US Midterm Election 2018 Megathread- It's Kavanaugh

[Kramanica]

The ones who drafted it now say they'll vote against it.

L M A O

Fox LMAO....

Not an argument L M A O

[Kramanica]

The ones who drafted it now say they'll vote against it.

L M A O

When virtue signalling backfires, I wonder did Republicans ever make similar screw ups?

As in write a protest bill in a congress hostile to them only for the congress to drag it to the floor?

Probably.

Doesn't mean I can't laugh at Dems for doing it.

[The Black Forrest]

Fox LMAO....

Not an argument L M A O

Fox isn't about facts L M A O

[Kramanica]

Not an argument L M A O

Fox isn't about facts L M A O

How many times do we have to do this? I post an article from Fox, you mock it from being from Fox as if that's an argument, then I post a different source providing the same information and you end up with egg on your face.

Do we need to do this again?

[The Black Forrest]

Fox isn't about facts L M A O

How many times do we have to do this? I post an article from Fox, you mock it from being from Fox as if that's an argument, then I post a different source providing the same information and you end up with egg on your face.

Do we need to do this again?

Granted I did a half heart search for alternative sources and they weren't painting the fox narrative.

-side note-

Did you read your boy trump said he is the most liked republican beating out honest abe? 92% in fact.

[Kramanica]

How many times do we have to do this? I post an article from Fox, you mock it from being from Fox as if that's an argument, then I post a different source providing the same information and you end up with egg on your face.

Do we need to do this again?

Granted I did a half heart search for alternative sources and they weren't painting the fox narrative.

-side note-

Did you read your boy trump said he is the most liked republican beating out honest abe? 92% in fact.

Fascinating. Why do I care?

[Myrensis]

The ones who drafted it now say they'll vote against it.

L M A O

When virtue signalling backfires, I wonder did Republicans ever make similar screw ups? [

As in write a protest bill in a congress hostile to them only for the congress to drag it to the floor?

Certainly. Mitch McConnell once ended up filibustering himself, and there were a couple of times where House Republicans had to actually extend voting hours and drag members back into the Chambers to change their votes on some absolutely politically radioactive budget bills after Democrats just voted "Present" instead of "Nay".

You would think people would have learned by now that stunt bills you aren't willing to actually vote for are kind of self-defeating.

[Cannot think of a name]

How many times do we have to do this? I post an article from Fox, you mock it from being from Fox as if that's an argument, then I post a different source providing the same information and you end up with egg on your face.

Do we need to do this again?

Granted I did a half heart search for alternative sources and they weren't painting the fox narrative.

-side note-

Did you read your boy trump said he is the most liked republican beating out honest abe? 92% in fact.

As is almost always the case, this issue of bias is more complicated than all that. Certainly Fox News has been notorious for some rather blatant outright falsehoods or at the very least letting their graphics do the lying for them, but the issue of bias in news extends beyond our president slobbering out "wroooong" and "fake news." Here's how it works in this case.

Here is the issue as Fox News presents it:

"We know Speaker [Paul] Ryan is not serious about passing our 'Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act,' so members of Congress, advocacy groups, and impacted communities will not engage in this political stunt," Reps. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Adriano Espaillat of New York told The Hill and other news outlets. "If Speaker Ryan puts our bill on the floor, we plan to vote no and will instead use the opportunity to force an urgently needed and long-overdue conversation on the House floor."

Here is the report from The Hill that they are referring to:

"We know Speaker Ryan is not serious about passing our 'Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act,' so members of Congress, advocacy groups, and impacted communities will not engage in this political stunt," the Democrats said in a joint statement.

"If Speaker Ryan puts our bill on the floor, we plan to vote no and will instead use the opportunity to force an urgently needed and long-overdue conversation on the House floor," it continued. "We will discuss the thousands of families still separated by President Trump’s cruel zero-tolerance policy, the 800,000 young people whose lives have been thrown into turmoil by the President’s decision to end DACA, and the abuses carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

"We look forward to the day that we have meaningful action on the issues covered by our bill."

The substance and meat of the statement is exactly the same, to some small credit to Fox News. It contains the two key important facts that inform why this is happening in these two statements:

We know Speaker Ryan is not serious about passing our 'Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act,'

and

we plan to vote no and will instead use the opportunity to force an urgently needed and long-overdue conversation on the House floor

This is, ultimately, the story. They believe calling for the vote is a stunt (which, to be fair, so was drafting the bill in the first place) and they plan on using the vote to have a debate about Trump's immigration policy.

The part that Fox didn't report was this:

"We will discuss the thousands of families still separated by President Trump’s cruel zero-tolerance policy, the 800,000 young people whose lives have been thrown into turmoil by the President’s decision to end DACA, and the abuses carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

This is actually a case of editorial bias that should be expected. This last part is the message that the three senators wanted to say, this is the story that they wanted. That's not necessarily the job of the media to simply repeat. At that point you're not really writing a story, you could just photo copy the press release and call it a day early and head to the bar. They are reporting the story as they see it. The rest of the article is a litany of Democrats who have attacked ICE since the 4th. I'll highlight the way they are shaping their interpretation of the story:

In 2002 I voted against the creation of DHS and the establishment of ICE. That was the right vote. Now, it is time to do what Americans overwhelmingly want: abolish the cruel, dysfunctional immigration system we have today and pass comprehensive immigration reform.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) July 3, 2018

Democrats have long pushed back on the administration’s immigration policies but tensions have escalated in the past month over family separations at the border. Calls from some far-left lawmakers to abolish ICE have grown ahead of the November elections.

