https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/23/why-rep ... tions.html
More special elections upcoming along with Cooks report of their political tilt.
Arizona's is April 24, so we should see how close it'll be. GOP is likely to win this one, but+13 isn't unreachable given democrat's overperformance this year.
Ohio's will be much easier as it's only 7 points more conservative.
Iirc, you were wrongish on the Conner-Lamb election. Care to reassess GOP chances going forward?
Conner-Lamb? Afraid I don't remember. Is it my "PA's leaning reddish" idea?
Would have to recrunch numbers to see what's changed since last I looked at it, and I'm afraid I really haven't. Hopefully I'll get some time to poke around, though, it's fun to see stuff shift as election time approaches.
CorruptUser wrote:I'm not sure we have the same definition of "violence". "Violence" =/= "Injustice". Unless you want to argue that making it illegal for 12 year olds to buy cigarettes is "violence".
I mean, on a certain level, laws are ultimately backed up by violence. So, laws that treat one group unfairly may, depending on enforcement, rise to the level of violence.
But a boycott isn't violence, I agree. Ultimately, you can choose where to shop.
SecondTalon wrote:Please, explain to me how punching someone who advocates for the systematic execution of groups based on arbitrary heredity categories, sexual orientation or sexual identity is wrong.
Feel free to use small words in case you think I don’t understand.
It's not inherently wrong. Depends on situation. Self defense is always fine. Defense of others being victimized is fine(people will babble about it being vigilantism, but cmon, it's not wrong).
However, if society's only real solution for 'em is individual face punching, then your society probably has a bit of a shortcoming. I would generally prefer that punching not be the go-to for this. Maybe have cops that actually promote law in order instead of randomly shooting folks they dislike? I mean, it sounds like a good idea in theory, anyways.
CorruptUser wrote:You find it unacceptable that the majority can suppress a group that advocates for crimes against humanity, or unacceptable that a group advocating crimes against humanity even gets a platform at all?
I think they have the freedom to speak. I also have the freedom to not listen. If they want to have a talk or what not for their ideology, cool. I'm not going to attend, because listening to them would literally be a waste of my time. Same goes for flat earthers, creationists, and god knows what other stupidity.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you automatically get an audience. It just means you don't go to jail for talking.
Thesh wrote:So let's say Nazis are allowed to have a platform, and they recruit and grow as a movement, and eventually get control of government. What happens to the freedom of the rest of us? It's an issue of whether the objective of that speech is ultimately to cause harm.
There are limits to free speech; as soon as you are a political movement advocating for the harm or disenfranchisement of others, you have crossed the line into something that is incompatible with a free society.
Let's say you are marching with guns and yelling "Jews go home!" Is that not intimidation? Is the objective of that not to cause people to fear for their lives?
That is the problem with democracy, yes.
If they do gain sufficient purchase for their ideas, yeah, they'll definitely cause harm then. But the same is true of ignorant socialists, and antifa's waving socialist insignia around are supporting that. Both ideologies have a very, very bloody history.
Ultimately though, the idea's that if everyone can freely express ideas, and the good ideas beat out the bad ones in the long run. If you don't believe that will happen, you might as well give up on democracy as a principle.
sardia wrote:What if we stopped and frisked them on a daily basis? Or prosecuted them extra hard for equivalent crimes committed by regular folks. Or let's slap them with a Nazi tax.
There's plenty of serious threats to the republic already in progress, and yet the country still stands. Adding Nazis to the long list of undesirables isn't going to be the straw that breaks the camel...
I dare say the best path is being dickbags to fewer groups of people, not more. Sure, the Nazis are particularly unsympathetic, but we have a long history of folks making laws to screw over those they don't feel sympathy for, and generally speaking, it goes poorly.
CorruptUser wrote:And yet those same people are mysteriously absent when it comes to uncrossing the line for black people.
Plenty of us have been active in the police thread, observing that there's some pretty serious bullshit going on. Sure, for those who are hypocritical, rag away, but pretty much everybody here acknowledges that racist treatment ought not exist.
Pfhorrest wrote:Ditto punching people in the face, censoring their speech, etc. Actions should be dictated by general principles regardless of who the people in question are.
Organizing politically for the sake of harming or suppressing the rights of others, whether it is an immediate threat or a long term objective of the movement, *is* taking action. It's about what they are doing, not who they are
This is basically the same logic as that used by those who accuse leftists of "treason" and such. They see your ideology as a long term threat to their rights and stuff.
But, just because a leftist floats a gun banning idea doesn't make it okay to start violence against leftists. Yes, yes, they may WANT to hinder your rights, and they may be politically organizing for that end, but that means you organize back. Not throw a punch. Shit, what about the anti-abortion folks if they took this stance? They believe ya'll are literally advocating for murder, but that doesn't excuse bombings or what not.
In short, treating "politically organizing for a things" is not the same as doing the thing. It's related, sure, and yeah, you definitely should oppose people advocating stupid shit, but it's not a self defense situation. The situation lacks immediacy.
As for the Trump being racist thing, eh...yeah, that's not a hill I want to die on. One can advocate immigration restrictions for non racist reasons, sure, but plenty of awful reasons have been public enough that I'm not gonna bother with defending characterizations. Plenty actual racism out there. Even when Trump has a perfectly fine policy, he does generally manage to go about advocating it in some of the worst ways possible.