With the recent developments of Brexit and Trump, with Putin loomong large as the actual power, if Le Pen wins in France and Merkel manages to lose to a far right candidate in Germany, you will see what a real global shit storm looks like.
Good god, listen to how Trump talked about Frederick Douglas today. He was talking about him in the present tense. He has no idea who this man was and thinks he is still alive.
Good god, listen to how Trump talked about Frederick Douglas today. He was talking about him in the present tense. He has no idea who this man was and thinks he is still alive.
More than 90 percent of the African American community doesn't know who this guy was. Trump gets a pass for this one.
If you are issuing a statement on Black History Month, you can at least have the decency to learn enough about the people you are supposedly honoring to be able to discern whether or not they've been dead for over a hundred years. Of course, his statement wasn't honoring anyone, like the malignant narcissistic he is, he of course morphed it in less than two paragraphs into being all about his fight with the media. I mean, christ, can't his staff even get him to read a single piece of paper that might explain who Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglas are?? More importantly, how incurious do you have to be to not care if you are making the statement. He's an ignoramus.
Good god, listen to how Trump talked about Frederick Douglas today. He was talking about him in the present tense. He has no idea who this man was and thinks he is still alive.
More than 90 percent of the African American community doesn't know who this guy was. Trump gets a pass for this one.
No pass - if you don't know what the hell you are talking about, don't bring it up.
And I'm willing to bet that 90% figure is not a real statistic.
And I'm not sure why it would matter if the African American community didn't know who Frederick Douglass was, because Trump isn't part of the African American community. If most real estate tycoons or Republican politicians didn't know who Douglass was, then we might say it was unusual for Trump, a real estate tycoon and Republican politician, to not know who Douglass was.
The lack of knowledge about Douglas by Trump is an encapsulation of the general (no pun intended) white-washing of him from mainstream American history, while by compariaon slave-holders like Washington and Jefferson are held up as mythic paragons of virtue everyone has heard of. Just like Trump, most Americans don't know about Frederick Douglas, because it is easier and more comfortable for America to continue to bury it's rancid past.
Morality is constantly evolving. Applying our current version of morality to people of the past is unfair. Yes, applying our current version of morality to people like Jefferson and Washington would make them look reprehensible but that doesn't mean they weren't unusually virtuous compared to the norm in their own time. Sitting in judgement of people without considering the setting is supremely arrogant. Can any of us say we'd be any different if we were born in that age?
@jjstraka34: You'd be surprised at how low people's opinion of Thomas Jefferson can get. I did a thesis on his stance on slavery and most academics actually treated him quite harshly. Poke around Google and you'll hear plenty of criticism there, too. For every one person praising the man, there are five more criticizing him.
Morality is constantly evolving. Applying our current version of morality to people of the past is unfair. Yes, applying our current version of morality to people like Jefferson and Washington would make them look reprehensible but that doesn't mean they weren't unusually virtuous compared to the norm in their own time. Sitting in judgement of people without considering the setting is supremely arrogant. Can any of us say we'd be any different if we were born in that age?
I'd say it's more arrogant at ANY time in history to think it was ok for one's self to OWN another human being, much less dozens or hundreds of them. I mean, the abolitionists didn't seem to have a problem figuring out right from wrong.
Good god, listen to how Trump talked about Frederick Douglas today. He was talking about him in the present tense. He has no idea who this man was and thinks he is still alive.
More than 90 percent of the African American community doesn't know who this guy was. Trump gets a pass for this one.
No pass - if you don't know what the hell you are talking about, don't bring it up.
"Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term 'genocide' to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. … as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide. - Barack Obama
Thousands of Armenians. Really. What crack was he smoking when he said this. Also he didn't keep his promise. Trump actually is whether people like it or not.
In correlation with your comment, there where no Armenian civil rights activists then because they were almost wiped out as a race.
Again, the Supreme Court seat wasn't stolen. Once the Senate decided it wasn't going to hold any confirmation hearings Mr. Obama could have used the tactic of the recess appointment the first moment the Senate was not in session...only he didn't. He voluntarily gave up his option to appoint someone via a legal and constitutional method; thus, the seat wasn't stolen.
