Political Thread XX

[injurai]

https://www.france24.com/en/20180904-saudi-arabia-declares-online-satire-punishable-offence

 

Saudi Arabia declares online satire punishable offence

 

RIYADH (AFP) - 

Saudi Arabia will punish online satire that "disrupts public order" with up to five years in prison, the public prosecutor said Tuesday, as the kingdom cracks down on dissent.

"Producing and distributing content that ridicules, mocks, provokes and disrupts public order, religious values and public morals through social media ... will be considered a cybercrime punishable by a maximum of five years in prison and a fine of three million riyals ($800,000)," the public prosecution tweeted late Monday.

The kingdom's powerful Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has drawn harsh criticism from rights groups over the targeting of human rights activists and political dissidents across the spectrum since his appointment in June 2017.

Saudi Arabia's legislation on cybercrime has sparked concern among international rights groups in the past.

Dozens of Saudi citizens have been convicted on charges linked to dissent under a previous sweeping law, particularly linked to posts on Twitter.

In September 2017, authorities issued a public call for citizens to report on the social media activities of their fellow citizens, under a broad definition of "terrorist" crimes.

Saudi Arabia's public prosecutor on Tuesday also announced it was seeking the death penalty in the case against Sheikh Salman al-Awda, a prominent Islamist cleric arrested last year along with 20 others.

 

Awful. What terrible values to hold. What terrible governance practices.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So I guess Nike has launched an ad campaign with Colin Kaepernick, which is an interesting choice. People are now burning their Nike's in protest, and this was the best response to that I saw. 

 

It's funny that they slept through the appalling conditions nike products are produced in but when the kneeling football man does an ad they lose their ****. Priorities I guess.

[Gfted1]

Awful. What terrible values to hold. What terrible governance practices.

Different cultures are different.

 

Why do we think our "western values" have to be forced on the entire planet?

[Guard Dog]

I've got to read Bob Woodward's new book. It sounds like Trump is a complete fool. He listens to no one. Insults and belittles everyone including his allies and staff. Has a poor grasp of economics, politics, and the American system of governance. His own chief of staff calls his White House "crazytown".

 

He is, in short, the greatest American President of my lifetime. No, you didn't misread that. We finally have a complete fool in office that everyone can clearly see IS a fool.

We have had fools before. Many, many, many of them. And worse. Barack Obama was no fool. He was worse. He KNEW the limitations of the office and ignored them anyway. Obama in hos soul is mean. He thinks poorly of those he finds beneath him and carries a chip over wrongs real or perceived. George W Bush was a fool. A decent, moral, thoughtful man true. And a fool. His failure to understand the way the middle east and it's people work has cost us a lot of blood and treasure. Bill Clinton was not a fool. He was the consummate politician. Try to be all things to all people. But he was not decent, or moral. You would be a fool to believe any word he ever spoke, or believe in him for that matter. All of them have flaws and redeeming qualities. But their flaws that drive bad decisions that cause harm and even their errors are given legitimacy because they are the President. To many that makes them above reproach. The prestige and power of the office IS it's own shield.

 

Now we have Trump who, aside from entertainment value, has so far demonstrated no redeeming qualities. His very presence and buffoonery in the office lessens the power and prestige of the office. Already Congress is remembering they can work around him when they want to. That they are in fact a co-equal branch of the government. States are beginning to ignore him and by extension the Federal Government. And they should. We are a union of 50 sovereign states. Those states have been in thrall to Sodom-on-the-Potomac for far too long.

 

In just two years Trump has accomplished something that none of his 44 predecessors has: the debasement and diminishment of the office. Something that NEEDED to be done IMO. There have been times in the last twenty years that Presidents have actually frightened me with usurpation of power. And think, we have at east two years to go! Plus imagine what he could do with a second term!

