack in terms of conventional warfare. Like Afghanistan to the power 10. China has nukes but probably wouldn't use them unless as a last resort if the US used theirs.

Mexico? Probably be a relatively swift US victory.

 

Iran is plausible. Remember that we're now living in an Orwellian world, and there you don't actually go to war--you just gin up a lot of fear and hatred against some country with which war is supposedly imminent. What about North Korea?

 

I wonder how it would play out between Russia and the US if Trump started to seriously threaten Iran? A troubling question.

If it's just a propaganda job for domestic consumption that's different.

 

And in less than a month it all fell apart...

"Right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos’ publisher has cancelled his planned book, “Dangerous.”
Simon & Schuster and its Threshold Editions imprint announced Monday that they pulled the book, which had been high on Amazon.com’s best-seller lists and was the subject of intense controversy.
“After careful consideration, Simon & Schuster and its Threshold Editions imprint have cancelled publication of Dangerous by Milo Yiannopoulo,” Simon & Schuster said in a statement."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/milo-yiannopoulos-book-dangerous-has-been-cancelled/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/02/21/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-breitbart-news/98203984/

 

The statement that got Milo into trouble was "Pedophilia is not a sexual attraction to somebody 13 years old who is sexually mature. Pedophilia is attraction to children who have not reached puberty." That may be his and NAMBLA's position, but state laws draw the line at 16 to 18. Milo may be the Oscar Wilde of his generation. His flamboyant drag queen act got him attention until he tried to push the envelope too far. We'll see if he survives politically.

 

I doubt he'll recover from this. He jumped the shark on both sides (if sides is a way to express it). First of all, conservatives are not about to "support" anything that reeks of raping children and Milo clearly doesn't get that. But he has also shined a spotlight onto something the progressive side has been trying to push for years, that "pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality".

That message is usually "supported" by the notion that "most pedophiles are married white guys with children of their own", which of course makes all married white guys with children of their own seem like a risk group. Because it's only one side of the issue. The other side is that MOST married white guys with children don't rape children.

The "Dangerous Faggot" has stepped on his own dick with this. What's really amazing about the 21st century is how fast someone who looks like they're headed for greatness (of a sort) are brought down utterly by a few stupid, but revealing words. Even if they were uttered years ago.

On the up side, I doubt anyone is concerned that he might be a "white supremacist" anymore!

 

Dick

More misdirection and mudding of the waters

Well yes but you could also say – ‘paedophilia has nothing to do with heterosexuality’

The problem was/is that many who opposed homosexuality claimed homosexuality was about paedophilia and it was those damned ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ that pointed out that paedophilia was separate from homosexuality or heterosexuality to imply that ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ were saying homosexuals couldn’t be paedophiles is a huge misdirection and I think you know it.

And then it is back into the big lie seemingly being pushed by many on the right at the moment, that ALL liberals and progressives (basically anyone that isn’t right wing) hate all white men - that you can’t be a leftie without hating white men.

It’s silly I know but that seems to be ‘big’ idea being promoted by some on the right, as part of the whole political correctness, identity politics malarkey

[SIZE=11pt]Why white guys?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Thing is that I don’t know what the statistics are and I don’t care what colour, gender or sexual orientation the person who is committing these offences are - I don’t see it as that kind of issue – however it seems some do want to bring skin colour into it and I wonder why?[/SIZE]

 

I'm concerned Trump will inadvertently get us into a real war. Say he goes off on one of his frequent twitter rants, maybe for the sake of argument Iran. When translated it could read to the Iranians that an American attack was imminent and they could choose to strike first, attacking our Navy vessels in the Persian Gulf, let's say. The US would have no choice but to respond militarily and it could just spread across the whole region, and I doubt that Russia would just sit on the sidelines doing nothing.

In my opinion, based only on what I've heard him say, I think the man simply has no idea what he's doing. He's mentally unfit for the job.

 

I agree. The guy is a loose cannon (but that was obvious before he was elected). I think it's likely he'll mishandle any crisis that comes up--and we'll never know when or where it will happen. The Republicans are playing with fire, in hopes Trump will help them push through their economic programs. Every day is a new cliff hanger! And what can we do? The 25th Amendment and impeachment are the only remedies, but both are real long shots with Republicans in control of Congress.

 

I personally think homosexuality is one of the things that makes humanity unique in the classification of animals, followed closely by art, language and cooking. So the idea of "opposing" homosexuality is absurd on its face. One may as well oppose breathing.

As for white family men and pedophilia, that's just the way I've heard it for a couple of decades now, as if they were the root of it all. That is, until the priest scandal. Now they're thrown into the mix even though most priests don't rape children either. However, the church absolutely made efforts to shield these monsters from the law when they should have been burned on a stake.

I'm also not of the school that thinks rape is not about sex and that it's just about "power" or what have you. There was a time in the US when rapists were executed. It stopped their foul habit utterly. That's become complicated today since rape itself has what seem to be "levels" based on severity. But when it comes to children, I don't think there needs to be a scale with too much depth. Assaulting a child in any way is disgusting. Some asshole in the UK spit on a baby. No, that's not rape, but it's disgusting and the guy should have been flogged. Instead they let him out for "treatment".

Any asshole who makes a move on one of my kids probably won't see court. I have a basement, rope and a soldering gun. But then, I'm psychotic.

 

Not an expert in US constitutional law, so maybe someone can tell me. If Trump was impeached successfully, Pence would take over? Would Pence then dismiss the neo-fascist advisers etc, or would he just carry on like Trump but perhaps even more dangerous as he's not so obvious a moron?

