Why an Earth-based nation at all? Boring! They could colonise the Moon - why not let trump become the first man to *set foot on the moon? He could be president there and start again with all those riotous trumpists in their quaint rubber headgear making a new life free from libruls and guv'mint oppression.
And the real world would be free of them.
*Yes, we know it's been done half a century ago but his followers probably don't accept facts like that
Ah, but he can be the first person to put his actual foot on the Moon, not just an insulated boot.
Why an Earth-based nation at all? Boring! They could colonise the Moon - why not let trump become the first man to set foot on the moon? <<snip>> Yes, we know it's been done half a century ago but his followers probably don't accept facts like that.
Of course not. It was all a hoax, don't you know? And the moon is made of green cheese -- not suitable for human habitation.
AIUI, there are some far-flung Deserts in the US. Might one of them be suitable as Trumpland?
I'd gladly give them Arizona.
I thought about various deep red states, but realised most of them are home to the various pre-Columbus nations, and those that don't have large black populations. How do they feel about Trump in Guam?
Why an Earth-based nation at all? Boring! They could colonise the Moon - why not let trump become the first man to *set foot on the moon? He could be president there and start again with all those riotous trumpists in their quaint rubber headgear making a new life free from libruls and guv'mint oppression.
And the real world would be free of them.
*Yes, we know it's been done half a century ago but his followers probably don't accept facts like that
Ah, but he can be the first person to put his actual foot on the Moon, not just an insulated boot.
Yes! Encourage him to wriggle his toes in real moondust!
It's not a widely known fact, but the U.S. has possession of several uninhabited islands in the Pacific. Maybe Trump could be convinced to be appointed Governor of Jarvis Island. Just tell him it's a bunch of beachfront property he can have all to himself. It was acquired, appropriately enough, under the Guano Islands Act of 1856.
It has the advantage of being unambiguously American territory, and you wouldn't have to worry about the effect on the neighbors because there aren't any.
The reason secession won't happen is that the current mess in the US doesn't break down along State lines. If it's anything, it's rural -v- urban, but even then there's significant overlap.
The old-school solution would be to split the country in two and move all the blues to one side of the line and all the reds to the other. For obvious reasons such a massive population shift wouldn't be acceptable today. But given the intermingled nature of the two sides the real question is how to depolarise US politics in order to get back to a point where they can live and work together, or at least recognise each other's validity. Thing is, how can that be achieved when neither side appears willing to let the other do as they wish, and both sides insist that their way must apply to the entire country? Is the only remaining option the total eradication - however achieved - of of one side or the other's beliefs?
The reason secession won't happen is that the current mess in the US doesn't break down along State lines. If it's anything, it's rural -v- urban, but even then there's significant overlap.
The old-school solution would be to split the country in two and move all the blues to one side of the line and all the reds to the other. For obvious reasons such a massive population shift wouldn't be acceptable today. But given the intermingled nature of the two sides the real question is how to depolarise US politics in order to get back to a point where they can live and work together, or at least recognise each other's validity. Thing is, how can that be achieved when neither side appears willing to let the other do as they wish, and both sides insist that their way must apply to the entire country? Is the only remaining option the total eradication - however achieved - of of one side or the other's beliefs?
How exactly do you manage to turn this into a "both sides" issue? The left are only seeking to control the behaviour of others in so far as their negative behaviour affects other people. The right is trying to restrict the private behaviour of consenting adults, to the point of controlling not only their bedrooms but their conversations with their doctor, and their reproductive systems. The far right just stormed the fucking Capitol with the intent of murdering and/or raping members of congress. This has gone way past different opinions about which reasonable people can disagree.
Also, what the leaders of the red side (is there any other country in the civilized world where red is to the right of blue?) really want is the power to extract as much money as possible from everyone else, and most of the money they want to extract is in the blue areas.
The left are only seeking to control the behaviour of others in so far as their negative behaviour affects other people. The right is trying to restrict the private behaviour of consenting adults, to the point of controlling not only their bedrooms but their conversations with their doctor, and their reproductive systems.
You're making my point for me. Not least because the very concept of "private behaviour of consenting adults" is a relatively new one that the majority of historical societies and cultures wouldn't recognise. Even now there are many - perhaps even a majority in global terms - for whom the morality of such behaviours is emphatically not something private individuals can decide for themselves but rather something God decrees and mortals - all mortals - must obey.
You believe that's wrong, and that as long as it's between consenting adults anything is fair game - pretty much the polar opposite of their belief. And you intend to use the law to force them to act as though they agree with you. Call it being intolerant of intolerance if you like, but the bottom line is you're unwilling to permit such people to act in accordance with their beliefs. No middle ground, no compromise. Because you believe you're 100% on the side of good.
Problem is, so do they.
Which is where I came in with my last post.