"More anti-protest laws are being pushed by lawmakers across the country amid the wave of mass demonstrations against Donald Trump’s presidency. In Iowa, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would make blocking traffic a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Minnesota lawmakers are pushing an anti-protest bill that would allow cities to sue protesters in order to charge them for the cost of policing the demonstrations. In North Dakota, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would legalize accidentally running over protesters who are blocking traffic. Washington state lawmakers are pushing a bill that would label protests as "economic terrorism." And in Indiana, Republican legislators have introduced a bill that would empower police to remove protesters blocking traffic using "any means necessary," legislation activists have dubbed the "block traffic and you die" bill. The new bills come as more than 200 activists are facing up to 10 years in prison on felony riot charges for protesting against Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington, D.C."
This country was founded on dissent and protest--we exist because of it. Sure, protests blocking the road you are trying to take to get to work are annoying but you aren't going to die because of it; just take an alternate route. As long as the protests are peaceful--no one is rioting, no one is fire-bombing anything, etc--then there are no worries. If the protests turn a little more rowdy then that is what non-lethal weapons are for--crowd dispersal. Calling protesters "economic terrorists"? Giving police the ability to remove protesters by "any means necessary"? Isn't that logically equivalent to issuing a "shoot on sight" order? No, this is where the true danger lies, my fellow citizens.
Again, the Supreme Court seat wasn't stolen. Once the Senate decided it wasn't going to hold any confirmation hearings Mr. Obama could have used the tactic of the recess appointment the first moment the Senate was not in session...only he didn't. He voluntarily gave up his option to appoint someone via a legal and constitutional method; thus, the seat wasn't stolen.
"More anti-protest laws are being pushed by lawmakers across the country amid the wave of mass demonstrations against Donald Trump’s presidency. In Iowa, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would make blocking traffic a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Minnesota lawmakers are pushing an anti-protest bill that would allow cities to sue protesters in order to charge them for the cost of policing the demonstrations. In North Dakota, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would legalize accidentally running over protesters who are blocking traffic. Washington state lawmakers are pushing a bill that would label protests as "economic terrorism." And in Indiana, Republican legislators have introduced a bill that would empower police to remove protesters blocking traffic using "any means necessary," legislation activists have dubbed the "block traffic and you die" bill. The new bills come as more than 200 activists are facing up to 10 years in prison on felony riot charges for protesting against Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington, D.C."
This country was founded on dissent and protest--we exist because of it. Sure, protests blocking the road you are trying to take to get to work are annoying but you aren't going to die because of it; just take an alternate route. As long as the protests are peaceful--no one is rioting, no one is fire-bombing anything, etc--then there are no worries. If the protests turn a little more rowdy then that is what non-lethal weapons are for--crowd dispersal.
Right. And what do all the people pushing for these laws have in common?? Hint: they have a letter in parentheses after their name that comes after Q and before S. The MN law came out of a Republican committee. The North Dakota legislature is so red you can't even see a hint of blue without a telescope. Same with Indiana. The bill in Washington is also being sponsored by a....wait, what party?? Oh yeah. That one. Every single example cited here is either introduced or sponsored by Republicans.
Again, the Supreme Court seat wasn't stolen. Once the Senate decided it wasn't going to hold any confirmation hearings Mr. Obama could have used the tactic of the recess appointment the first moment the Senate was not in session...only he didn't. He voluntarily gave up his option to appoint someone via a legal and constitutional method; thus, the seat wasn't stolen.
"More anti-protest laws are being pushed by lawmakers across the country amid the wave of mass demonstrations against Donald Trump’s presidency. In Iowa, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would make blocking traffic a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Minnesota lawmakers are pushing an anti-protest bill that would allow cities to sue protesters in order to charge them for the cost of policing the demonstrations. In North Dakota, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would legalize accidentally running over protesters who are blocking traffic. Washington state lawmakers are pushing a bill that would label protests as "economic terrorism." And in Indiana, Republican legislators have introduced a bill that would empower police to remove protesters blocking traffic using "any means necessary," legislation activists have dubbed the "block traffic and you die" bill. The new bills come as more than 200 activists are facing up to 10 years in prison on felony riot charges for protesting against Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington, D.C."