Former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., last week slammed the federal agency as being a part of a “cruel, dysfunctional immigration system” that needs “comprehensive” reform.

Every country needs reasonable law enforcement on their borders. ICE is not reasonable law enforcement. ICE is broken, it’s divisive and it should be abolished.
— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) June 29, 2018

One of the first senators to push for eradicating ICE was Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who said last month that ICE “has become a deportation force” which should be abolished.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio echoed Gillibrand, calling the agency “broken” and “divisive.”

“It should be abolished,” he tweeted.

As analysts point out, if Democrats vote against the proposal and kill it, it undermines their word. If they earn enough "yes" votes, Republicans could turn the issue and tie all Democrats to the crisis at the border.

Perhaps sensing trouble ahead of the primaries, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California have called instead for the agency to be restructured.

Again, they're not lying. Gillibrand and de Blasio said those things, Fox simply framed them within the narrative that Fox News wants to present. The reason I say that's 'benign' bias is that they're reporting the story as they see it.

There are words and phrases in there meant to feed that interpretation, bolded. They label the people calling for the end of ICE as "far left." This is a loaded term. First of all, what defines "far left"? Second, obviously, it is an attempt to make sure the reader sees this push as not only out of the mainstream, but far from the mainstream.

They pawn off their own interpretation on "analysts." The analysts are the ones they hire to interpret the stories the way they see them. They don't name the analysts, they just say "analysts" as if this is consensus. Is it wrong? Not to Fox viewers. It does undermine their word to Fox viewers. Want proof? That is exactly how the Fox viewers here have interpreted it.

The last 'perhaps' statement is pure supposition, the party can and probably is divided on exactly how to deal with the problems raised by ICE and Trumps 'no tolerance' policy that has lead to the situation at hand. Sanders didn't vote for the formation of ICE in the first place, it makes sense that he would continue to oppose it. Other senators who may have voted for it with the formation of Homeland Security may still believe there are core elements of ICE are still necessary but that the current abuses by ICE were not their intent and thus want 'restructuring', something Fox reports without the supposition earlier in the article. Again, this is the story as Fox sees it.

Linking the story from Fox isn't being dishonest in this case, it's just presenting the story as they see it.

The Hill on the other hand, did simply transcribe the issue repeating what the two sides said and their context, including more of the statement from the Democrats and the rebuttal from the Republicans:

he GOP lawmakers said Democrats should be willing to show their constituents where they actually stand on the issue.

“Democrats have been trying to make July 4th about abolishing ICE, which is a radical, extreme position that would lead to open borders and undermine America's national security,” House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) told The Hill. “I think it's the wrong approach. I think everyone ought to be on record about where they stand on that issue.”

Republicans have blasted the legislation, arguing eliminating the agency would lead to an influx of human and drug trafficking as well as gang violence, and increase the country's risk of being subjected to an act of terrorism.

Critics of ICE, which was created in 2003 as part of a new Homeland Security Department, argue it's become “militarized” in its approach to deportations.

Without questioning the logic of the statement that abolishing an agency that didn't even exist until 2003 would lead to 'open borders and undermine America's national security' the just present the statement. And include that the organization was formed in 2003.

They don't include Sanders or de Blasio because they aren't relevant to the specific story, they are not members of the House. They don't include the slightly different approaches of the two leaders, though Pelosi is a house member. She did not sponsor this bill, at least not mentioned in either article. The Hill is making more of an effort to simply present the story. That is their editorial intent. Fox's editorial intent is more clear. The key here though is Fox isn't lying. They are presenting the story the way they see it and then using rhetorical tools to push that interpretation. That is inherent bias, which is a much more complicated issue than "This source said 18 bad things about us while this source only said 5 so clearly the first source is bias." Neither Fox nor The Hill lied, they both told the same story. They both included positions of various figures involved in the debate. Fox was more overt in how we should feel about the story. That's not an easy thing to measure and is an easy thing to wave off if you already share that interpretation.

This kind of thing is the reason why I keep saying that 'bias' is a more complex issue than people make it out to be when they play the source game or blame media on why people hate them.

[Mystic Warriors]

They don't include Sanders or de Blasio because they aren't relevant to the specific story, they are not members of the House. They don't include the slightly different approaches of the two leaders, though Pelosi is a house member. She did not sponsor this bill, at least not mentioned in either article. The Hill is making more of an effort to simply present the story. That is their editorial intent. Fox's editorial intent is more clear. The key here though is Fox isn't lying. They are presenting the story the way they see it and then using rhetorical tools to push that interpretation. That is inherent bias, which is a much more complicated issue than "This source said 18 bad things about us while this source only said 5 so clearly the first source is bias." Neither Fox nor The Hill lied, they both told the same story. They both included positions of various figures involved in the debate. Fox was more overt in how we should feel about the story. That's not an easy thing to measure and is an easy thing to wave off if you already share that interpretation.

This kind of thing is the reason why I keep saying that 'bias' is a more complex issue than people make it out to be when they play the source game or blame media on why people hate them.

Kinda of goes against the whole we report you decide line.

