BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

gently caress You And Diebold posted:

Protest in minneapolis still going strong

My Imaginary GF posted:

How do my expressed views differ from the American mainstream?

My Imaginary GF posted:

This is a failed implementation of activism and is required to be clarified upon by activists if they wish to win over the silent majority.

My Imaginary GF posted:

America is in the midst of a conservative revolution; our best and brightest, our most politically astute --- read: opportunistic --- understand the way which the wind is blow'n and are making bank hitching their personal brands on the Trump, the Rubio, the Cruz wagons. Kasich? All his proposals are what Bill Clinton would say, were he running this election [and despite what folks say, he's really not].

To understand this revolution in American politics, to appreciate how the modern age of Republicanism no longer can depend upon Democratic institutions to mediate politics, is to be able to accurately predict the next policy proposals of the beltway class.

Far too often have I heard --- whether its in some of America's greatest cities, rural bars, or internet communities --- that 'you need to leave that beltway mindset in DC.' Well, America, I'm here to tell ya: You're now the beltway, and the beltway is you. Embrace it and lean in.

What's that mean in practical terms? It means that, when you understand the logic behind why people love America, you cab predict how candidates will embrace that love in their policy positions. Take, for instance, Kasich's most moderate of moderate proposals; rather than shut down American mosques, as a majority of the contenders polling above 5% this month in his same contest would, Kasich proposes that America institute a Department of Judeo-Christian Values. Why? Because America was founded on Judeo-Christian values, and the one common trait amongst those who would attack us is their lack thereof. Therefore, Kasich would use government intervention to promote ideals that our founding fathers would recognize.

Therein lies the most moderate of moderate Republican positions: Government intervention can have impact on ideas. It is an ideal shared by the Democratic candidates [except, perhaps, Chaffee] and rejected by all the other Republican candidates because it relies upon government intervention.

The question you should be asking when you considet the policy possibilities in America isn't what impact the policy will have upon individuals; that 'mezzo/micro' interaction doesn't matter for Republicans any more. What you should be asking is what the 'macro/mezzo' interaction of policy will be. Translation: is it a question of government intervention, or one of individualism?

You can see this play out with other candidates: Trump doesn't wish to send muslim americans to concentration camps; that would be a 'mezzo/micro' interaction. Trump wants a 'macro/mezzo' interaction when he proposes that mosques in America be shut down; he would use macro policy to impact the mezzo-level institutions of community, thus ignoring the question of government intervention in the mind of the American electorate.

You see, the American electorate still has trust is 'macro/mezzo' interactions; what they don't trust is the 'macro/micro' nor the 'mezzo/micro' interactions, the ones which take the form of Obamacare (macro/micro) and nonprofit resettling of refugees (mezzo/micro).

With those basic parameters in mind, I encourage you to explore any potential American policy you can think of, all while asking what sort of interaction it is, and who's primary it would pass muster in.

nachos posted:

lol at trying to apply logic to american politics. This is a country that polls Kynect at 57% and Obamacare at 33%

GalacticAcid posted:

America tried to implement a Department of Judeo-Christian Values but its mission changed after its headquarters were occupied by some refugees of sorts who did not share its values.

quote:

WASHINGTON — The White House on Wednesday threatened a presidential veto of House Republican legislation aimed at increasing screenings for Syrian and Iraqi refugees before they enter the United States, calling new requirements in the bill "untenable."

The legislation, which sets high hurdles for refugee admissions, including FBI background checks and individual sign-offs by top federal officials, "would provide no meaningful additional security for the American people, instead serving only to create significant delays and obstacles in the fulfillment of a vital program that satisfies both humanitarian and national security objectives," the White House said.

President Barack Obama would veto the legislation if it reaches his desk, the statement concluded.

Republican leaders, eager to respond quickly to Friday's terror attacks in Paris, had described the bill as a middle-ground approach. It institutes tough new screening requirements, but steers clear of demands from some Republicans, including presidential candidates, for religious questioning or a complete end to the U.S. refugee program. It is scheduled for a House vote Thursday.

"This is common sense. And it's our obligation," Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin said on the House floor ahead of the veto threat. "If the intelligence and law-enforcement community cannot certify that a person presents no threat, then they should not be allowed in."

In the Senate, lawmakers emerging from a closed-door briefing with administration officials Wednesday night said Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republican Sen. Jeff Flake planned to introduce a bill that would restrict visas for any individual who had been in Iraq or Syria in the past five years.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Republicans are focused on a refugee program that is "serious and arduous," but 20 million foreign visitors come to the U.S. with visa waivers with no fingerprinting or background vetting.

"Now that has to be reformed," he said.

Only around 2,200 Syrian refugees have been allowed into this country in the last four years and they already go through a comprehensive vetting process that can take as much as three years, including biometric screening, fingerprinting and additional classified controls. The new bill would add a requirement for the Homeland Security secretary, along with the head of the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence, to certify that each refugee being admitted poses no security threat.

