logo Sign In

CatBus

User Group
Members
Join date
18-Aug-2011
Last activity
31-Dec-2025
Posts
5,988

Post History

Post
#1103398
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

dahmage said:

CatBus said:

Mueller is officially coordinating with Schneiderman. That means they’re not only circumventing Presidential pardon powers for actual convictions, but more importantly, circumventing Presidential pardon powers as a way to apply pressure to witnesses (i.e. why would you talk talk if you’ve got a guarantee from the President that he’ll pardon you). Furthermore, this puts Schneiderman in a stronger position to continue the investigation should Mueller get fired. It’s the right move for sure. I hope it pays off.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/manafort-mueller-probe-attorney-general-242191

yeah i was reading a little bit on this last night. i really really hope that something actually happens at the end of all these processes, but i am not expecting much.

No, I don’t expect impeachment either. But there can at least theoretically be indictments and even convictions without impeachment (yeah, and that would definitely be weird). And of course the public airing of such very dirty laundry is absolutely necessary, so the testimony obtained through these processes may be invaluable regardless of the legal outcome.

Post
#1103395
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Mueller is officially coordinating with Schneiderman. That means they’re not only circumventing Presidential pardon powers for actual convictions, but more importantly, circumventing Presidential pardon powers as a way to apply pressure to witnesses (i.e. why would you talk talk if you’ve got a guarantee from the President that he’ll pardon you). Furthermore, this puts Schneiderman in a stronger position to continue the investigation should Mueller get fired. It’s the right move for sure. I hope it pays off.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/30/manafort-mueller-probe-attorney-general-242191

Background: Presidential pardons can only apply to federal crimes. So when a state AG presses charges, only the governor of that state can issue pardons. And state-level crimes, while jurisdictionally limited, can still be very, very serious. Money laundering, fraud, racketeering, etc.

Post
#1103277
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Hey, as a former mayor, he’s at least (possibly) more qualified for public office than Trump.

Plus he’s already got the prostitution scandal thing down, just without the pee. I’m starting to see where I was being unfair to Mr. Springer. After all, after his free-for-all carnivals of televised vile behavior, he’d stop and have a Jerry’s Moment where he pretended to be decent for 38 seconds. That would be an improvement over today’s political norms.

Post
#1103252
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

They stated opposition to states’ rights in their secession documents? Didn’t know this.

Yes. Many of the Confederate States listed their “causes for secession” as sort of a formality/justification/PR effort. South Carolina and Georgia certainly included this language, and others may have as well, although I’m not sure about those. Basically, they stated that they (as states) had the right to have slavery without having to defer to the federal government (pro-states’ rights), but also that northern states (as states) had no similar right to decide their own policies about so-called fugitive slaves (anti-states’ rights). Basically the concept of states’ rights extends to the right to own slaves, but no further, as far as the Confederates were concerned. It was an “a la carte” style of Constitutional interpretation, take what you like, discard what you don’t.

I am just trying to get at the truth.

Sorry, I’m not referring to you, so much as the professional Confederate apologists out there trying to muddy the waters for fun and profit.

It’s like calling World War II “The War of Polish Aggression” long after everyone knows Germany fired the first shots, or that the Poles were the real aggressors because they failed to surrender quickly enough after Germany laid claim to their territory.

perhaps.

There’s a really clear agenda behind the ridiculous level of re-framing and denial you see around the Civil War. The Confederacy was the aggressor and attacked the United States, that part’s indisputable.

Fort Sumter was in the south. When south seceded, they thought the area was in their country. I think they gave the north time to get out of the fort, but of course the north was going to recognize the Confederacy. To the north, Fort Sumter was in America, to the South it was in the Confederacy. Thus disagreement and fighting ensued.

If you ignore the fact that Fort Sumter was federal property and wasn’t part of South Carolina to begin with (which is often done), then that’s what leads to the “the United States failed to surrender quickly enough after the Confederacy laid claim to their territory, therefore the North was the real aggressor” argument I referred to earlier.

The problem is that once you make the jump to the Constitutional right to secession, you’re already just making shit up, so why not add more like “states have the right to just take over federal property” while you’re at it, which people do. There is only one legal way to secede from the US – call a Constitutional Convention and re-write the Constitution to create this right. But that’s an intentionally high hurdle, and the Confederates decided to invent another lower legal standard known as “I can because I say so and I have an army”.