 

I know most folks here don't like him. I can hardly find fault with you there. But every cloud does have a silver lining and in he long run we may actually be better off having had a fool that could not hide behind the fig leaf of the office because he wadded it up and burned it. We may look back on Donald Trump's time in office and think he did us a real favor, even if that wasn't his intention.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Guard Dog

[smjjames]

I've got to read Bob Woodward's new book. It sounds like Trump is a complete fool. He listens to no one. Insults and belittles everyone including his allies and staff. Has a poor grasp of economics, politics, and the American system of governance. His own chief of staff calls his White House "crazytown".

 

Not surprised...

 

(I wanted to split the post up, but as you all know, this forums quote system is a real PITA)

"He is, in short, the greatest American President of my lifetime. No, you didn't misread that. We finally have a complete fool in office that everyone can clearly see IS a fool.

We have had fools before. Many, many, many of them. And worse. Barack Obama was no fool. He was worse. He KNEW the limitations of the office and ignored them anyway. Obama in hos soul is mean. He thinks poorly of those he finds beneath him and carries a chip over wrongs real or perceived. George W Bush was a fool. A decent, moral, thoughtful man true. And a fool. His failure to understand the way the middle east and it's people work has cost us a lot of blood and treasure. Bill Clinton was not a fool. He was the consummate politician. Try to be all things to all people. But he was not decent, or moral. You would be a fool to believe any word he ever spoke, or believe in him for that matter. All of them have flaws and redeeming qualities. But their flaws that drive bad decisions that cause harm and even their errors are given legitimacy because they are the President. To many that makes them above reproach. The prestige and power of the office IS it's own shield.

 

Now we have Trump who, aside from entertainment value, has so far demonstrated no redeeming qualities. His very presence and buffoonery in the office lessens the power and prestige of the office. Already Congress is remembering they can work around him when they want to. That they are in fact a co-equal branch of the government. States are beginning to ignore him and by extension the Federal Government. And they should. We are a union of 50 sovereign states. Those states have been in thrall to Sodom-on-the-Potomac for far too long.

 

In just two years Trump has accomplished something that none of his 44 predecessors has: the debasement and diminishment of the office. Something that NEEDED to be done IMO. There have been times in the last twenty years that Presidents have actually frightened me with usurpation of power. And think, we have at east two years to go! Plus imagine what he could do with a second term!

 

I know most folks here don't like him. I can hardly find fault with you there. But every cloud does have a silver lining and in he long run we may actually be better off having had a fool that could not hide behind the fig leaf of the office because he wadded it up and burned it. We may look back on Donald Trump's time in office and think he did us a real favor, even if that wasn't his intention."

 

The only problem as far as reducing the Presidents power is that Congress has to actually assert it's own power and take back the Presidents power since it's supposed to be a check and balance against the Executive branch. If Congress doesn't reduce the Presidents power in some way, the next President is just going to have the same power. I'm not saying you're wrong in debasing and diminishing the office, it's just that Congress has to actually do it's part.

 

"Plus imagine what he could do with a second term!"

 

Like the US not having a positive reputation anymore in international dealings? I get what you're saying as far as reducing the power of the President, but we shouldn't have to commit seppuku as a country to do so.

[HoonDing]

"I've got to read Bob Woodward's new book. It sounds like Trump is a complete fool. He listens to no one. Insults and belittles everyone including his allies and staff. Has a poor grasp of economics, politics, and the American system of governance. His own chief of staff calls his White House "crazytown"."

 

u only figured this now?

[Guard Dog]

Is our reputation so great now? Obama's foreign policy was feckless one day, hopelessly weak the next. George W Bush is forever tied to a war he had to fight and flubbed, and one he didn't have to fight and flubbed. Whatever good will or reputation the US had coming out of WWII starting with Johnson and going through today we have pissed on it, shat on it, kicked it down the road and did both again. The only US President in that time to actually have a stable and grounded foreign policy was Reagan. But it was a lot easier in those days when the whole world was divided into two camps and everyone knew where everyone stood.

[smjjames]

I know it's not great now, but I don't want it to get worse either. Learning some humility would certainly be healthy for the foriegn policy though.