This has gone way past different opinions about which reasonable people can disagree.
Or to put it another way, the only remaining option is the total eradication - however achieved - of of one side or the other's beliefs?
The left are only seeking to control the behaviour of others in so far as their negative behaviour affects other people. The right is trying to restrict the private behaviour of consenting adults, to the point of controlling not only their bedrooms but their conversations with their doctor, and their reproductive systems.
You're making my point for me. Not least because the very concept of "private behaviour of consenting adults" is a relatively new one that the majority of historical societies and cultures wouldn't recognise. Even now there are many - perhaps even a majority in global terms - for whom the morality of such behaviours is emphatically not something private individuals can decide for themselves but rather something God decrees and mortals - all mortals - must obey.
You believe that's wrong, and that as long as it's between consenting adults anything is fair game - pretty much the polar opposite of their belief. And you intend to use the law to force them to act as though they agree with you. Call it being intolerant of intolerance if you like, but the bottom line is you're unwilling to permit such people to act in accordance with their beliefs. No middle ground, no compromise. Because you believe you're 100% on the side of good.
Problem is, so do they.
Which is where I came in with my last post.
This has gone way past different opinions about which reasonable people can disagree.
Or to put it another way, the only remaining option is the total eradication - however achieved - of of one side or the other's beliefs?
They can believe what they like, it's when they start abusing people who don't conform to their beliefs and using the law to enforce their prejudices that we have a problem. No-one is stopping conservatives confining their sexual activities to reproductive PIV intercourse with the lights off if that's what they think is proper.
You're drawing a false equivalence between a right to live your life without interference and a right to interfere with the lives of others. As to how to fix the problem, I think demographics will do that on their own, given time, and until they do lock up the violent ones and those who incite them.
The Guardian reports that Trump and Giuliani have fallen out and Trump is refusing to pay Giuliani's legal fees.
It wouldn't be so funny if with hindsight one couldn't have predicted it.
You're making my point for me. Not least because the very concept of "private behaviour of consenting adults" is a relatively new one that the majority of historical societies and cultures wouldn't recognise. Even now there are many - perhaps even a majority in global terms - for whom the morality of such behaviours is emphatically not something private individuals can decide for themselves but rather something God decrees and mortals - all mortals - must obey.
To put this in American Constitutional parlance, this is a Establishment Clause violation masquerading as a Free Exercise argument. @Marvin the Martian is claiming that in order to freely exercise their religious beliefs theocrats must have the legal authority to enforce those beliefs on everyone else; that it's a violation of their beliefs if God's word (as revealed to the one true faith of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, or whatever) isn't legally enforceable on everyone else (especially those heretics at the Lutheran Church of America). So if you believe that the races should be segregated, or that Jews shouldn't be permitted to build synagogues, or that a same-sex couple filing a joint tax return is an abomination (I think that's in Paul's Second Epistle to the Actuarials), then it's "oppression" if those beliefs aren't enforced by the state. While this kind of self-interested special pleading can be internally consistent, it's very far from most American concepts of liberty (unless you're talking about the hilariously misnamed Liberty University).
Marvin didn't use the words liberty or oppression. I don't think Marvin is claiming that the Red Side want liberty; he's arguing that liberty as an ideal is a Blue Side value (whatever lip service Red siders may pay to it when it suits them).
I'm not going to "let the other side do what they wish" when what they wish is to kill black people at traffic stops, chain gay men to fences, shoot up synagogues, and so forth. Your "bothsidesism" is fatuous at best, and murderous at worst.
I'm not going to "let the other side do what they wish" when what they wish is to kill black people at traffic stops, chain gay men to fences, shoot up synagogues, and so forth. Your "bothsidesism" is fatuous at best, and murderous at worst.
Thank you for saying what I was trying to, both more clearly and with fewer words.
It should also be noted that in ordinary criminal cases the right to release on bail prior to conviction is enshrined in the Eighth Amendment. Mandatory pre-trial custody is only justified in cases where the accused is considered a flight risk or poses a reasonably foreseeable danger to the community.
Marvin didn't use the words liberty or oppression. I don't think Marvin is claiming that the Red Side want liberty; he's arguing that liberty as an ideal is a Blue Side value (whatever lip service Red siders may pay to it when it suits them).
Yes, you get it. The Red side want a form of liberty whereby everyone is free to be just like them, but not free to be anything else.
I'm not going to "let the other side do what they wish" when what they wish is to kill black people at traffic stops, chain gay men to fences, shoot up synagogues, and so forth. Your "bothsidesism" is fatuous at best, and murderous at worst.
That’s fine, you just need to accept that such a position is never going to lead to a depolarisation of US politics other than via the total eradication of one side or the other.
Ideally said eradication would be by conversion rather than actual destruction, but either way eradication of the other side’s belief system is what it would have to be. And at the same time they’ll be trying to eradicate yours. Have fun.