[Cannot think of a name]

They don't include Sanders or de Blasio because they aren't relevant to the specific story, they are not members of the House. They don't include the slightly different approaches of the two leaders, though Pelosi is a house member. She did not sponsor this bill, at least not mentioned in either article. The Hill is making more of an effort to simply present the story. That is their editorial intent. Fox's editorial intent is more clear. The key here though is Fox isn't lying. They are presenting the story the way they see it and then using rhetorical tools to push that interpretation. That is inherent bias, which is a much more complicated issue than "This source said 18 bad things about us while this source only said 5 so clearly the first source is bias." Neither Fox nor The Hill lied, they both told the same story. They both included positions of various figures involved in the debate. Fox was more overt in how we should feel about the story. That's not an easy thing to measure and is an easy thing to wave off if you already share that interpretation.

This kind of thing is the reason why I keep saying that 'bias' is a more complex issue than people make it out to be when they play the source game or blame media on why people hate them.

Kinda of goes against the whole we report you decide line.

It absolutely does. It's hard to decide which of their slogans was more ill applied, honestly.

[Page]

ICE should be abolished, but many people don't understand that abolishing ICE doesn't mean there is no control over immigration. Maybe "replace ICE" would be a better term to use so Republicans don't exploit voters' ignorance and claim Dems want an open border with no immigration regulation at all.

But ICE has to go insofar as their leadership must be fired, and there has to be a new name, because ICE is tainted. Many Americans think of ICE as thugs who terrorize their communities, and they aren't really wrong.

[Washington Resistance Army]

ICE should be abolished, but many people don't understand that abolishing ICE doesn't mean there is no control over immigration. Maybe "replace ICE" would be a better term to use so Republicans don't exploit voters' ignorance and claim Dems want an open border with no immigration regulation at all.

But ICE has to go insofar as their leadership must be fired, and there has to be a new name, because ICE is tainted. Many Americans think of ICE as thugs who terrorize their communities, and they aren't really wrong.

You could say the same for a great many alphabet agencies tbqh

[Ifreann]

Granted I did a half heart search for alternative sources and they weren't painting the fox narrative.

-side note-

Did you read your boy trump said he is the most liked republican beating out honest abe? 92% in fact.

As is almost always the case, this issue of bias is more complicated than all that. Certainly Fox News has been notorious for some rather blatant outright falsehoods or at the very least letting their graphics do the lying for them, but the issue of bias in news extends beyond our president slobbering out "wroooong" and "fake news." Here's how it works in this case.

Here is the issue as Fox News presents it:

"We know Speaker [Paul] Ryan is not serious about passing our 'Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act,' so members of Congress, advocacy groups, and impacted communities will not engage in this political stunt," Reps. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin, Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Adriano Espaillat of New York told The Hill and other news outlets. "If Speaker Ryan puts our bill on the floor, we plan to vote no and will instead use the opportunity to force an urgently needed and long-overdue conversation on the House floor."

Here is the report from The Hill that they are referring to:

"We know Speaker Ryan is not serious about passing our 'Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act,' so members of Congress, advocacy groups, and impacted communities will not engage in this political stunt," the Democrats said in a joint statement.

"If Speaker Ryan puts our bill on the floor, we plan to vote no and will instead use the opportunity to force an urgently needed and long-overdue conversation on the House floor," it continued. "We will discuss the thousands of families still separated by President Trump’s cruel zero-tolerance policy, the 800,000 young people whose lives have been thrown into turmoil by the President’s decision to end DACA, and the abuses carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

"We look forward to the day that we have meaningful action on the issues covered by our bill."

The substance and meat of the statement is exactly the same, to some small credit to Fox News. It contains the two key important facts that inform why this is happening in these two statements:

We know Speaker Ryan is not serious about passing our 'Establishing a Humane Immigration Enforcement System Act,'

and

we plan to vote no and will instead use the opportunity to force an urgently needed and long-overdue conversation on the House floor

This is, ultimately, the story. They believe calling for the vote is a stunt (which, to be fair, so was drafting the bill in the first place) and they plan on using the vote to have a debate about Trump's immigration policy.

The part that Fox didn't report was this:

"We will discuss the thousands of families still separated by President Trump’s cruel zero-tolerance policy, the 800,000 young people whose lives have been thrown into turmoil by the President’s decision to end DACA, and the abuses carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement."

This is actually a case of editorial bias that should be expected. This last part is the message that the three senators wanted to say, this is the story that they wanted. That's not necessarily the job of the media to simply repeat. At that point you're not really writing a story, you could just photo copy the press release and call it a day early and head to the bar. They are reporting the story as they see it. The rest of the article is a litany of Democrats who have attacked ICE since the 4th. I'll highlight the way they are shaping their interpretation of the story:

In 2002 I voted against the creation of DHS and the establishment of ICE. That was the right vote. Now, it is time to do what Americans overwhelmingly want: abolish the cruel, dysfunctional immigration system we have today and pass comprehensive immigration reform.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) July 3, 2018

Democrats have long pushed back on the administration’s immigration policies but tensions have escalated in the past month over family separations at the border. Calls from some far-left lawmakers to abolish ICE have grown ahead of the November elections.

Former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., last week slammed the federal agency as being a part of a “cruel, dysfunctional immigration system” that needs “comprehensive” reform.

Every country needs reasonable law enforcement on their borders. ICE is not reasonable law enforcement. ICE is broken, it’s divisive and it should be abolished.
— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) June 29, 2018

One of the first senators to push for eradicating ICE was Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who said last month that ICE “has become a deportation force” which should be abolished.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio echoed Gillibrand, calling the agency “broken” and “divisive.”

“It should be abolished,” he tweeted.

As analysts point out, if Democrats vote against the proposal and kill it, it undermines their word. If they earn enough "yes" votes, Republicans could turn the issue and tie all Democrats to the crisis at the border.

