|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More than half (52%) of white working-class Americans believe discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities, while 70% of white college-educated Americans disagree." - That just seems like straight up racism to me, although I would like to hear why people feel that way (other then FOx News).
That correlates with another report I was reading which showed that working class whites who were facing significant financial hardships voted more for Clinton... those who voted for Trump actually tended to be somewhat better off and did so based on "cultural anxiety"... which IMO is just a euphemism for "straight up racism" and/or religious bigotry;
"Sixty-eight percent of white working-class voters said the American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence. And nearly half agreed with the statement, “things have changed so much that I often feel like a stranger in my own country.” Together, these variables were strong indictors of support for Trump: 79 percent of white working-class voters who had these anxieties chose Trump"
"Contrary to popular narratives, only a small portion—just 27 percent—of white working-class voters said they favor a policy of identifying and deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally. Among the people who did share this belief, Trump was wildly popular: 87 percent of them supported the president in the 2016 election."
I'm pretty sure I didn't actually label anyone as racist.
You did not, nor am I attempting to claim you did. Apologies if it came off that way.
The questions may be somewhat open, but is it possible you're seeing it through as much of a filter as I am? Not just "benefit of the doubt", but also because the economic interpretation fits your thesis?
That is exactly the problem. The questions are so vague and open-ended that it is difficult to draw any objective conclusion. You can use it to claim whatever you want - which makes it's value as a fact practically zero.
For the harder data there, that "People who said their finances are only in fair or poor shape were nearly twice as likely to support Clinton compared to those who feel more economically secure" pretty strongly counters the economic problems narrative. You're left arguing that those who are themselves more economically secure voted for economic change while those actually in trouble didn't. Which seems a hard argument to make.
Again, I would not call that "hard data". It is a vague question about peoples feelings, with no actual connection to the reality of their situation. Also, economic security is not connected to economic status. For example, they guy who has been a night manager at McDonald's for five years making $13/hour might feel secure, while the guy running his own plumbing company might make twice that, but not know if he is going to be able to find work next week. You could even have two people in identical job situations, but one has a family member with a drug problem, and they are worried about medical coverage.
You might be 100% right in your interpretation, or it could be that Trump voters are more likely to have a "This country is going down the tubes, but I got mine!" attitude.
All I'm saying is that this study is highly open to interpretation, and I would hesitate to draw firm conclusions based on it.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I have always felt that Trumps support comes primarily from wealthier, older, and more conservative people. There is also a very large group that is racist, misogynistic, bigoted, etc. I think that has been the case with every republican president elected in my lifetime. With that said, American politics are about a relatively small group of "swing voters" who may have none of the above qualities. Trump won by whipping up the base, not broadening the base.
EDIT II: While I have my issues with this study, it does seem to show a 2:1 dislike of Free Trade deals. See chapter 9.
That correlates with another report I was reading which showed that working class whites who were facing significant financial hardships voted more for Clinton... those who voted for Trump actually tended to be somewhat better off and did so based on "cultural anxiety"... which IMO is just a euphemism for "straight up racism" and/or religious bigotry;
I think that is the same study.
Beyond Economics: Fears of Cultural Displacement Pushed the White Working Class to Trump | PRRI/The Atlantic ReportIf you look at the specific questions it is highly subjective. You may be right, but I would not use this study as a "fact" to support your statements.
But doesn't "Trump won by whipping up the base, not broadening the base" contradict your "it's all the economy" argument? Because I would absolutely agree with that statement.
Since I never claimed "it's all the economy", I can't really speak to contradictions about that. I would say that economic issues are probably the most important overall, but I don't think that is a controversial statement.
I will say (again) that Clinton spent much of her time and energy talking about jobs and the economy. This time was essentially wasted, because Bill Clinton has an very bad reputation about jobs and the economy among most voters, especially in areas that were hit hard by neo-liberal globalization, such as the mid-west. She did not make any major efforts to distance herself from those policies. She even said, "[Who will fix the economy?] my husband, who I will put in charge of revitalizing the economy 'cause he knows what he's doing." To wealthy democrats, that means booming stock market and tech. To everyone else, that means closed down factories, and boarded up stores on main street.
Is it time to be worried about the 1st Amendment NOW?I'd tell you... but it might get me arrested.
Too soon. ;-)
Personally, I'm becoming convinced that a substantial number of Americans don't actually care about freedom, the Constitution, or living under authoritarian rule...just as long as their side "wins."
If so, we really are lost.
Is it time to be worried about the 1st Amendment NOW?
No. Come on. You reach past security you're going to jail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It plummeted right after.
That is the Clinton legacy in a nutshell.
I will happily concede that Clinton was better then Reagan and both the Bushes, however they all played important parts in preventing economic gains from being enjoyed by anything other then the wealthy.
Clinton presided over some of the most massive deregulation of Wall Street. He also signed free trade agreements that cost the working class tremendously, while also benefiting the rich tremendously. He kicked millions off welfare, and helped put millions in prison. The tech bubble itself was one of the largest transfers of wealth to the 1% the world has ever known.
Don't get me wrong. I think Clinton was better then Reagan and Bush. Reagan/Bush deserve more of the blame for the declines and stagnation. However, both parties were pushing many of the same economic policies, and while most folks on the 'Left' seem cognizant of how bad those policies were when done by Republicans, they seem all to willing to defend the same things from Dems.
I just skimmed the article, but it seems a good summary of these issues from a source that is friendly many Democrats:
Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more
Robert Reich
No of course not. The 1st Amendment is stronger than ever. Trump is stopping the government from violating people's first amendment right to religious freedom to discriminate against LGBTs.