So why did they secede when even Lincoln may not have wanted to end slavery in the first place? They saw the writing on the wall – a long-term trend that was not in their favor, and Lincoln’s election was a strong indicator of that trend. By that point, the US had held onto slavery far longer than practically any other Western nation, but worldwide and national opinions were hardening against slavery and eventually the US would catch up. They saw that there would be a time – maybe not now, but soon – when white rule was not even seen as a desirable thing, let alone possible even for the people who did see it as desirable. Wait, no, I started writing about the 2016 election again. Dangit.

Post
#1103229
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Warbler said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

I don’t post this because I agree with it. I post it show that maybe, just maybe the cause of secession was bit more complicated than we think, just maybe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPOnL-PZeCc

You can always find someone who will retroactively apply some less ignoble cause onto the Confederacy. But the fact still stands that when the very people who seceded chose to publicly document exactly why they seceded, they cited slavery and white supremacy as their principal reasons, and also explicitly stated their direct opposition to the general principle of States’ Rights, only supporting it in a narrow sense as it applied specifically to the ownership of slaves. Looking for additional evidence when such plain and unambiguous documentation already exists seems like searching for a way to support a conclusion that’s already been reached. It’s like calling World War II “The War of Polish Aggression” long after everyone knows Germany fired the first shots, or that the Poles were the real aggressors because they failed to surrender quickly enough after Germany laid claim to their territory. There’s a really clear agenda behind the ridiculous level of re-framing and denial you see around the Civil War. The Confederacy was the aggressor and attacked the United States, that part’s indisputable. And it was about slavery and white supremacy, based on what the Confederates said it was about at the time.

All of that is a little beside the point of Confederate statues, which were erected during the Reign of Terror (the Jim Crow era), not by Confederates themselves, but by those who had largely given up on the idea of slavery and instead focused on white supremacy, suppressing voting rights, segregation, lynching, etc. The cause of the Confederate statues has very little to do with slavery and more to do with supporting the domestic terror campaign that erupted after the end of Reconstruction.

Post
#1103201
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

In happier news, both Daniel Borden and Alex Michael Ramos have been arrested for that white supremacist attack in Charlottesville (the one with the pipes in the garage). There were lots of attackers, and two is often the magic number to start identifying the rest. Let’s hope they’re all caught, especially the one who pulled the gun but ran when he realized he was being photographed.

The bad news is that the charge is malicious wounding.

Post
#1101002
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

chyron8472 said:

Case in point, if you watch the pilot episode of The Dukes of Hazzard, when they painted that car they painted what they called the “Rebel Flag” on top of it; and that whole show was basically about rebelling against the bumbling, incompetent county police and corrupt commissioner in a romantic sort of way.

Have you considered that the Dukes of Hazzard was a grossly oversimplified tale of the power struggle between the Klan and the Masons for the heart of Dixie?

Post
#1100882
Topic
Return of the Pug (ROTP) - webpage and screenshots (Released)
Time

I join Puggo in lamenting the death of Lightscribe. It’s Lightscribe media that’s hard to find. DVD-9’s are rare as hen’s teeth, and BD-R’s never came to be. DVD-5’s are all you can find, if you’re really desperate enough to try to keep that old tech alive.

We’re from the seventies, man. You should be glad we’ve graduated beyond passing around old Foghat 8-tracks.

Post
#1100769
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

darth_ender said:

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

Think of the benefit of losing Bannon. This could be a way for Trump to lose his alt-right support, without which he has no hope of reelection. I doubt he would govern differently without it, but it also could be an opportunity for Republicans in Congress to throw him off without worrying about their own base. Really, this is a very good thing!

You are very hopeful. I think despite all the commentary that Trump shot himself in the foot over Charlottesville, that man is nothing if not showbiz, and he knows his base. If reports are accurate on this matter, he was planning to put Bannon back into running his propaganda network full-time before Charlottesville so that Bannon could keep pushing the Nazi storyline without becoming the story himself. But Trump couldn’t lose Bannon without losing the Nazis, because he’s been coy about his own leanings. So he arranged a “yes, Trump’s a Nazi just like you” news cycle week so that when Bannon left, the Nazis would stay. He could have done this no matter what happened in Charlottesville, just with non-sequiturs about Washington and Jefferson. It worked, and they’re staying.

I don’t know. The ousting of Bannon was not on friendly terms

It wouldn’t be the first time there was a stage-managed fight between Trump and a senior official. The supposed “fight” between Trump and Sessions went poof the second Murkowski prevented Trump from making a recess appointment replacing Sessions. That’s what the fight was there for. I imagine the fight between Trump and Bannon was to help Bannon assert that he was running a “media outlet”.

Post
#1100667
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

darth_ender said:

Think of the benefit of losing Bannon. This could be a way for Trump to lose his alt-right support, without which he has no hope of reelection. I doubt he would govern differently without it, but it also could be an opportunity for Republicans in Congress to throw him off without worrying about their own base. Really, this is a very good thing!