Perhaps sensing trouble ahead of the primaries, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California have called instead for the agency to be restructured.

Again, they're not lying. Gillibrand and de Blasio said those things, Fox simply framed them within the narrative that Fox News wants to present. The reason I say that's 'benign' bias is that they're reporting the story as they see it.

There are words and phrases in there meant to feed that interpretation, bolded. They label the people calling for the end of ICE as "far left." This is a loaded term. First of all, what defines "far left"? Second, obviously, it is an attempt to make sure the reader sees this push as not only out of the mainstream, but far from the mainstream.

They pawn off their own interpretation on "analysts." The analysts are the ones they hire to interpret the stories the way they see them. They don't name the analysts, they just say "analysts" as if this is consensus. Is it wrong? Not to Fox viewers. It does undermine their word to Fox viewers. Want proof? That is exactly how the Fox viewers here have interpreted it.

The last 'perhaps' statement is pure supposition, the party can and probably is divided on exactly how to deal with the problems raised by ICE and Trumps 'no tolerance' policy that has lead to the situation at hand. Sanders didn't vote for the formation of ICE in the first place, it makes sense that he would continue to oppose it. Other senators who may have voted for it with the formation of Homeland Security may still believe there are core elements of ICE are still necessary but that the current abuses by ICE were not their intent and thus want 'restructuring', something Fox reports without the supposition earlier in the article. Again, this is the story as Fox sees it.

Linking the story from Fox isn't being dishonest in this case, it's just presenting the story as they see it.

The Hill on the other hand, did simply transcribe the issue repeating what the two sides said and their context, including more of the statement from the Democrats and the rebuttal from the Republicans:

he GOP lawmakers said Democrats should be willing to show their constituents where they actually stand on the issue.

“Democrats have been trying to make July 4th about abolishing ICE, which is a radical, extreme position that would lead to open borders and undermine America's national security,” House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) told The Hill. “I think it's the wrong approach. I think everyone ought to be on record about where they stand on that issue.”

Republicans have blasted the legislation, arguing eliminating the agency would lead to an influx of human and drug trafficking as well as gang violence, and increase the country's risk of being subjected to an act of terrorism.

Critics of ICE, which was created in 2003 as part of a new Homeland Security Department, argue it's become “militarized” in its approach to deportations.

Without questioning the logic of the statement that abolishing an agency that didn't even exist until 2003 would lead to 'open borders and undermine America's national security' the just present the statement. And include that the organization was formed in 2003.

They don't include Sanders or de Blasio because they aren't relevant to the specific story, they are not members of the House. They don't include the slightly different approaches of the two leaders, though Pelosi is a house member. She did not sponsor this bill, at least not mentioned in either article. The Hill is making more of an effort to simply present the story. That is their editorial intent. Fox's editorial intent is more clear. The key here though is Fox isn't lying. They are presenting the story the way they see it and then using rhetorical tools to push that interpretation. That is inherent bias, which is a much more complicated issue than "This source said 18 bad things about us while this source only said 5 so clearly the first source is bias." Neither Fox nor The Hill lied, they both told the same story. They both included positions of various figures involved in the debate. Fox was more overt in how we should feel about the story. That's not an easy thing to measure and is an easy thing to wave off if you already share that interpretation.

This kind of thing is the reason why I keep saying that 'bias' is a more complex issue than people make it out to be when they play the source game or blame media on why people hate them.

Why are you posting this useful analysis of media bias when we're trying to own the libs?

[Mystic Warriors]

As is almost always the case, this issue of bias is more complicated than all that. Certainly Fox News has been notorious for some rather blatant outright falsehoods or at the very least letting their graphics do the lying for them, but the issue of bias in news extends beyond our president slobbering out "wroooong" and "fake news." Here's how it works in this case.

Here is the issue as Fox News presents it:

Here is the report from The Hill that they are referring to:

The substance and meat of the statement is exactly the same, to some small credit to Fox News. It contains the two key important facts that inform why this is happening in these two statements:

and

This is, ultimately, the story. They believe calling for the vote is a stunt (which, to be fair, so was drafting the bill in the first place) and they plan on using the vote to have a debate about Trump's immigration policy.

The part that Fox didn't report was this:

This is actually a case of editorial bias that should be expected. This last part is the message that the three senators wanted to say, this is the story that they wanted. That's not necessarily the job of the media to simply repeat. At that point you're not really writing a story, you could just photo copy the press release and call it a day early and head to the bar. They are reporting the story as they see it. The rest of the article is a litany of Democrats who have attacked ICE since the 4th. I'll highlight the way they are shaping their interpretation of the story:

Again, they're not lying. Gillibrand and de Blasio said those things, Fox simply framed them within the narrative that Fox News wants to present. The reason I say that's 'benign' bias is that they're reporting the story as they see it.

There are words and phrases in there meant to feed that interpretation, bolded. They label the people calling for the end of ICE as "far left." This is a loaded term. First of all, what defines "far left"? Second, obviously, it is an attempt to make sure the reader sees this push as not only out of the mainstream, but far from the mainstream.

They pawn off their own interpretation on "analysts." The analysts are the ones they hire to interpret the stories the way they see them. They don't name the analysts, they just say "analysts" as if this is consensus. Is it wrong? Not to Fox viewers. It does undermine their word to Fox viewers. Want proof? That is exactly how the Fox viewers here have interpreted it.