It seems to me that its the whole mob that need to go - not only DT.

 

Impeachment in the US has always been a complete waste of time and money. Clinton was impeached and only suffered censure, he didn't lose his seat. It accomplished nothing more than fattening the wallets of lawyers with taxpayer money. I suspect it's part of why Lincoln and Kennedy were murdered, a convenient shortcut to all that judicial nonsense. Impeachment this early in the game is a fantasy. And it's not going to happen over the trite matters that keep getting hollered around about the guy.

A better strategy now would be to prepare for the midterms and let Trump have all the rope he needs for 2 years. Democrats have taken some serious hits in the last 8 years at the state and national level. Unless they plan some kind of drastic, illegal action, they need to get their shit together, stop whining and look for ways to dominate in the midterms.

I remember when the talk of impeaching Nixon was all over the place. But it proved to be unnecessary since Dick Nixon and his crew of cronies really did break obvious laws and yes, he really was a crook. He had to resign to avoid prison, impeachment wouldn't have come close to justice for that wanker. If anything all the delays in assembling a cabinet are just giving him more time. If his cabinet was seated and operating, they'd have more opportunities to fuck up. As it is now, they're wearing a muzzle.

I say give them the rope they crave.

 

Impeachment is simply bringing the charge(s) against him. That is done by a simple majority of the House of Representatives. But there must be grounds:treason, bribery or "other high crimes and misdemeanors." Nobody knows what that means. Gerald Ford, when he was House minority leader going after Justice Douglas, said it was whatever he could get a majority of the House to support. Richard Nixon, when he was the target of impeachment proceedings, said it had to be an indictable offense. And Clinton's lawyers said the offense had to bear on his executive duties (as opposed to extracurricular activities). Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only two Presidents to be impeached in U.S. history. Removal from office requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the United States presiding. No President has ever been successfully removed by that procedure. Fifteen federal judges have been impeached, including one Supreme Court Justice; but only eight have been removed, and no Supreme Court Justice among them.

If Trump were impeached, Pence would become President, and could retain or dismiss any of the advisors he wishes, including department heads. Only the independent regulatory commissions like the Federal Reserve commission, the FTC, etc., would be protected. New deprtment Secretaries, Undersecretaries, and Assistant Secretaries appointments would require Senate approval. Bannon, being in the White House itself, could stay or go as Pence prefers. No Congressional approval was ever required for him. And to get rid of Pence, we'd need to have another impeachment and removal. Lots of luck with that! In a way, Pence might be more dangerous; he is smoother, and can say black is white with apparent sincerity and conviction. I prefer him because he's rational; I like rational sociopaths better than irrational ones, which is why I preferred Hillary. It's arguable they're in some respects more dangerous, but they're more predictable if you understand their interests. Pence tends to pander to the religious right on issues like abortion and gay rights. That's bad, but not as bad as erratic policies toward Russia, China, North Korea, and Mexico. This may explain though why even though a majority of Americans disapprove of Trump, they split 46-46 on impeachment.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Dick[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Well actually same sex relationships are common in the animal kingdom (I’m not saying homosexual because to me the homo to me is related to human but some do) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Who has been telling you this? I mean you seem to be blaming ‘progressives’ but all the lefties I know and the left leaning literature I’ve read would say that pedophilia has nothing to do with skin colour.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I have a much repeated theory which I’m happy to repeat again. [/SIZE]

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.

They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

**

To me the thing about rape is that it is a cultural, educational and mental health problem that is not really going to be resolved by punishment (if that is only about punishment and not about rehabilitation).

If you have a society where macho sexuality is condoned or even celebrated, or where sexual objectification takes place it and that isn't curbed or counterweighted with education then it is likely that some will see been aggressive sexually as been ‘normal’ assertive behaviour.

Now yes punishment has to be appropriate but if other societal issues are not tackled then you are only going to be reacting to symptoms not the causes.

 

Rape is also as old as humanity, so it's "culturally" common to all of us. As for the rest of the animal kingdom, I don't see salamanders, dolphins and flamingos as much of a comparison. Most animals are like PROMs and have only 1 running program. Few can be attributed to holding anything similar to a relationship even though some are indeed monogamous when they mate. It's just not much of a comparison to humans, so I fail to see the point. Unless one needs to turn to the animal kingdom to justify aspects of the human condition. Yes, homo designates humanity, but comparisons to same sex animal encounters are a weird basis for this discussion.

Also, I don't "blame" progressives for anything other than packing themselves into a silo called progressives. It's foolish in my opinion to become a fanatic about this kind of polarization. I've been lamented as a "Trump supporter" on HF when nothing could be further from the truth. I am not left and I'm not right, I am at best a centrist, but really, I don't admire any political side and find plenty of faults built into both. It's a waste of time to assume this sort of thing about me. I have voted for independents, democrats and republicans (oh the horror) because I am about issues, messages and deeds, not ideologies. I hate the Clintons because they are the Clintons, not because they are democrats.

Surrendering to ideology seems more like closing one's mind to other potential solutions. It's this ideological divide that has our environmental discussion in a state of virtual war when all sides have a vested interest in the matter. I can't help but see the irony of the DAPL protesters causing over a million dollars worth of environmental damage at their protest site and then adding insult to injury by lighting fires as they are driven out by the government who is tasked with cleaning up after them. Or the current complaints about how sentencing disparities between crack and powder cocaine are racist, when it was black leaders who demanded crack dealers be put away longer so the communities they were destroying in the 80s could recover (which worked actually).

We live in a time of very short memories and even shorter tempers. I remember a better, more tolerant time.