I'm not going to "let the other side do what they wish" when what they wish is to kill black people at traffic stops, chain gay men to fences, shoot up synagogues, and so forth. Your "bothsidesism" is fatuous at best, and murderous at worst.
That’s fine, you just need to accept that such a position is never going to lead to a depolarisation of US politics other than via the total eradication of one side or the other.
Just out of curiosity, what's the depolarized middle ground between "lynching black people" and "not lynching black people"? That doesn't seem like something where there's a compromise halfway in the middle.
I'm not going to "let the other side do what they wish" when what they wish is to kill black people at traffic stops, chain gay men to fences, shoot up synagogues, and so forth. Your "bothsidesism" is fatuous at best, and murderous at worst.
That’s fine, you just need to accept that such a position is never going to lead to a depolarisation of US politics other than via the total eradication of one side or the other.
Ideally said eradication would be by conversion rather than actual destruction, but either way eradication of the other side’s belief system is what it would have to be. And at the same time they’ll be trying to eradicate yours. Have fun.
What alternative position is there? Seriously, what does the compromise position look like that allows actual, boots-on-the-street fascism to coexist with liberal democracy? When it comes to fascism you either fight it (not necessarily violently), you join it or you die. And if you join it you'd better be willing to ride it all the way to the gas chambers because it's damn hard to get off once it's started. Martin Niemoller could tell you something about that.
It should also be noted that in ordinary criminal cases the right to release on bail prior to conviction is enshrined in the Eighth Amendment. Mandatory pre-trial custody is only justified in cases where the accused is considered a flight risk or poses a reasonably foreseeable danger to the community.
I'd say that his declared intention of boycotting Biden's inauguration and widespread rumours of his intention to go to Scotland should qualify as a flight risk. As for him being a forseeable danger to the community, where do you start?
Marvin didn't use the words liberty or oppression. I don't think Marvin is claiming that the Red Side want liberty; he's arguing that liberty as an ideal is a Blue Side value (whatever lip service Red siders may pay to it when it suits them).
Yes, you get it. The Red side want a form of liberty whereby everyone is free to be just like them, but not free to be anything else.
Well now. That's a fever-dream for you, isn't it?
'Not free to be anything else' - meanwhile the Blue side will literally murder you and starve you to death and infect you with lethal diseases. But damn, that freedom!
People, stop thinking of this as a normal court trial. You can’t take him into custody, there’s no bail, there’s no pardon and the only remedies Congress can inflict are removal from office (too late), a ban from future public office, and the loss of the usual post presidential perks. This is the best we can do until January 21, when he ceases to be a sitting president and becomes immediately liable to criminal charges in the ordinary court systems.
People, stop thinking of this as a normal court trial. You can’t take him into custody, there’s no bail, there’s no pardon and the only remedies Congress can inflict are removal from office (too late), a ban from future public office, and the loss of the usual post presidential perks. This is the best we can do until January 21, when he ceases to be a sitting president and becomes immediately liable to criminal charges in the ordinary court systems.
'Not free to be anything else' - meanwhile the Blue side will literally murder you and starve you to death and infect you with lethal diseases. But damn, that freedom!
Remember: we're talking about the States, where the Red side and Blue side are the opposite way round from countries with actual socialist traditions.
When Marvin says the Red side want a form of liberty where everyone is free to be like them, he's talking about the Republicans.
It should also be noted that in ordinary criminal cases the right to release on bail prior to conviction is enshrined in the Eighth Amendment. Mandatory pre-trial custody is only justified in cases where the accused is considered a flight risk or poses a reasonably foreseeable danger to the community.
Comments
Ah, but he can be the first person to put his actual foot on the Moon, not just an insulated boot.
I'd gladly give them Arizona.
Of course not. It was all a hoax, don't you know? And the moon is made of green cheese -- not suitable for human habitation.
I thought about various deep red states, but realised most of them are home to the various pre-Columbus nations, and those that don't have large black populations. How do they feel about Trump in Guam?
Yes! Encourage him to wriggle his toes in real moondust!
It has the advantage of being unambiguously American territory, and you wouldn't have to worry about the effect on the neighbors because there aren't any.
NOOOOO! I'm planning to spend the rest of my life here -- please don't do that!
And what about the Native Americans who have been living all over Arizona since long before we got here?
Rats. He did. But secession seems to be (erroneously?) in the mix?
Do a web search on "US secessionist movements". I'll spare the H/As, but here's lots out there--including Wikipedia.
We discussed that in Purg a while back, IIRC. You might search there, too.
Yes. I've got relatives there on the reservation!
"COW talk"?? I'm unaware of secessionist bovines...
California, Oregon, Washington as an entity.