 

I suppose part (or maybe all) of the problem is that the Democrats foriegn policy ideas aren't all that different from the Republicans (maybe a legacy of the Cold War when both would have had similar policy anyway? dunno) and really don't have their own foriegn policy idea engines like the way the Republicans do. As a result, there aren't really any foriegn policy ideas other than the Republicans.

Edited September 4, 2018 by smjjames

[Gromnir]

the woodward book is gonna have zero impact on true believers and will quick become gospel for those who is already convinced the chief executive is not up to the tasks required for his job. US politics is polarized beyond the point o' reasonableness for either "side."

 

*shrug*

 

am skeptical o' the mattis and kelly quotes.  am not doubting the generals believe such 'bout their boss, but is hard to imagine them uttering such where anybody could possible overhear. of all the claims we has seen thus far, the mattis and kelly quotes is the most difficult for us to accept.

 

the dowd stuff is disturbing 'cause is believable.  having seen deposition transcripts from the orange one, am understanding why his lawyers were, alleged, terrified o' the prospect o' an interview with mueller. 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/08/11/the_best_lies_from_donald_trump_s_2007_deposition.html

 

the national security aspect regarding the inevitable leak o' the transcript from such an interview is a novel concern, but the fear is, we suspect, legit. 

 

aides purposeful hiding documents from the boss to avert disaster?

 

*groan*

 

am thankful for brexit.  no matter how bad is our national buffoonery, we can always look to brexit and enjoy a bit o' guilty schadenfreude.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Pidesco]

Someone is taking Woodward books seriously? Wierd.

 

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/307582196196188160

 

[Malcador]

 

So I guess Nike has launched an ad campaign with Colin Kaepernick, which is an interesting choice. People are now burning their Nike's in protest, and this was the best response to that I saw. 

 

It's funny that they slept through the appalling conditions nike products are produced in but when the kneeling football man does an ad they lose their ****. Priorities I guess.

 

 

Can't expect too much from uniform worshippers

[Gromnir]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

 

and for those blocked

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/i-am-part-of-the-resistance-inside-the-trump-administration/ar-BBMVtbs

 

crazytown indeed.

[Malcador]

Bet it's Sanders

[Gromnir]

short of sanders being revealed as a skrull, then no.  perhaps musk's fears 'bout ai has come to pass and skynet sent a t1000 to infiltrate the wh staff and exploit chaos?

 

 

unlikely, so am gonna disagree and bet the field... not that we thought you were serious. 

 

apparent, trump has been telling folks he believes mcmaster and cohn were major contributors to woodward's book.   am curious why trump would do so seeing as how mcmaster and cohn as the sources makes the information more credible as 'posed to less. both were senior guys with access, and mcmaster is 'bout as honorable and bipartisan respected as any who have served in the trump admin. am actual willing to change our pov regarding kelly and mattis quotes if they came from mcmaster notes as 'posed to some nameless junior staffer. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Pidesco]

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

 

and for those blocked

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/i-am-part-of-the-resistance-inside-the-trump-administration/ar-BBMVtbs

 

crazytown indeed.

I'm shocked and appalled that a blatant treason is cheered in USA this way.

 

It's crazy how people don't understand that everything they do to Trump is not a one time thing. It creates precedent for every next president.

 

 

 

Well, it's not like this is the first time it happens. When a President was privately found unable to his job, someone stepped in in this fashion, so precedent isn't really an issue. This basically only happens if a president becomes, or is, in some way incompetent. The cases I'm specifically aware of are Nixon and Wilson, but I wouldn't be surprised if this has happened with other presidents.

 

Still, you are right. This is, effectively treason, and the justifications provided in the opinion article are ridiculous, to put it mildly. The bit about bright spots was especially galling. They say they are putting their country first but, essentially, they are doing the exact opposite of that. They are clinging to power a little while longer, while knowingly risking catastrophe, both in the US and in the world.