The last 'perhaps' statement is pure supposition, the party can and probably is divided on exactly how to deal with the problems raised by ICE and Trumps 'no tolerance' policy that has lead to the situation at hand. Sanders didn't vote for the formation of ICE in the first place, it makes sense that he would continue to oppose it. Other senators who may have voted for it with the formation of Homeland Security may still believe there are core elements of ICE are still necessary but that the current abuses by ICE were not their intent and thus want 'restructuring', something Fox reports without the supposition earlier in the article. Again, this is the story as Fox sees it.

Linking the story from Fox isn't being dishonest in this case, it's just presenting the story as they see it.

The Hill on the other hand, did simply transcribe the issue repeating what the two sides said and their context, including more of the statement from the Democrats and the rebuttal from the Republicans:

Without questioning the logic of the statement that abolishing an agency that didn't even exist until 2003 would lead to 'open borders and undermine America's national security' the just present the statement. And include that the organization was formed in 2003.

They don't include Sanders or de Blasio because they aren't relevant to the specific story, they are not members of the House. They don't include the slightly different approaches of the two leaders, though Pelosi is a house member. She did not sponsor this bill, at least not mentioned in either article. The Hill is making more of an effort to simply present the story. That is their editorial intent. Fox's editorial intent is more clear. The key here though is Fox isn't lying. They are presenting the story the way they see it and then using rhetorical tools to push that interpretation. That is inherent bias, which is a much more complicated issue than "This source said 18 bad things about us while this source only said 5 so clearly the first source is bias." Neither Fox nor The Hill lied, they both told the same story. They both included positions of various figures involved in the debate. Fox was more overt in how we should feel about the story. That's not an easy thing to measure and is an easy thing to wave off if you already share that interpretation.

This kind of thing is the reason why I keep saying that 'bias' is a more complex issue than people make it out to be when they play the source game or blame media on why people hate them.

Why are you posting this useful analysis of media bias when we're trying to own the libs?

You you implying you cant do that now?

[Fahran]

Because obviously left == antifa.

Antifa is a group of left-wing associations that deliberately engage in political violence. It's not exactly a radical proposition that an ideology of that sort is conducive to left-wing terrorist activity. Half of them aren't even good anarchists either, just edgy college kids.

This gives the police more power in that they will now be able to get away with arresting people who are wearing masks absent any other reason to arrest them.

Aren't they already netting passersby in their sweeps of riots and street brawls anyhow? If you're wearing a black and red face-mask and holding a bat with nails in it, you should be arrested under suspicion of incitement, assault, and conspiracy. An arrest isn't the same as a conviction. They need hard evidence for a conviction.

Not really. We don't need the cooperation or consent of the police to fix the police, so we don't need to lick their arses to accomplish police reform, so we don't need to care about antagonising the police.

It might be worthwhile to discuss police reform with police officers though, since they probably have valid input to add to the conversation given that they have practical experience in policing. A panel of experts with multifaceted interests and beliefs is more useful in implementing successful reform than an ideological crusade.

Being arrested for peacefully protesting is persecution, regardless of whether one is later prosecuted or not. People arrested at the inauguration protests, the people you're saying only have to suffer a short stint in jail, have made accusations of sexual assault and rape by the police while in custody.

Then investigate those accusations. And those protests weren't peaceful. They roved the streets hitting and accosting people. People aren't getting arrested for attending peaceful protests these days. They're getting arrested for rioting and assaulting people.

Beating up someone at a protest without a mask: Ordinary battery.
Beating up someone at a protest with a mask on: HIGH CRIME AGAINST THE REPUBLIC!

Given the circumstances, they're attempting to undermine the 1st Amendment by engaging in politicized violence. Why is that acceptable?

This doesn't make a lick of sense. Smashing a car window while wearing a mask will make people fear to exercise their right to assemble? Nonsense.

I'd have to read the bill, but it seems like they're applying the law to a specific set of circumstances.

They're still in force, so de facto they are.

Do you know a constitutional amendment they would violate?

Yes you are. Because 1)it is illegal in some jurisdictions to wear a mask in public, and 2)the police already arrest people who aren't doing anything illegal. So they will obviously continue to do that with this new justification of "Well, you honour, the suspect had a mask on".

Amid a riot. That's the important part to add.

So we're agreed, not everyone is fascist. Don't know why you needed that cleared up, but here we are.

You suggested that police officers as a group were fascists and white supremacists. There's no real evidence for that. They've arrested a whole bunch of people, not just leftists. There's a reason white supremacist prison gangs are a thing. They're nicking Nazis too.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

To be fair, the "Abolish ICE" chants are dumb.

Of course, chants and soundbytes make for a more appealing narrative, but it really hurts the narrative when you actually give in and play the opponent's battle lines instead of making your own.

[Ifreann]

Because obviously left == antifa.

Antifa is a group of left-wing associations that deliberately engage in political violence. It's not exactly a radical proposition that an ideology of that sort is conducive to left-wing terrorist activity.

It's a stupid proposition to try to associate the actions of communist or anarchist terrorists with anti-fascism.

This gives the police more power in that they will now be able to get away with arresting people who are wearing masks absent any other reason to arrest them.

Aren't they already netting passersby in their sweeps of riots and street brawls anyhow?

Yes, they do arrest people they don't like and pretend there was something suspicious about a member of the press being near a protest and recording police actions.

If you're wearing a black and red face-mask and holding a bat with nails in it, you should be arrested under suspicion of incitement, assault, and conspiracy. An arrest isn't the same as a conviction. They need hard evidence for a conviction.

