Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[T-hawk]

This is how the racial divide grows.

I'm not advocating it, just saying how it works in reality. Humans have been grouping and segregating themselves by tribal characteristics for ten thousand years. That instinct hasn't changed.

[suboptimal]

"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Actually, the interaction of the 12th Amendment and the 22nd Amendment is not considered settled.  A strict reading of these amendments would say that a former two-term president becoming VP is not "elected" to the presidency if that person were to assume office, so the are not disqualified from becoming VP.  A not-so-strict reading would say that the 22nd is disqualifying for all former two-term presidents.  The Clinton 2016 campaign was given a legal opinion that having Bill as the VP candidate would not be constitutional but that's as close as we've gotten to finding out how this works.

I read a Washington Post article on this topic before I made my post and this attack would not work. By that logic anyone could become VP.

Only anyone who meets the Article II requirements (age 35+, natural born citizen and resident for 14 years).  The 12th extends the Article II requirements to the VP office. 

Do you have a link to the WaPo article?  I'd be interested in giving it a read.

[Japper007]

Eh, it's about as intelligent as the initial protests...it's not like taking a knee for the anthem convinced anyone either. 

Citation very much needed, the "football" protests are international news. Media attention is a powerful thing, it elected a buffoon to the US presidency after all, journalism is the Fourth Estate for a reason. Also if it had no chance of being effective why are conservatives collectively loosing their fucking shit over it? Why would it drive them to burn their Nike's and make up false allegations like it being about "disrespecting the troops"?

Just have to remember that 95% of everyone you hear about is looking for an audience, or to have fun, not for an actual effect on the world.  If they wanted to make an actual difference in policing, they'd need to do boring old fashioned local politics, supporting new candidates for boring positions like city councilmen and county supervisors (that is, the people with actual authority over the police), with boring old fashioned methods like talking to a lot of voters and donating money for flyers.  And attending boring city council meetings to learn who to support or oppose, and doing boring research on which police departments are good and bad and why...

This makes it seem like you have never heard of the Civil Rights movement or other higher order protests, effecting change through national or even international protest has worked, works, and will continue to work.

[MJW (ya that one)]

"no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Actually, the interaction of the 12th Amendment and the 22nd Amendment is not considered settled.  A strict reading of these amendments would say that a former two-term president becoming VP is not "elected" to the presidency if that person were to assume office, so the are not disqualified from becoming VP.  A not-so-strict reading would say that the 22nd is disqualifying for all former two-term presidents.  The Clinton 2016 campaign was given a legal opinion that having Bill as the VP candidate would not be constitutional but that's as close as we've gotten to finding out how this works.

I read a Washington Post article on this topic before I made my post and this attack would not work. By that logic anyone could become VP.

Only anyone who meets the Article II requirements (age 35+, natural born citizen and resident for 14 years).  The 12th extends the Article II requirements to the VP office. 

Do you have a link to the WaPo article?  I'd be interested in giving it a read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...1095347aac

I slightly misread the article. It says that there is no rule for running for vice president. There's just too much potential.

[Mardoc]

Citation very much needed, the "football" protests are international news.

Well, it looks like 'taking a knee' started in 2016 (from wikipedia, so I could be wrong). Since then, we've got from 995 police killings in 2015 to 963 back to 987 and now we're on a pace for 1013 this year. Doesn't look like any effect to me.

Also if it had no chance of being effective why are conservatives collectively loosing their fucking shit over it? Why would it drive them to burn their Nike's and make up false allegations like it being about "disrespecting the troops"?

Clicks. Views. The fun feeling of outrage over the symbol of national unity. And advertising money, of course.

Plus, realistically I doubt it's true of 'conservatives collectively'. It might maybe be a dozen people?

This makes it seem like you have never heard of the Civil Rights movement or other higher order protests, effecting change through national or even international protest has worked, works, and will continue to work.

MLK was a genius - but the essence of those, effective protests, was a direct on-camera connection between simple non-violent reasonable actions and incredibly disproportionate violence in reaction. Most modern protests, on the other hand, are simply disruptive people with signs, doing something totally unrelated to their supposed cause.

[The Black Sword]

I don't know much about the subject, but the cost in terms of time and resources to the person of 'taking a knee' seems pretty cheap. The players are going to be standing in that location anyway. Other forms of protest or the more boring routes to change don't have that quality at least.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

What the fuck do you think someone taking a knee during the national anthem is? The most benign act of protest, it's *begging* for change, and that is sufficient to make racists lose their fucking minds.

No act of protest will ever, never satisfy the standards of decorum placed upon it by those who oppose the movement. I know conservatives have been attempting to claim MLK's legacy as one of pure beneficience, an impossible standard that no contemporary can ever reach. Which is rank bullshit: MLK was loathed by the establishment and conservatives in his day, his tactics were considered controversial, every attempt was made to blacklist and blackmail him out of power. Anyone hand wringing about protesters' lack of decorum, while racists use state power to brutalize minorities and migrants, is talking out of their ass.

[Mardoc]

I don't know much about the subject, but the cost in terms of time and resources to the person of 'taking a knee' seems pretty cheap. The players are going to be standing in that location anyway. Other forms of protest or the more boring routes to change don't have that quality at least.

Well, yeah, that's basically my point. Insignificant action, insignificant reaction, insignificant result, lots of sound and fury signifying nothing.

[Nicolae Carpathia]

Insignificant reaction, Kaep only became the target of a racist hate campaign, lost his job, got blacklisted from further employment.

No protest will ever be satisfactory to you.

[ipecac]

This is how the racial divide grows.

I'm not advocating it, just saying how it works in reality. Humans have been grouping and segregating themselves by tribal characteristics for ten thousand years. That instinct hasn't changed.

I was making an observation myself too, about how things will likely proceed if the Democrats go down that racial path. We're probably in agreement that humans are intrinsically tribal, and that recent attempts to ignore this in the forms of globalism or highly heterogenous societies will inevitably lead to a sharp backlash.