You are very hopeful. I think despite all the commentary that Trump shot himself in the foot over Charlottesville, that man is nothing if not showbiz, and he knows his base. If reports are accurate on this matter, he was planning to put Bannon back into running his propaganda network full-time before Charlottesville so that Bannon could keep pushing the Nazi storyline without becoming the story himself. But Trump couldn’t lose Bannon without losing the Nazis, because he’s been coy about his own leanings. So he arranged a “yes, Trump’s a Nazi just like you” news cycle week so that when Bannon left, the Nazis would stay. He could have done this no matter what happened in Charlottesville, just with non-sequiturs about Washington and Jefferson. It worked, and they’re staying.

Post
#1100572
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Jeebus said:

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

I’m going to probably really get it for this, but I’m going to say it anyway.

Not everyone that upholds Confederate leaders or their statues is in favor of slavery, white supremacy, or racism of any kind. I served my mission in Atlanta, GA, and there were many people who idolized the leadership of the Confederacy and minimizing the slavery aspect.

You see, I believe that a large part of people’s unwillingness to let go of that side of history is due to the very nature of the Civil War and its loss. Sociology is an interesting thing, and people often shape their self-image based on complex factors. After the loss of the Civil War, people had to reshape their thinking. It was a crushing blow to their self-image. As those states were restructuring their laws, economy, and moral outlook, people had to adopt different means of accepting the loss of the War. The South has a very distinct culture, and that loss was a threat to their own culture. Over time, many came to accept that slavery and racism were wrong, but adopted a view that the Civil War was about much bigger things than that, and that slavery was merely a secondary issue. As with any nation’s or culture’s history, a certain amount of apologetics and whitewashing go into it in order to avoid the psychological dissonance one feels of being part of something unethical. Remember, many Germans should have known that their own Third Reich was engaged in an unjust and evil war with accompanying horrors, but they turned a blind eye because they could not believe that they could engage in something so immoral.

My point to this is that there may be good qualities to many Confederate leaders. There are many good qualities of Southerners who uphold them as idols.

BUT

What they and we need to understand is that there really was an evil issue at the heart of the CSA. We need to be understanding of their cultural identity as it is so wrapped up in the good of that short-lived nation. We do need to remove those statues and flags from places of prominence. However, we must do so with respect and with accompanying education so that the people whose identities are threatened understand the true nature of the Confederate cause. This will avoid violent situations and will result in a better educated, and possibly less resentful and racist, nation. When you rip down a deeply ingrained cultural icon, sometimes all it does is validate certain misguided beliefs.

I blame the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan jump-started a period of enormous prosperity in Germany, but only in West Germany. Nazism thrives on the fabrication of a distant past golden age, and the West was simply too prosperous for many to look beyond the present. The East on the other hand jumped from hardship to hardship, and imagining that things were better in the past was an easier thing to swallow.

Why not blame the Communist regime that the East was stuck under that made it impossible for them to attain any level of prosperity?

Blame was the wrong word. But without the Marshall Plan, I feel both halves of Germany would have yearned for the past, so I feel the Communist regime was in many ways beside the point. The Marshall Plan actually solved the problem IMO, just not everywhere. That’s not really a “blame” thing, but I couldn’t think of a better word at the time.

Post
#1100570
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

darth_ender said:

I’m going to probably really get it for this, but I’m going to say it anyway.

Not everyone that upholds Confederate leaders or their statues is in favor of slavery, white supremacy, or racism of any kind. I served my mission in Atlanta, GA, and there were many people who idolized the leadership of the Confederacy and minimizing the slavery aspect.

You see, I believe that a large part of people’s unwillingness to let go of that side of history is due to the very nature of the Civil War and its loss. Sociology is an interesting thing, and people often shape their self-image based on complex factors. After the loss of the Civil War, people had to reshape their thinking. It was a crushing blow to their self-image. As those states were restructuring their laws, economy, and moral outlook, people had to adopt different means of accepting the loss of the War. The South has a very distinct culture, and that loss was a threat to their own culture. Over time, many came to accept that slavery and racism were wrong, but adopted a view that the Civil War was about much bigger things than that, and that slavery was merely a secondary issue. As with any nation’s or culture’s history, a certain amount of apologetics and whitewashing go into it in order to avoid the psychological dissonance one feels of being part of something unethical. Remember, many Germans should have known that their own Third Reich was engaged in an unjust and evil war with accompanying horrors, but they turned a blind eye because they could not believe that they could engage in something so immoral.