If you're wearing a white surgical mask and holding a sign saying "FUCK THE POLICE" you should be arrested on suspicion of whatever, beaten up, held for a while, but hey, it's fine because you won't get convicted. You also won't be able to sue the police, there's ten of them saying you were violently resisting arrest.

Not really. We don't need the cooperation or consent of the police to fix the police, so we don't need to lick their arses to accomplish police reform, so we don't need to care about antagonising the police.

It might be worthwhile to discuss police reform with police officers though, since they probably have valid input to add to the conversation given that they have practical experience in policing. A panel of experts with multifaceted interests and beliefs is more useful in implementing successful reform than an ideological crusade.

You know what's real fun? Going back up this thread of posts to check exactly what you're talking about. You started complaining about antagonising the police when I pointed out some well publicised abuses of power by the police and thus denied them the benefit of the doubt. That's what you're now saying will get in the way of constructive conversations about police reform. Knowing what the police have done and taking that into account. You want to pretend there's no problem with the police so they'll join some hypothetical committee to fix the problem with the police.

Being arrested for peacefully protesting is persecution, regardless of whether one is later prosecuted or not. People arrested at the inauguration protests, the people you're saying only have to suffer a short stint in jail, have made accusations of sexual assault and rape by the police while in custody.

Then investigate those accusations. And those protests weren't peaceful. They roved the streets hitting and accosting people. People aren't getting arrested for attending peaceful protests these days. They're getting arrested for rioting and assaulting people.

Bollocks.

Beating up someone at a protest without a mask: Ordinary battery.
Beating up someone at a protest with a mask on: HIGH CRIME AGAINST THE REPUBLIC!

Given the circumstances, they're attempting to undermine the 1st Amendment by engaging in politicized violence. Why is that acceptable?

Why aren't you addressing the masks? The masks are the whole point of this bill. It's called "Unmasking Antifa". It is all about people wearing masks.

What makes violence at a protest while wearing a mask worse than the exact same violence without a mask?

This doesn't make a lick of sense. Smashing a car window while wearing a mask will make people fear to exercise their right to assemble? Nonsense.

I'd have to read the bill, but it seems like they're applying the law to a specific set of circumstances.

What makes smashing a car window while wearing a mask worse than smashing a car window while not wearing a mask?

They're still in force, so de facto they are.

Do you know a constitutional amendment they would violate?

Do you know a court ruling that struck the laws down?

Yes you are. Because 1)it is illegal in some jurisdictions to wear a mask in public, and 2)the police already arrest people who aren't doing anything illegal. So they will obviously continue to do that with this new justification of "Well, you honour, the suspect had a mask on".

Amid a riot. That's the important part to add.

No it fucking isn't.

So we're agreed, not everyone is fascist. Don't know why you needed that cleared up, but here we are.

You suggested that police officers as a group were fascists and white supremacists.

No I didn't.

[Fahran]

It's a stupid proposition to try to associate the actions of communist or anarchist terrorists with anti-fascism.

How so? Are you going to tell me that Antifa groups as a general rule do not break hard to the left and embrace communism in one or more forms? Because that'd be disingenuous.

If you're wearing a white surgical mask and holding a sign saying "FUCK THE POLICE" you should be arrested on suspicion of whatever, beaten up, held for a while, but hey, it's fine because you won't get convicted. You also won't be able to sue the police, there's ten of them saying you were violently resisting arrest.

While police brutality does occur and is a worrisome trend of late, since it's been on the increase, I would take some of these complaints with a grain of salt as well. Plenty of people get arrested on suspicion of committing crimes and then accost weary officers who practice a lot of restraint in not beating them senseless with batons as Molotov cocktails and fists collide with them. Reform is needed, but we should take cases of alleged abuse on a case by case basis. Perhaps a group to police the police?

You know what's real fun? Going back up this thread of posts to check exactly what you're talking about. You started complaining about antagonising the police when I pointed out some well publicised abuses of power by the police and thus denied them the benefit of the doubt. That's what you're now saying will get in the way of constructive conversations about police reform. Knowing what the police have done and taking that into account. You want to pretend there's no problem with the police so they'll join some hypothetical committee to fix the problem with the police.

I never stated that there was no problem with police. I stated that we should give people the benefit of the doubt, since most police officers don't commit abuses. I absolutely support reforms and accountability. I just don't support being nasty to people because they're doing a hard job and some other people in their profession act nasty and immoral. Really, do you think being nasty to people as a general rule is a good idea? It strikes me as rationalizing.

Bollocks.

Here's your peaceful inauguration day protests.

Why aren't you addressing the masks? The masks are the whole point of this bill. It's called "Unmasking Antifa". It is all about people wearing masks.

To street brawls. Why are you interested in protecting Antifa?

What makes violence at a protest while wearing a mask worse than the exact same violence without a mask?

Because wearing a mask to a protest suggests that the people in question came with the explicit intent of committing violence. And, in the case of Antifa, that's precisely what they do. Let me ask you another question. If we just threw anyone caught initiating street brawls in prison for fifteen years, would that be acceptable?

What makes smashing a car window while wearing a mask worse than smashing a car window while not wearing a mask?

It suggests prior intent and a crime against more than just the property. In the same way that shouting the n-word as you assault a black person suggests prior intent and a crime against more than just the individual.

Do you know a court ruling that struck the laws down?

Nope, though it's possible that constitutional challenges exist.

No it fucking isn't.