[Blarghagh]

I'm shocked and appalled that a blatant treason is cheered in USA this way.

 

I kid, I kid.

[Amentep]

Regarding the anonymous Op-Ed, wouldn't it technically be considered (if one went that route) as sedition rather than treason?  Treason in the US is - if I understand it correctly - limited to levying war against the US and/or giving comfort and aid to its enemies, so I'm pretty sure it'd be difficult to prove the Op-Ed was treasonous given that narrow definition. And if I'm correct they'd be trying to to prove it was seditious rather than treasonous, the statements would have to be proven false, scandalous and malicious with the intent to bring the President into disrepute.  If I understand correctly.

[Malcador]

First thought was recalling YM/YPM and the way the civil service manages the elected officials

[Pidesco]

Regarding the anonymous Op-Ed, wouldn't it technically be considered (if one went that route) as sedition rather than treason?  Treason in the US is - if I understand it correctly - limited to levying war against the US and/or giving comfort and aid to its enemies, so I'm pretty sure it'd be difficult to prove the Op-Ed was treasonous given that narrow definition. And if I'm correct they'd be trying to to prove it was seditious rather than treasonous, the statements would have to be proven false, scandalous and malicious with the intent to bring the President into disrepute.  If I understand correctly.

 

It sounds like you are saying the dispute lies in whether what he wrote is true or not. I see no reason to think that it isn't true, so the question, from a technical point of view, is more whether what he is doing (deliberately undermining the President) happens to be prosecutable in some way.

[Guard Dog]

If publishing an opinion piece in a newspaper could be called treason or even sedition it is past time for another revolution

[Pidesco]

If publishing an opinion piece in a newspaper could be called treason or even sedition it is past time for another revolution

 

Not the publishing but the actions, situations, and motivations described inside it could be called any of those things.

[Guard Dog]

Vehemently disagree. It could be called none of those things. At worst it's someone bragging about what a bad job he's doing at work because he doen't like his boss. Treason & sedition are overt acts. If I whip a mob of anti-government types into a frenzy and we go burn down a post office THAT is sedition. And arson and other things too. But motive is what makes it sedition.

 

If I aid a terrorist in the commission of an act of terror, or help a foreign power gain and advantage over the US, or something in that vein, particularly in wartime, that would be treason. Boasting about how I'm thwarting my employer, even if that is the POTUS, is grounds for termination. Nothing else.

[Gromnir]

If publishing an opinion piece in a newspaper could be called treason or even sedition it is past time for another revolution

 

claim treason requires a comical level o' buffoonery or ignorance.  

 

civilian sedition is more obscure, so am understanding confusion, but most provisions require attempts to interfere with government by force. 

 

however,

 

 

thankfully, the US scaled back sedition provisions following the trials o' eugene debs and others.  post 1921 sedition is a bit less broad and in almost all cases requires force or advocating force... and even advocating force ain't enough as actual use o' force would need be a predictable and immediate result o' the advocacy for there to be a crime. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

Boasting about how I'm thwarting my employer, even if that is the POTUS, is grounds for termination. Nothing else.

POTUS is an Emperor to some these days.

[Guard Dog]

 

Boasting about how I'm thwarting my employer, even if that is the POTUS, is grounds for termination. Nothing else.

POTUS is an Emperor to some these days.

 

That isn't new. We have been incrementally slouching towards autocracy since the days of Woodrow Wilson. Sometimes the needle moves one way, some times the other. But in general it's moving in the wrong direction. If Trump keeps being Trump he will damage the authority of the office, leave it less that he found it. The best thing that can happen is when Congress begins ignoring the President and the State governments begin ignoring the Federal Government. If Trumps buffoonery resets the balance of power, even through sheer hubris & stupidity, he will have done us a solid.

 

I'm no nihilist. I don't reject all authority or want to burn the whole thing down. But I do want to see it taken down a few pegs. Maybe that will delay or head off some future political break when treason and sedition become actual things.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Guard Dog