The FBI also would be tasked with coming up with a way to conduct a "thorough background investigation" of refugees fleeing chaos and horror. Although Syrians tend to be heavily documented, Democrats questioned how that could be accomplished. The current refugee program, along with Obama's plan to add 10,000 more Syrian refugees this year, would likely come to a stop while the new protocol is established.

Republicans had hoped that Democrats, facing pressures from nervous constituents, would support the bill in large numbers. Yet even before Obama announced his position, Democratic leaders were turning against the legislation, complaining of changes to the bill they said would have the practical effect of keeping refugees out of the U.S. entirely.

"Some in Congress intend to use this tragedy to shut down the U.S. refugee program, turning our backs on victims," Democratic Reps. Adam Schiff and Zoe Lofgren of California and Bennie Thompson of Mississippi said in a joint statement.

Obama, traveling overseas, had earlier ridiculed Congress for jumping on the refugee issue after failing to come up with legislation authorizing the use of military force in Syria, which he has been seeking for months.

"And now, suddenly, they're able to rush in, in a day or two, to solve the threat of widows and orphans and others who are fleeing a war-torn land, and that's their most constructive contribution to the effort against (the Islamic State)?" Obama said in the Philippines. "That doesn't sound right to me. And I suspect it won't sound right to the American people."

The conservative group Heritage Action for America also announced its opposition to the bill, saying it gives too much authority to appointees of Obama. Nonetheless, many of the House conservatives who've caused problems for GOP leadership on legislation of all kinds said they would support it.

Senate action, though, is not likely until after Congress' Thanksgiving recess. And with little chance for the bill to become law, several conservatives said the real action could come on a pending must-pass spending bill that has to clear by Dec. 11 in order to keep the government running. Some want to use that bill to cut off funding for the refugee program — foreshadowing another potential government shutdown fight.

My Imaginary GF posted:

America is in the midst of a conservative revolution; our best and brightest, our most politically astute --- read: opportunistic --- understand the way which the wind is blow'n and are making bank hitching their personal brands on the Trump, the Rubio, the Cruz wagons. Kasich? All his proposals are what Bill Clinton would say, were he running this election [and despite what folks say, he's really not].

To understand this revolution in American politics, to appreciate how the modern age of Republicanism no longer can depend upon Democratic institutions to mediate politics, is to be able to accurately predict the next policy proposals of the beltway class.

Far too often have I heard --- whether its in some of America's greatest cities, rural bars, or internet communities --- that 'you need to leave that beltway mindset in DC.' Well, America, I'm here to tell ya: You're now the beltway, and the beltway is you. Embrace it and lean in.

What's that mean in practical terms? It means that, when you understand the logic behind why people love America, you cab predict how candidates will embrace that love in their policy positions. Take, for instance, Kasich's most moderate of moderate proposals; rather than shut down American mosques, as a majority of the contenders polling above 5% this month in his same contest would, Kasich proposes that America institute a Department of Judeo-Christian Values. Why? Because America was founded on Judeo-Christian values, and the one common trait amongst those who would attack us is their lack thereof. Therefore, Kasich would use government intervention to promote ideals that our founding fathers would recognize.

Therein lies the most moderate of moderate Republican positions: Government intervention can have impact on ideas. It is an ideal shared by the Democratic candidates [except, perhaps, Chaffee] and rejected by all the other Republican candidates because it relies upon government intervention.

The question you should be asking when you considet the policy possibilities in America isn't what impact the policy will have upon individuals; that 'mezzo/micro' interaction doesn't matter for Republicans any more. What you should be asking is what the 'macro/mezzo' interaction of policy will be. Translation: is it a question of government intervention, or one of individualism?

You can see this play out with other candidates: Trump doesn't wish to send muslim americans to concentration camps; that would be a 'mezzo/micro' interaction. Trump wants a 'macro/mezzo' interaction when he proposes that mosques in America be shut down; he would use macro policy to impact the mezzo-level institutions of community, thus ignoring the question of government intervention in the mind of the American electorate.

You see, the American electorate still has trust is 'macro/mezzo' interactions; what they don't trust is the 'macro/micro' nor the 'mezzo/micro' interactions, the ones which take the form of Obamacare (macro/micro) and nonprofit resettling of refugees (mezzo/micro).

With those basic parameters in mind, I encourage you to explore any potential American policy you can think of, all while asking what sort of interaction it is, and who's primary it would pass muster in.

quote:

America is becoming more conservative.

Future policies will probably be ultra-conservative and authoritarian.

Populism is the new politics.

Politicians actions are predictable.

Government intervention to merely influence ideas is unacceptable to the American public because it does not go far enough.