If we're targeting Antifa and other street brawlers, why would it just be the mask that's the problem?

No I didn't.

This was your response to my question about why police would arrest anarchists and communists while excluding fascists and white supremacists engaged in the same behavior from arrest.

Why would racist, fascist government employees favour racists and fascists and government supporters over anti-racists and anti-fascists and critics of the government.

You absolutely did insinuate that the root of the problem is that police officers are bigots and racists. Some of them may be, but, even if none of them were, we'd still be confronted with the need for police reform because the principal issues are systematic, procedural, and tied to the wider dysfunctions within our society.

[The Black Forrest]

Granted I did a half heart search for alternative sources and they weren't painting the fox narrative.

*snip*

I hate you.

I would almost acuse you of being Cat but you lacked the numerous links he would have provided.

Well done!

I will admit it's lazy assed debating to simply say Fox News LMAO. I have never gotten the impression Kram wanted a serious debate yet it still doesn't justify it.

The narrative is indeed much more "diabolical" these days. Not like the days of Walter *coughs no I am not that old......well...maybe...a little*

The problem in general is people seem to take things without question. Take pizza gate. I no longer speak to a few conservative friends as I was basically labeled a monster for saying I need proof as I am not accepting the story of a child sex ring and people known to be involved are getting a free pass. "HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT THESE PEOPLE!?!?!?!...." Even after the author acknowledged it was made up; not even a "whoops" comment. Never mind the people who still think it's true......

Anyway.

As you have presented information needs to be verified from multiple sources to get a glimpse as to what is going on. The problem is people are too busy and or don't want to make the effort.

Again. Well done.

[Ifreann]

It's a stupid proposition to try to associate the actions of communist or anarchist terrorists with anti-fascism.

How so? Are you going to tell me that Antifa groups as a rule do not break hard to the left and embrace communism in one or more forms? Because that'd be disingenuous.

Antifa groups are anti-fascist. Individuals have their own political views, but antifa is not trying to establish any kind of government or enact any kind of policy. They're just about being anti-fascist. If fascism vanished tomorrow, so would antifa.

If you're wearing a white surgical mask and holding a sign saying "FUCK THE POLICE" you should be arrested on suspicion of whatever, beaten up, held for a while, but hey, it's fine because you won't get convicted. You also won't be able to sue the police, there's ten of them saying you were violently resisting arrest.

While police brutality does occur and is a worrisome trend of late, since it's been on the increase, I would take some of these complaints with a grain of salt as well. Plenty of people get arrested on suspicion of committing crimes and then accost weary officers who practice a lot of restraint in not beating them senseless with batons as Molotov cocktails and fists collide with them. Reform is needed, but we should take cases of alleged abuse on a case by case basis. Perhaps a group to police the police?

"I know the police do bad things, but I refuse to think less of them because of that"

You know what's real fun? Going back up this thread of posts to check exactly what you're talking about. You started complaining about antagonising the police when I pointed out some well publicised abuses of power by the police and thus denied them the benefit of the doubt. That's what you're now saying will get in the way of constructive conversations about police reform. Knowing what the police have done and taking that into account. You want to pretend there's no problem with the police so they'll join some hypothetical committee to fix the problem with the police.

I never stated that there was no problem with police. I stated that we should give people the benefit of the doubt, since most police officers don't commit abuses.`

The organisations that allow people to commit these abuses, that harass whistleblowes who try to go report them, that ultimately supports the perpetrators when the abuses come to light, are as much the problem as the perpetrators themselves.

I absolutely support reforms and accountability. I just don't support being nasty...

It is not "nasty" to not trust the police.

Bollocks.

Here's your peaceful inauguration day protests.

Millions of people do nothing wrong, but someone smashes a window. Oh noes, so violent.

Yawn.

Why aren't you addressing the masks? The masks are the whole point of this bill. It's called "Unmasking Antifa". It is all about people wearing masks.

To street brawls.

So why aren't you explaining why a street brawl is worse when people wear masks?
Why aren't you addressing the masks? Explain why a street brawl is worse when the people brawling are wearing masks.

Why are you interested in protecting Antifa?

Because all people should be protected from abuses of police power.

What makes violence at a protest while wearing a mask worse than the exact same violence without a mask?

Because wearing a mask to a protest suggests that the people in question came with the explicit intent of committing violence.

There are other perfectly law-abiding reasons for people to wear masks. And battery is already a crime. So what is the point of making it even more illegal to commit battery? Why is battery worse if you're wearing a mask?

And, in the case of Antifa, that's precisely what they do. Let me ask you another question. If we just threw anyone caught initiating street brawls in prison for fifteen years, would that be acceptable?

No, automatic sentencing like that is stupid.

What makes smashing a car window while wearing a mask worse than smashing a car window while not wearing a mask?

It suggests prior intent

Judges and juries can take things like that into account without special new laws.

and a crime against more than just the property. In the same way that shouting the n-word as you assault a black person suggests prior intent and a crime against more than just the individual.

That doesn't suggest prior intent, it suggests that the crime is motivated by racial hatred, which threatens all people of that race. Smashing a car window while wearing a mask doesn't threaten other people any more than smashing a car window while not wearing a mask.

Do you know a court ruling that struck the laws down?

Nope, though it's possible that constitutional challenges exist.

So like I said, wearing a mask in public is illegal in some jurisdictions and will get you arrested.

No it fucking isn't.

If we're targeting Antifa and other street brawlers...

You're not.

No I didn't.