Yes, I wondered about that, too. I'm not sure if anyone ever went back there to live, after the bomb tests. Wouldn't have been safe for them.
The old-school solution would be to split the country in two and move all the blues to one side of the line and all the reds to the other. For obvious reasons such a massive population shift wouldn't be acceptable today. But given the intermingled nature of the two sides the real question is how to depolarise US politics in order to get back to a point where they can live and work together, or at least recognise each other's validity. Thing is, how can that be achieved when neither side appears willing to let the other do as they wish, and both sides insist that their way must apply to the entire country? Is the only remaining option the total eradication - however achieved - of of one side or the other's beliefs?
How exactly do you manage to turn this into a "both sides" issue? The left are only seeking to control the behaviour of others in so far as their negative behaviour affects other people. The right is trying to restrict the private behaviour of consenting adults, to the point of controlling not only their bedrooms but their conversations with their doctor, and their reproductive systems. The far right just stormed the fucking Capitol with the intent of murdering and/or raping members of congress. This has gone way past different opinions about which reasonable people can disagree.
You're making my point for me. Not least because the very concept of "private behaviour of consenting adults" is a relatively new one that the majority of historical societies and cultures wouldn't recognise. Even now there are many - perhaps even a majority in global terms - for whom the morality of such behaviours is emphatically not something private individuals can decide for themselves but rather something God decrees and mortals - all mortals - must obey.
You believe that's wrong, and that as long as it's between consenting adults anything is fair game - pretty much the polar opposite of their belief. And you intend to use the law to force them to act as though they agree with you. Call it being intolerant of intolerance if you like, but the bottom line is you're unwilling to permit such people to act in accordance with their beliefs. No middle ground, no compromise. Because you believe you're 100% on the side of good.
Problem is, so do they.
Which is where I came in with my last post.
Or to put it another way, the only remaining option is the total eradication - however achieved - of of one side or the other's beliefs?
They can believe what they like, it's when they start abusing people who don't conform to their beliefs and using the law to enforce their prejudices that we have a problem. No-one is stopping conservatives confining their sexual activities to reproductive PIV intercourse with the lights off if that's what they think is proper.
You're drawing a false equivalence between a right to live your life without interference and a right to interfere with the lives of others. As to how to fix the problem, I think demographics will do that on their own, given time, and until they do lock up the violent ones and those who incite them.
It wouldn't be so funny if with hindsight one couldn't have predicted it.
To put this in American Constitutional parlance, this is a Establishment Clause violation masquerading as a Free Exercise argument. @Marvin the Martian is claiming that in order to freely exercise their religious beliefs theocrats must have the legal authority to enforce those beliefs on everyone else; that it's a violation of their beliefs if God's word (as revealed to the one true faith of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, or whatever) isn't legally enforceable on everyone else (especially those heretics at the Lutheran Church of America). So if you believe that the races should be segregated, or that Jews shouldn't be permitted to build synagogues, or that a same-sex couple filing a joint tax return is an abomination (I think that's in Paul's Second Epistle to the Actuarials), then it's "oppression" if those beliefs aren't enforced by the state. While this kind of self-interested special pleading can be internally consistent, it's very far from most American concepts of liberty (unless you're talking about the hilariously misnamed Liberty University).
This old bit from the sitcom Cheers. No other reason.
Thank you for saying what I was trying to, both more clearly and with fewer words.
Yes, you get it. The Red side want a form of liberty whereby everyone is free to be just like them, but not free to be anything else.
That’s fine, you just need to accept that such a position is never going to lead to a depolarisation of US politics other than via the total eradication of one side or the other.
Ideally said eradication would be by conversion rather than actual destruction, but either way eradication of the other side’s belief system is what it would have to be. And at the same time they’ll be trying to eradicate yours. Have fun.
Just out of curiosity, what's the depolarized middle ground between "lynching black people" and "not lynching black people"? That doesn't seem like something where there's a compromise halfway in the middle.
What alternative position is there? Seriously, what does the compromise position look like that allows actual, boots-on-the-street fascism to coexist with liberal democracy? When it comes to fascism you either fight it (not necessarily violently), you join it or you die. And if you join it you'd better be willing to ride it all the way to the gas chambers because it's damn hard to get off once it's started. Martin Niemoller could tell you something about that.
I'd say that his declared intention of boycotting Biden's inauguration and widespread rumours of his intention to go to Scotland should qualify as a flight risk. As for him being a forseeable danger to the community, where do you start?
Well now. That's a fever-dream for you, isn't it?
'Not free to be anything else' - meanwhile the Blue side will literally murder you and starve you to death and infect you with lethal diseases. But damn, that freedom!
Sounds good to me.
When Marvin says the Red side want a form of liberty where everyone is free to be like them, he's talking about the Republicans.
The very reason why he has been impeached