This country was founded on dissent and protest--we exist because of it. Sure, protests blocking the road you are trying to take to get to work are annoying but you aren't going to die because of it; just take an alternate route. As long as the protests are peaceful--no one is rioting, no one is fire-bombing anything, etc--then there are no worries. If the protests turn a little more rowdy then that is what non-lethal weapons are for--crowd dispersal.
Right. And what do all the people pushing for these laws have in common?? Hint: they have a letter in parentheses after their name that comes after Q and before S. The MN law came out of a Republican committee. The North Dakota legislature is so red you can't even see a hint of blue without a telescope. Same with Indiana. The bill in Washington is also being sponsored by a....wait, what party?? Oh yeah. That one. Every single example cited here is either introduced or sponsored by Republicans.
Told you guys, all this bitching in the streets was gonna ruin it for the rest of us. They want this type of chaos so they can push their "Security State" on everyone. Everyone is doing their part like the good sheep they are. Trump is just the trigger.
Jerry Falwell Jr., son of a televangelist and a creationist who taught the bible in science class, has been asked by President Trump to head up a new task force that will identify changes that should be made to the U.S. Department of Education’s policies and procedures.
Also
The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.
The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.
Again, the Supreme Court seat wasn't stolen. Once the Senate decided it wasn't going to hold any confirmation hearings Mr. Obama could have used the tactic of the recess appointment the first moment the Senate was not in session...only he didn't. He voluntarily gave up his option to appoint someone via a legal and constitutional method; thus, the seat wasn't stolen.
"More anti-protest laws are being pushed by lawmakers across the country amid the wave of mass demonstrations against Donald Trump’s presidency. In Iowa, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would make blocking traffic a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Minnesota lawmakers are pushing an anti-protest bill that would allow cities to sue protesters in order to charge them for the cost of policing the demonstrations. In North Dakota, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would legalize accidentally running over protesters who are blocking traffic. Washington state lawmakers are pushing a bill that would label protests as "economic terrorism." And in Indiana, Republican legislators have introduced a bill that would empower police to remove protesters blocking traffic using "any means necessary," legislation activists have dubbed the "block traffic and you die" bill. The new bills come as more than 200 activists are facing up to 10 years in prison on felony riot charges for protesting against Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington, D.C."
This country was founded on dissent and protest--we exist because of it. Sure, protests blocking the road you are trying to take to get to work are annoying but you aren't going to die because of it; just take an alternate route. As long as the protests are peaceful--no one is rioting, no one is fire-bombing anything, etc--then there are no worries. If the protests turn a little more rowdy then that is what non-lethal weapons are for--crowd dispersal.
Right. And what do all the people pushing for these laws have in common?? Hint: they have a letter in parentheses after their name that comes after Q and before S. The MN law came out of a Republican committee. The North Dakota legislature is so red you can't even see a hint of blue without a telescope. Same with Indiana. The bill in Washington is also being sponsored by a....wait, what party?? Oh yeah. That one. Every single example cited here is either introduced or sponsored by Republicans.
Told you guys, all this bitching in the streets was gonna ruin it for the rest of us. They want this type of chaos so they can push their "Security State" on everyone. Everyone is doing their part like the good sheep they are. Trump is just the trigger.
This is a complete Catch-22. If you don't protest, they run roughshod. If you do, you are apparently responsible for any crackdown that follows. ANY protest (or large gathering of people) has the potential of a couple people doing dumb shit. I would suspect this has been true since the dawn of civilization.
I am not a Trudeau supporter by any means (he's done some good, mostly very bad) however, he is right here. This isn't the time to open a can of worms that will divide the country and distract us things that are direly more important (read the egg shells we need to walk across to strengthen our relationship with U.S. during Trump's first couple of months and maybe beyond).
That doesn't mean electoral reform isn't happening. It is starting at a smaller scale with provinces taking the lead. There are ideas that the federal government can introduce to the public once the population is use to the type of reforms.
