Curb Your Authoritarianism? The 2016 Conventional Wisdom Thread (Elections, Part 6)

Who is this mysterious Donald Trump? What is he all about? If we only had a way to plumb the depths of this enigmatic private figure.

obama just about lost his shit, to the extent that he actually loses his shit.

about what?

his shit, location of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWK7eyxczgg

It's such a goddamn shame that broad swaths of the country that won't listen to a word he says just because he's the one saying it.

yes, that.

timestamp of shit-loss? I don't have time to watch 25 mins.

it's the whole thing. he doezn' like, start yelling and barking. it's just what he says.

here's a synopsis: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/obama-pushes-back-against-criticism-over-terrorism-rhetoric/index.html

"Dismissing the "yapping" from "politicians who tweet," Obama described Trump's suggestions as harmful to the country's national security.
"We are now seeing how dangerous this kind of mindset and this kind of thinking can be," he said. "We're starting to see where this kind of rhetoric and loose talk and sloppiness about who exactly we're fighting, where this can lead us."
Obama, sounding infuriated at critiques of his foreign policy, pushed back against criticism for not using the term "radical Islamic terrorism." And he accused Republicans of fostering resentment among Muslims that could generate further attacks.
"What exactly would using this language accomplish? What exactly would it change?" Obama asked during remarks at the Treasury Department. "Would it make ISIL less committed to try and kill Americans?" he continued, using a different acronym for ISIS.
"Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above," he said. "Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away.""

Full story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/14/obama-lashes-out-on-loose-talk-on-terrorism-islam/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_obama-115pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

A lot of talk about how Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric and proposed policies are fundamentally un-American and unconstitutional. Shit cannot be hammered home hard enough, particularly when his party is comprised of so many supposed strict constitutionalists.

I had sort of a related argument with a fb friend who was saying this isn't about guns, it's about "an ideology." And I was basically saying that it was pretty difficult to fight "an ideology" whatever that's supposed to mean and much easier to go after guns.

Gun nut on same fb thread was claiming I "didn't really understand the second amendment" and I pointed out that she didn't seem to understand the 14th amendment.

Guarantee 100% of gun nuts don't really understand the second amendment.

Does ANYONE really understand the second amendment? That "well-regulated" militia part means different things to different people (and unfettered access to any and all guns to many.)

Yeah, it's just funny how strict constructionists when it comes to the second amendment completely ignore other amendments wholesale. Uphold the constitution and ban muslims in the same breath.

I actually got curious and looked up the second amendment, hoping it wouldn't be too long. i had prepared myself mentally to just read bits and pieces and just become aware of it

i find one version and think oh this must be the summary or abridged version

i look it up on what i think is a reliable source, cornell uuniversity, and find that in its entirety it is 27 words

i don't understand what there is to "get" about it

don't totally agree with everything in this and it will never happen, but food for thought

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613

xxpost Cognitive dissonance and bigotry are like chocolate and peanut butter.

the part that people disagree on is 'well regulated militia'. rightwingnuts think this means that it's ok to have citizen armies.

The problem is that the actual wording of the second amendment doesn't mean as much in material terms as the more recent SC interpretation of the second amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Burn in hell, Scalia.

sick to death of this "it'll never happen" stuff. i am not impressed by anybody's self-defeating rhetoric.

one for the grammarians but

i read the second amendment as having one main clause and two subordinate/dependent/relative clauses

sick to death of this "it'll never happen" stuff

yup - aiming for the impossible goal pushes the boundary of what's achievable

It's why I back your full repeal position 100%, shakes. Land stubborn insistence on the complete reversal of the current state of affairs is the only way to gain ground.

I have no idea where that stray 'Land' came from.

how exactly does Trump think restricting press access is going to help him at all? anyone he restricts is going to go whole hog anti-Trump as a result.

we have a whole thread on it, but it's not so much that repeal "will never happen" as that repealing an amendment is among the most difficult feats to achieve in our political system and there are easier feats that would do almost equal good, such as getting a good case in front of a liberal majority Supreme Court to overturn Heller.

He's not trying to win supporters though. He just wants to consolidate the echo chamber.

It's a losing strategy for sure, but he's a loser.

Are there people who support repealing the second amendment while also agreeing with the Heller reading? I'm not American and haven't studied this closely. The Heller reading seems at least grammatically plausible to me, although I agree that it results in a completely insane law, especially when assault weapons are added to the equation.

The Second Amendment actually strikes me as a perfect illustration of the limits of textualism, specifically the debate over how the "well-regulated militia" clause is supposed to impact the whole. I think both arguments on that point are equally plausible -- it limits the scope of the amendment vs it merely explains the reason for the amendment.

Are there people who support repealing the second amendment while also agreeing with the Heller reading? I'm not American and haven't studied this closely. The Heller reading seems at least grammatically plausible to me, although I agree that it results in a completely insane law, especially when assault weapons are added to the equation.

― jmm, Tuesday, June 14, 2016 3:29 PM (13 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there's more to it than the grammar. literally no one whose opinion is worth a damn agrees with the heller reading. the argument was made out of whole cloth a few decades ago and unfortunately there were 5 nutcases on the supreme court at the time the case came up.

Re: Trump's press blockade, in simple terms, Trump is a fucking moron. He makes up his own rules on the fly without ever considering the consequences. Sadly, this has worked out in his favor to a pretty great extent, but some people have made the mistake of attributing this tendency to strategic brilliance or an indication that he's smarter than he seems. Happily, I think these notions will be pretty clearly dispelled among all but his most faithful by November.

It's such a goddamn shame that broad swaths of the country that won't listen to a word he says just because he's the one saying it. oh they will listen to the part where he wants to take away all their gunz of course

And the part where he describes Islam as one of the great world religions because he am secret moslem who are actually terrorist of USA.

keep talkin: http://www.sfgate.com/local/politics/article/Fire-breathing-remarks-are-burning-Trump-in-the-8132531.php

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-chris-christie-manservant-mcdonalds

"During a campaign event last month in New Jersey, Trump commanded Christie, who was off camera, to stop eating Oreo cookies."

Christie is so pathetic

that's got to be one of this campaign's great moments, I'd wager

oreos thing is so beautiful

the second amendment is (or should be) basically a historical curio with no more contemporary interest or relevance than the third amendment (the one about quartering soldiers in your home). this article has some useful background on how the insane NRA/scalia reading of the amendment gradually took hold:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

Man I wish that Christie story had come out earlier because "Stop eating Oreo cookies" would be an amazing thread title

By the time he's the veep pick we'll need a new thread title

Every time Trump says something even more disgraceful than the last thing I read, I remember all the Republicans who have publicly lined up behind him and my tummy does a little happy dance

the thing is, trump won't win, but the less likely he is to win, the more he'll up the ante on his craziness, b/c he can't stand to lose. this is going to get uglier and uglier.

i will not be surprised when in november, when he loses, he calls for armed insurrection.

http://i.imgur.com/qqtgpye.jpg