This was your response to my question about why police would arrest anarchists and communists while excluding fascists and white supremacists engaged in the same behavior from arrest.

Why would racist, fascist government employees favour racists and fascists and government supporters over anti-racists and anti-fascists and critics of the government.

See? Nothing about white supremacists. Though that's probably true.

You absolutely did insinuate that the root of the problem is that police officers are bigots and racists.

And they are.

Some of them may be,

See, you agree.

but,

But nothing. It doesn't need to be every single individual holding those beliefs, and I didn't say that every single individual does. When some officers are racist, it doesn't matter if the other officers who back their colleagues up hold racist beliefs themselves. By supporting a racist they are being racist.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

To be fair, the law would probably be unconstitutional and thus unenforceable just by the title of it.

The "Unmasking Antifa Act" is pretty fucking stupid a title. Like, why not make It more obvious that you want to discriminate against Antifa?

Hopefully it gets struck down. Or better yet, doesn't pass.

Most likely outcome is it dies in committee.

Which is what usually happens to stupid bills. And this is not an entirely new trend tbh, for stupid bills to be introduced into the house, it's just more reported now.

https://grist.org/politics/five-dumb-bi ... vironment/

Here's an example of one such occassion that was largely underreported.

[Fahran]

Antifa groups are anti-fascist. Individuals have their own political views, but antifa is not trying to establish any kind of government or enact any kind of policy. They're just about being anti-fascist. If fascism vanished tomorrow, so would antifa.

On paper, yes. In practice, no. You do not get to march while waving anarchist and communist flags, chanting old partisan slogans, and being inundated with militant left-wing agitators and then disavow any connection to violent left-wing movements on the whole, especially not when you're embroiled in beating up people who aren't even fascists, racists, or white nationalists. Antifa is in practice a bunch of groups that promote left-wing violence in response to right-wing or even centrist demonstrations. Most of them are privileged white ideologues as well - as people within the wider anarchist movement have remarked on occasion. Trump isn't a fascist. Republicans are not fascists. ICE isn't comprised of fascists.

"I know the police do bad things, but I refuse to think less of them because of that"

Judging individuals based on statistics that account for a whole group is problematic. We could do the same on a racial or ethnic basis if you like, and could arrive at some wrong-headed, immoral, and racist conclusions - like white nationalists do on a routine basis. Most police officers do not fall into your categorization, just as most immigrants do not fall into Trump's categorizations. You claimed the problem was that police officers were immoral and racist. I told you it was a systematic issue that had to do more with societal dysfunctions (systematic racism isn't reliant on individual racism or even racism being predominate in an institution), procedures, and the like. Which is more correct?

The organisations that allow people to commit these abuses, that harass whistleblowes who try to go report them, that ultimately supports the perpetrators when the abuses come to light, are as much the problem as the perpetrators themselves.

What's your approach? How do you fix those problems? I've given you tangible solutions that don't require pandering to anti-establishment sentiments and that will probably have an actual impact on police brutality and general injustice. You're response has been to accuse me of ignoring the problem because I'm not on board with labeling all police officers racists. Why must everyone who does anything you disagree with by definition be evil or racist?

It is not "nasty" to not trust the police.

Some of the sentiments you've expressed have been ugly.

Millions of people do nothing wrong, but someone smashes a window. Oh noes, so violent.

The people who were arrested were suspected of engaging in activities like these or, in many cases, of deliberately planning vandalism, assault, and general hooliganism. Is that acceptable? Is hitting someone a morally permissible response to that person being a Republican?

So why aren't you explaining why a street brawl is worse when people wear masks? Why aren't you addressing the masks? Explain why a street brawl is worse when the people brawling are wearing masks.

It's because it establishes that they're acting in bad faith and that they came with the explicit intention of brawling.

Because all people should be protected from abuses of police power.

I've proposed solutions to that.

There are other perfectly law-abiding reasons for people to wear masks. And battery is already a crime. So what is the point of making it even more illegal to commit battery? Why is battery worse if you're wearing a mask?

You're employing the argument that some Republicans use against hate crime laws.

No, automatic sentencing like that is stupid.

Extra sentencing then? Should it be punished more than other assaults of comparable severity because it functions to harm our civil society? If your answer is "no, Antifa shouldn't be punished with greater severity for beating people up", then your complaint isn't even with the police. It's with the principle of the matter. If that's the case, my next question is this. Is it wrong to hit Nazis solely because they're Nazis?

Judges and juries can take things like that into account without special new laws.

And this would formalize the process, just as hate crime legislation formalizes the process.

That doesn't suggest prior intent, it suggests that the crime is motivated by racial hatred, which threatens all people of that race. Smashing a car window while wearing a mask doesn't threaten other people any more than smashing a car window while not wearing a mask.

It suggests that the person is engaging in political violence in the examples we've discussed. In the case of Antifa, they're trying to restrict the practice of 1st Amendment rights through violence.

You're not.

Because the fascists somehow aren't afraid of being doxxed.

And they are.

Prove that all police officers are fascists and racists. Prove that racism is the reason that policing has problems.

[Morgantown West Virginia]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?448407-1/ ... rence&live

Muller indictments incoming

[Zurkerx]

~SNIP~

Now that's an impressive breakdown. If only more people understood that...

[Fahran]

~SNIP~

Now that's an impressive breakdown. If only more people understood that...

I don't always agree with CTOAN, but that was a phenomenal analysis and far more useful than just dismissing the source out of hand. Absolute brilliance.