Oh and a Liberal breaking a campaign promise is usually a given here. We'd be more shocked if they did everything in their platform. Electoral reform isn't even the big one, it's Trudeau promising to run a $30 Million deficit for 3 years (yes, he promised to spend more money that he was going to make and still got elected) and turned around and increased it to $52 Billion in two years. No one bats an eye.
And not a single Republican has the balls to speak out about it. Or perhaps most of them agree with it. Either way, they are cravens on a monumental scale. Cowards. All of them.
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released the following statement today on the President’s executive order on immigration:
“Our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation.
“It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.
“Such a hasty process risks harmful results. We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children.
“Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”
Oh and a Liberal breaking a campaign promise is usually a given here. We'd be more shocked if they did everything in their platform. Electoral reform isn't even the big one, it's Trudeau promising to run a $30 Million deficit for 3 years (yes, he promised to spend more money that he was going to make and still got elected) and turned around and increased it to $52 Billion in two years. No one bats an eye.
Promising to spend more money than he was going to make (on infrastructure) is a primary reason why he got elected.
Because he sounded like the most progressive leader (at a point where people were hungry for this), the public understood the argument for keynesian spending, and few people actually care about budget deficits despite all the airtime they take up in the news (which is why nobody cares about it being bigger than expected).
Also, until opposition parties get full access to government books, it is impossible for them to accurately plan a budget or predict what can and cannot be paid for should they win the election. Even if they did have this information, there is still the possibility of dramatic changes in the economy due to unexpected events - the price of oil tanking (when almost everyone thought it was going to stay high) threw Alberta's economy in the crapper, for instance.
Morality is constantly evolving. Applying our current version of morality to people of the past is unfair. Yes, applying our current version of morality to people like Jefferson and Washington would make them look reprehensible but that doesn't mean they weren't unusually virtuous compared to the norm in their own time. Sitting in judgement of people without considering the setting is supremely arrogant. Can any of us say we'd be any different if we were born in that age?
Whether we were or not, lots of people who lived at the same time as them had no trouble recognising their moral failings - including and especially that they were wealthy beneficiaries of slavery.
By the moral standards of their own time, they still fall down. And Jefferson for sure also recognised this (and wrote about it) - while not divesting himself from it. I suspect Washington did too (but not being American, I haven't read a huge amount on him to check).
Also, while you're right that typical morality differs from time to place, a lot of universal moral ideals held up in the present have always been around for as long as we have private correspondence and writings to check. They were never "unthinkable", just not popular.
I've wish we had a parliamentary system for some time now. The idea of George Bush or Donald Trump having to answer hostile questions from members is laughable. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, Obama, or Hillary, but each of them would hold their own in such a format. The other two would be exposed in minutes.
Last night Trump went totally off the rails on his call with the Australian PM, apparently completely losing his cool and hanging up halfway through a scheduled 1 hour phone call. Australia is pretty much the most staunch ally we have in the world. Trump was pissed about the US promise made under Obama to take in about 1200 refugees, said it was a "bad deal" and flipped his shit. We only know about this because of leaks from the White House itself. Staffers are so alarmed at his behavior that they are leaking these details to the press. Word is that calls with foreign leaders are making people who are in on them, and I quote "turn white".
He also threatened to send the US military into Mexico to deal with drug cartels, on a phone call with the Mexican President. Without the Mexican President's approval, that is what would be called an invasion.
Last, Reuters has instructed it's reporters to cover the Trump Administration like other totalitarian regimes.
Again, the Supreme Court seat wasn't stolen. Once the Senate decided it wasn't going to hold any confirmation hearings Mr. Obama could have used the tactic of the recess appointment the first moment the Senate was not in session...only he didn't. He voluntarily gave up his option to appoint someone via a legal and constitutional method; thus, the seat wasn't stolen.
"More anti-protest laws are being pushed by lawmakers across the country amid the wave of mass demonstrations against Donald Trump’s presidency. In Iowa, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would make blocking traffic a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Minnesota lawmakers are pushing an anti-protest bill that would allow cities to sue protesters in order to charge them for the cost of policing the demonstrations. In North Dakota, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would legalize accidentally running over protesters who are blocking traffic. Washington state lawmakers are pushing a bill that would label protests as "economic terrorism." And in Indiana, Republican legislators have introduced a bill that would empower police to remove protesters blocking traffic using "any means necessary," legislation activists have dubbed the "block traffic and you die" bill. The new bills come as more than 200 activists are facing up to 10 years in prison on felony riot charges for protesting against Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington, D.C."