My point to this is that there may be good qualities to many Confederate leaders. There are many good qualities of Southerners who uphold them as idols.

BUT

What they and we need to understand is that there really was an evil issue at the heart of the CSA. We need to be understanding of their cultural identity as it is so wrapped up in the good of that short-lived nation. We do need to remove those statues and flags from places of prominence. However, we must do so with respect and with accompanying education so that the people whose identities are threatened understand the true nature of the Confederate cause. This will avoid violent situations and will result in a better educated, and possibly less resentful and racist, nation. When you rip down a deeply ingrained cultural icon, sometimes all it does is validate certain misguided beliefs.

While I disagree with a few points of this*, I’d like to add more nuance to the counter-argument than you’ll typically find. The easy counter-argument is: the Germans as a whole eventually owned up to their terrible past, didn’t whitewash nearly as much as we still do, and came out of this truthful soul-searching a decent people with a strong sense of national identity in spite of their history. The nuance: more in the West than the East. You see, Nazism is on the rise in Germany as well, but it’s far more prevalent in the East. I blame the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan jump-started a period of enormous prosperity in Germany, but only in West Germany. Nazism thrives on the fabrication of a distant past golden age, and the West was simply too prosperous for many to look beyond the present. The East on the other hand jumped from hardship to hardship, and imagining that things were better in the past was an easier thing to swallow.

I’d also like to strongly agree that the South has a very distinct identity from the rest of the nation. It also extends beyond the historical boundaries of the Confederacy–I’d say the portions of the Voting Rights Act that were recently excised probably form a much more accurate boundary, sometimes going very far north indeed. The so-called melting pot bubbles a lot less in this part of the country. The idea of waves of immigrants bringing prosperity is something they read about happening elsewhere, with suspicion. The history of military victories starting with the Revolution and only failing in Vietnam was nonsense – the South has been losing battles far longer than that, what was one more defeat to add to the pile?

Taken in combination, I think the South needs a Marshall Plan. They may take it as a second Reconstruction, and I suppose in many ways it could be fairly called that. But the point is that as long as so much of the South is left out of economic prosperity, the past will keep beckoning, as it does in the former East Germany. But this is only part one – the Democrats pulled this off already once before with the upper midwest, using unions as the foothold to prosperity, which for a time overrode the inherent racism there. The problem is, like good socialists (and I include myself as a self-critical member of that group), they thought that once they solved the economic problem, the racial problem would solve itself. And that was baloney.

* Specifically, I’d say that at some point, self-delusion and denial adds up to effectively justifying slavery, white supremacy, and racism (because turning a blind eye to the past is not so much different than turning a blind eye to the present, and the motivations can be similar). And I’d add there’s more going on than self-delusion and denial in many or even most cases, such as our current Attorney General, who is a Confederate-botherer of the first order.

Post
#1100386
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Not being able to pay for Secret Service protection anymore: it’s a feature.

Trump has his own private bodyguards in addition to the Secret Service. If he taps out all of the Secret Service funding and they are no longer able to protect everyone in his circle, his people will then be able to move and meet freely without witnesses that haven’t sworn personal loyalty to Trump. That has in fact been the primary benefit of the Secret Service in the age of Trump – a cadre of nonpartisan witnesses always close at hand.

If I were Congress, I’d remove the annual pay caps and maybe provide extra people from the FBI or US Marshalls, since they’re likely going to need to be nearby eventually. But then I’m not Congress.

Post
#1100309
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Agreed, the whole Antifa movement is IMO just crawling with the same anarchists who take over any protest for the past twenty years and make it into their own “Let’s smash some windows and burn something” event. Very unhelpful, but not that particular to the anti-Nazi protests either. But it is complicated by the fact that punching Nazis is, in theory, a very attractive proposition to most of the country, so they finally have a message that resonates a bit. There may be some sort of core legitimate Antifa movement, but at least from here they look outnumbered by anarchist jerkwads, and the non-organized aspect of it makes it pretty impossible to distinguish one from the other.

It also makes them kinda hard to reject by name, since they’ll just show up to smash windows and start fights under some other name (Were they called Antifa at the WTO? Nope). So IMO all the Left can do is reject the violence, and any individuals who get caught.

Post
#1100304
Topic
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo
Time

Yep, that’s BLM in my experience. Very disciplined and restrained in their own actions (physically – they do try to grab headlines verbally), and unafraid to venture into hotspots where shit is likely to explode into violence on a hair trigger. It’s a sort of Rorschach Test to the observer – either it’s “Wow they are disciplined/always on-message for the media!” or “What were they doing there in the first place if they knew there was going to be rioting? They must have wanted/triggered it!”