Republican policies will be determined on the basis of how the government will change and influence communities. Anything that influences how individuals interact with their community or government will be rejected as being a "government intervention".

As a politician, Trump understands this and has been staying away from promoting policies which have direct impacts on individuals.

Americans hate anything that involves telling them what to do.

Prove me wrong.

ComradeCosmobot posted:

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's MIGF who doesn't deserve a response, but I just want to figure out if I can successfully interpret this meaningless bullshit. Let's give it a shot, shall we?

Pook Good Mook posted:

TV stations could do it on their own without government direction no problem because they aren't state actors, private parties can't violate other party's rights.

William Bear posted:

More detail on potential refugee legislation in Congress:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ryan-house-refugee-bill-religious-test-35280847

I like how this is their reasonable compromise bill. The heads of DHS, NIC, and FBI have to approve each one. But Heritage says even that gives too much power to Obama appointees. And of course, some fools are issuing shutdown threats.

Silver Nitrate posted:

MPD has started using tear gas. It's probably going to end poorly now.

Silver Nitrate posted:

MPD has started using tear gas. It's probably going to end poorly now.

quote:

Before the convention began, search warrants were executed by Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher[49] in coordination with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.[50] Six persons who were a part of the organizing group, the RNC Welcoming Committee, were arrested when police executed search warrants on a handful of homes in Minneapolis and Saint Paul during the weekend preceding the convention.[51]

Media outlets reported on several of the searches.[52] Given the nature of the probable cause for the warrant applications, a district court judge authorized no-knock warrants. Police entered the homes wearing body armor with weapons drawn, which is standard for no-knock warrants.[52] RNC Welcoming Committee members detained at the group's headquarters, located in an old theater on Saint Paul's West Side, were ultimately arrested by Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher of misdemeanor fire code violations.[52]
...
When the final protest march permit expired at 5 p.m., overpasses over Interstate 94 leading into downtown from the state capitol were closed. Two hours later, when the final assembly permit on capitol grounds expired and protesters refused several commands to disperse, police used tear gas, smoke bombs, pepper spray, flash bangs, mounted police, paint marker rounds, and rubber bullets to prevent an antiwar march organized by the Anti-War Committee to march on the Xcel Energy center. This march would have been in violation of the court-approved march permits.[58][68][69] Between 300 and 400 people were arrested or held including 19 journalists, among them AP reporters Amy Forliti and Jon Krawczynski,[69] reporters from Twin Cities Daily Planet and The Uptake, and Paul Demko of The Minnesota Independent.[69][70][71]

Meg From Family Guy posted:

The police are just doing their job

Epic High Five posted:

Freedom of assembly comes to mind, had the crowd done anything illegal that would warrant being gassed?

Did a video of the shooting ever come out?

William Bear posted:

More detail on potential refugee legislation in Congress:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ryan-house-refugee-bill-religious-test-35280847

I like how this is their reasonable compromise bill. The heads of DHS, NIC, and FBI have to approve each one. But Heritage says even that gives too much power to Obama appointees. And of course, some fools are issuing shutdown threats.

Fried Chicken posted:

Last year the value of all civil asset forfeiture was greater than the value of all burglaries in the US

Dapper_Swindler posted:

its just a way to slow the processes down to a trickle but look moderate enough that it will the layman mad when obama vetos it.

quote:

Rhode Island state Sen. Elaine Morgan (R) said in an email Tuesday that she opposes resettling Syrian refugees because "[t]he Muslim religion and philosophy is to murder, rape, and decapitate anyone is a non Muslim."

If the U.S. does "take these people in," she added, "we should set up refugee camp to keep them segregated from our populous [sic]."

Mitt Romney posted:

They should hire some guy dressed in a diaper to follow Vitter around.

My Imaginary GF posted:

I just don't see how Obama can, in good conscious, ignore the overwhelming will of American opinion against accepting Syrian refugees. Obama says to trust him, that all the migrants will be vetted --- how can you trust an aparatus unable to solve the root of the problem?

My Imaginary GF posted:

Is that a yes, or a no? Why is the federal government forcing state governors to resettle potentially thousands of antisemites? Truly, I am at a loss for explanation. How many of the Syrian refugees that Obama seeks to resettle have ever attended even one synagogue service to understand another faith's traditions? Are Syrian refugees being screened for antisemitism? These are the difficult, yet surprisingly simple, questions that the Obama administration refuses to answer, likely because knowing would make them look bad.

The Larch posted:

MIGF isn't actually Jewish. Might not even be American, for that matter.

Dr. Tough posted:

lol at everyone in this thread losing their poo poo over all this. Have you guys been under a rock for the last few decades? This is minor league stuff for the GOP

the_paradigm_shift posted:

So, Obama is going to call Cruz scared to his face right? I see very little downside at this point.