This country was founded on dissent and protest--we exist because of it. Sure, protests blocking the road you are trying to take to get to work are annoying but you aren't going to die because of it; just take an alternate route. As long as the protests are peaceful--no one is rioting, no one is fire-bombing anything, etc--then there are no worries. If the protests turn a little more rowdy then that is what non-lethal weapons are for--crowd dispersal.
Right. And what do all the people pushing for these laws have in common?? Hint: they have a letter in parentheses after their name that comes after Q and before S. The MN law came out of a Republican committee. The North Dakota legislature is so red you can't even see a hint of blue without a telescope. Same with Indiana. The bill in Washington is also being sponsored by a....wait, what party?? Oh yeah. That one. Every single example cited here is either introduced or sponsored by Republicans.
Told you guys, all this bitching in the streets was gonna ruin it for the rest of us. They want this type of chaos so they can push their "Security State" on everyone. Everyone is doing their part like the good sheep they are. Trump is just the trigger.
This is a complete Catch-22. If you don't protest, they run roughshod. If you do, you are apparently responsible for any crackdown that follows. ANY protest (or large gathering of people) has the potential of a couple people doing dumb shit. I would suspect this has been true since the dawn of civilization.
If you can't see whats happening, then I can't say anything else that will make you understand. Anarchists and extreme left people are being paid to cause the violence. Madonna herself is even participating. This isn't a debate or argument, it's happening and will happen. We will all suffer the consequence whether you like it or not.
I do understand your thought process though, I used to think that way. Thinking everything is an argument, debate or attack on your way of thought. Unable to step back and look at the big picture cause of the hatred blinding us. During these next 4 to 8 years some of us will fall deeper into the trap and others will free themselves from it. It's inevitable. It happens every major civilization. Barbarism and chaos always finds a way to disrupt law and order, even if it has to infiltrate civil institutions to do it.
I've wish we had a parliamentary system for some time now. The idea of George Bush or Donald Trump having to answer hostile questions from members is laughable. Say what you will about Bill Clinton, Obama, or Hillary, but each of them would hold their own in such a format. The other two would be exposed in minutes.
Last night Trump went totally off the rails on his call with the Australian PM, apparently completely losing his cool and hanging up halfway through a scheduled 1 hour phone call. Australia is pretty much the most staunch ally we have in the world. Trump was pissed about the US promise made under Obama to take in about 1200 refugees, said it was a "bad deal" and flipped his shit. We only know about this because of leaks from the White House itself. Staffers are so alarmed at his behavior that they are leaking these details to the press. Word is that calls with foreign leaders are making people who are in on them, and I quote "turn white".
He also threatened to send the US military into Mexico to deal with drug cartels, on a phone call with the Mexican President. Without the Mexican President's approval, that is what would be called an invasion.
The idea that the people in the streets are being "paid" to protest is a long-running meme on the right and it is total, utter nonsense. I'm guessing the person writing the checks is George Soros?? Are you seriously suggesting that a couple million people in the streets for the Woman's March a couple weeks ago all received money to do so?? Because I'm guessing their out of pocket expenses for those trips would disagree with you. I WISH the liberal infrastructure had that kind of funding, just to get their message out, much less to just hand out cash to anarchists on the street. How are these payments being processed?? Check, money order, gold doubloon??
Madonna said the word "f**k" a couple of times from a stage. While I guess some people may find that language offensive, I would hardly say telling someone to f' off could be construed as any sort of violent action. I say it in my head to half the people I encounter during the day.
The idea that the people in the streets are being "paid" to protest is a long-running meme on the right and it is total, utter nonsense. I'm guessing the person writing the checks is George Soros?? Are you seriously suggesting that a couple million people in the streets for the Woman's March a couple weeks ago all received money to do so?? Because I'm guessing their out of pocket expenses for those trips would disagree with you. I WISH the liberal infrastructure had that kind of funding, just to get their message out, much less to just hand out cash to anarchists on the street. How are these payments being processed?? Check, money order, gold doubloon??
Madonna said the word "f**k" a couple of times from a stage. While I guess some people may find that language offensive, I would hardly say telling someone to f' off could be construed as any sort of violent action. I say it in my head to half the people I encounter during the day.
If you can't see whats happening, then I can't say anything else that will make you understand. Anarchists and extreme left people are being paid to cause the violence. Madonna herself is even participating. This isn't a debate or argument, it's happening and will happen. We will all suffer the consequence whether you like it or not.
I do understand your thought process though, I used to think that way. Thinking everything is an argument, debate or attack on your way of thought. Unable to step back and look at the big picture cause of the hatred blinding us. During these next 4 to 8 years some of us will fall deeper into the trap and others will free themselves from it. It's inevitable. It happens every major civilization. Barbarism and chaos always finds a way to disrupt law and order, even if it has to infiltrate civil institutions to do it.
Comments
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/opinion/how-republics-end.html
USA has become a one party state.
Frederick Douglass vs Thomas Jefferson. Epic Rap Battles of History
(NSFW language)
And I'm not sure why it would matter if the African American community didn't know who Frederick Douglass was, because Trump isn't part of the African American community. If most real estate tycoons or Republican politicians didn't know who Douglass was, then we might say it was unusual for Trump, a real estate tycoon and Republican politician, to not know who Douglass was.
Thousands of Armenians. Really. What crack was he smoking when he said this. Also he didn't keep his promise. Trump actually is whether people like it or not.
In correlation with your comment, there where no Armenian civil rights activists then because they were almost wiped out as a race.
Thanks Obama.
This time it's the Trudeau two-step that lights the floor of the House of Commons. Also, the shoe is on the other foot in Canada.
Trudeau defends decision to end electoral reform.
*************
Now...forget Trump--this is the sort of short-sighted thinking that will really ruin this country.
"More anti-protest laws are being pushed by lawmakers across the country amid the wave of mass demonstrations against Donald Trump’s presidency. In Iowa, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would make blocking traffic a felony punishable by up to five years in prison. Minnesota lawmakers are pushing an anti-protest bill that would allow cities to sue protesters in order to charge them for the cost of policing the demonstrations. In North Dakota, lawmakers have introduced a bill that would legalize accidentally running over protesters who are blocking traffic. Washington state lawmakers are pushing a bill that would label protests as "economic terrorism." And in Indiana, Republican legislators have introduced a bill that would empower police to remove protesters blocking traffic using "any means necessary," legislation activists have dubbed the "block traffic and you die" bill. The new bills come as more than 200 activists are facing up to 10 years in prison on felony riot charges for protesting against Donald Trump’s inauguration in Washington, D.C."
This country was founded on dissent and protest--we exist because of it. Sure, protests blocking the road you are trying to take to get to work are annoying but you aren't going to die because of it; just take an alternate route. As long as the protests are peaceful--no one is rioting, no one is fire-bombing anything, etc--then there are no worries. If the protests turn a little more rowdy then that is what non-lethal weapons are for--crowd dispersal. Calling protesters "economic terrorists"? Giving police the ability to remove protesters by "any means necessary"? Isn't that logically equivalent to issuing a "shoot on sight" order? No, this is where the true danger lies, my fellow citizens.
Also
The Trump administration wants to revamp and rename a U.S. government program designed to counter all violent ideologies so that it focuses solely on Islamist extremism, five people briefed on the matter told Reuters.
The program, "Countering Violent Extremism," or CVE, would be changed to "Countering Islamic Extremism" or "Countering Radical Islamic Extremism," the sources said, and would no longer target groups such as white supremacists who have also carried out bombings and shootings in the United States.
That doesn't mean electoral reform isn't happening. It is starting at a smaller scale with provinces taking the lead. There are ideas that the federal government can introduce to the public once the population is use to the type of reforms.
If anyone is interested, this is a good read https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/reform.html on what is currently being done on electoral reform.
Oh and a Liberal breaking a campaign promise is usually a given here. We'd be more shocked if they did everything in their platform. Electoral reform isn't even the big one, it's Trudeau promising to run a $30 Million deficit for 3 years (yes, he promised to spend more money that he was going to make and still got elected) and turned around and increased it to $52 Billion in two years. No one bats an eye.
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released the following statement today on the President’s executive order on immigration:
“Our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation.
“It is clear from the confusion at our airports across the nation that President Trump’s executive order was not properly vetted. We are particularly concerned by reports that this order went into effect with little to no consultation with the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security.
“Such a hasty process risks harmful results. We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children.
“Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism. At this very moment, American troops are fighting side-by-side with our Iraqi partners to defeat ISIL. But this executive order bans Iraqi pilots from coming to military bases in Arizona to fight our common enemies. Our most important allies in the fight against ISIL are the vast majority of Muslims who reject its apocalyptic ideology of hatred. This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security.”
Because he sounded like the most progressive leader (at a point where people were hungry for this), the public understood the argument for keynesian spending, and few people actually care about budget deficits despite all the airtime they take up in the news (which is why nobody cares about it being bigger than expected).
Also, until opposition parties get full access to government books, it is impossible for them to accurately plan a budget or predict what can and cannot be paid for should they win the election. Even if they did have this information, there is still the possibility of dramatic changes in the economy due to unexpected events - the price of oil tanking (when almost everyone thought it was going to stay high) threw Alberta's economy in the crapper, for instance.
By the moral standards of their own time, they still fall down. And Jefferson for sure also recognised this (and wrote about it) - while not divesting himself from it. I suspect Washington did too (but not being American, I haven't read a huge amount on him to check).
Also, while you're right that typical morality differs from time to place, a lot of universal moral ideals held up in the present have always been around for as long as we have private correspondence and writings to check. They were never "unthinkable", just not popular.
Last night Trump went totally off the rails on his call with the Australian PM, apparently completely losing his cool and hanging up halfway through a scheduled 1 hour phone call. Australia is pretty much the most staunch ally we have in the world. Trump was pissed about the US promise made under Obama to take in about 1200 refugees, said it was a "bad deal" and flipped his shit. We only know about this because of leaks from the White House itself. Staffers are so alarmed at his behavior that they are leaking these details to the press. Word is that calls with foreign leaders are making people who are in on them, and I quote "turn white".
He also threatened to send the US military into Mexico to deal with drug cartels, on a phone call with the Mexican President. Without the Mexican President's approval, that is what would be called an invasion.
Last, Reuters has instructed it's reporters to cover the Trump Administration like other totalitarian regimes.
I do understand your thought process though, I used to think that way. Thinking everything is an argument, debate or attack on your way of thought. Unable to step back and look at the big picture cause of the hatred blinding us. During these next 4 to 8 years some of us will fall deeper into the trap and others will free themselves from it. It's inevitable. It happens every major civilization. Barbarism and chaos always finds a way to disrupt law and order, even if it has to infiltrate civil institutions to do it.
http://staging.hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_MEXICO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-02-01-18-21-24
The idea that the people in the streets are being "paid" to protest is a long-running meme on the right and it is total, utter nonsense. I'm guessing the person writing the checks is George Soros?? Are you seriously suggesting that a couple million people in the streets for the Woman's March a couple weeks ago all received money to do so?? Because I'm guessing their out of pocket expenses for those trips would disagree with you. I WISH the liberal infrastructure had that kind of funding, just to get their message out, much less to just hand out cash to anarchists on the street. How are these payments being processed?? Check, money order, gold doubloon??
Madonna said the word "f**k" a couple of times from a stage. While I guess some people may find that language offensive, I would hardly say telling someone to f' off could be construed as any sort of violent action. I say it in my head to half the people I encounter during the day.
I do understand your thought process though, I used to think that way. Thinking everything is an argument, debate or attack on your way of thought. Unable to step back and look at the big picture cause of the hatred blinding us. During these next 4 to 8 years some of us will fall deeper into the trap and others will free themselves from it. It's inevitable. It happens every major civilization. Barbarism and chaos always finds a way to disrupt law and order, even if it has to infiltrate civil institutions to do it.