And the freedom to donate large sums of money to politicians is intact, so I don't see what you're complaining about.
And I'm sure the right of Nazis to speak on campus without interruption will also get some attention.
It all depends on how you look at it.
I genuinely can't tell if you're being serious... (Poe's Law and all that).
Also if you film security sicking attack dogs on peaceful protesters.Is it time to be worried about the 1st Amendment NOW?No. Come on. You reach past security you're going to jail.
that you are NOT supposed to go to jail for.
|
|
Is it time to be worried about the 1st Amendment NOW?No. Come on. You reach past security you're going to jail.
Maybe in North Korea.
The rest of the world... just no.
There is no 'protected airspace' around a person.
There is no 'protected airspace' around a person.
... Yes. There is. Seriously. If you run up to me and stand an inch away from my nose you're going to be asked to move, and then moved. If you run up to an important politician, who say, has reason to believe they're in particular fear of their lives that week, security is going to haul you out back. Its not some attack on freedom of speech it's security doing it's job. You can ask questions from 10 feet away or from behind the red ropes or from outside the brute squad and its not going to impact the press' ability to do their job
I kind of am. Not that I support any of those things of course. But others do and they defend them on 1st Amendment grounds.
I know we've had those rights on paper throughout the country's history and their actual existence has varied wildly. The actual words on paper have done little to ensure people could actually execute them.
I care very little for Constitution Rights in the abstract. Much for some applications of them in practice. I'm wholeheartedly opposed to other applications defended by Constitutional Right claims.
We have the rights we're willing to fight for. The Bill of Rights can be a weapon in that fight, but it's hardly the most important one. If we rely on "but it says here ...", we lose. And it's a double-edged weapon, that can be wielded against the people as easily as for them. Too much reverence for such Rights leads to us accepting absurdities in the name of those Rights.
The fact that someone, somewhere tries to justify doing something based on a Bill of Right claim doesn't mean that all Bill of Rights claims are created equal. We can argue about where to draw the line, but if we can't agree there is a line, then anarchy is the inevitable result. The whole concept of the rule of law goes right out the window.
To me, arresting a reporter for asking questions is a pretty clear-cut case. Freedom of the press is called out specifically.
None of this is to say that the only thing that matters is the Bill of Rights. I don't think I even implied that.
Is it time to be worried about the 1st Amendment NOW?I'd tell you... but it might get me arrested.Too soon. ;-)
Personally, I'm becoming convinced that a substantial number of Americans don't actually care about freedom, the Constitution, or living under authoritarian rule...just as long as their side "wins."
If so, we really are lost.
For some people in America, this is how our country has always been. You're not complaining about something that's "new". You're complaining about something that might get directed at you for the first time.
For some people in America, this is how our country has always been. You're not complaining about something that's "new". You're complaining about something that might get directed at you for the first time.
You keep saying that, but it isn't correct. None of this is "directed at me." It's directed against the very concepts of objective truth and accountability in government.
Do you feel like YOUR rights are in jeopardy?
Because you've referenced that you are considering moving for your own safety, so if I'm mistaken in this regard, please correct me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't feel like your rights are in jeopardy, you're not paying attention!
|
|
There is no 'protected airspace' around a person.... Yes. There is. Seriously.
No, there isn't. Legally.
If you run up to me and stand an inch away from my nose you're going to be asked to move, and then moved.
At which point I'd be 'guilty' of rudeness and you'd be guilty of misdemeanor assault.
If you run up to an important politician, who say, has reason to believe they're in particular fear of their lives that week, security is going to haul you out back.
...and then let you go because you committed no crime.
Its not some attack on freedom of speech it's security doing it's job.
You're inflating the fact that security can usually get away with manhandling people (e.g. 'we felt it was necessary for safety purposes') into a law against 'invading personal space'. There is no such law. You cannot be arrested for merely approaching more closely than someone wants you to.
Note that in this case the charge was "willful disruption of government processes"... though in fact he didn't disrupt anything... they ignored him and continued walking (which is now apparently a "government process"). A trumped up charge on a ludicrously vague statute because there just isn't anything real to charge him with.
At which point I'd be 'guilty' of rudeness and you'd be guilty of misdemeanor assault.
No. I would not. That is "wtf are you doing?" behavior, which can reasonably be considered a threat. The duty to retreat varies from state to state, but putting someone at arms length is a pretty reasonable use of force for someone purposefully standing way to close to you given the circumstances.
...and then let you go because you committed no crime.
Quite possibly. But criminal statues are broad enough for discretion to apply.
You're inflating the fact that security can usually get away with manhandling people (e.g. 'we felt it was necessary for safety purposes') into a law against 'invading personal space'. There is no such law. You cannot be arrested for merely approaching more closely than someone wants you to.
He was attempting to physically push past security. If it had been a basketball game, he would have gotten the foul. Security can (and its their job to) stand there. No, you can't do that.
A trumped up charge on a ludicrously vague statute because there just isn't anything real to charge him with.
Look, i'm all for freedom of the press and not exactly a fan of the current adminstration. But you can't dress in black rappel off the roof of the white house swing in the glass doors to the oval office and say "A QUOTE MISTER PRESIDENT! FREEEEDDDOOOOM!" There's no limit to what you can write there are limits on where you can physically be. The goons squad made that line pretty clear, he pushed it to far and can spend a night in jail till he gets bailed out. Its not some overaching trend or even a new development
Save the outrage for the real cases of trying to squelch the press. More are coming.
|
|
He was attempting to physically push past security.
I haven't seen that even alleged in any of the news write ups. It certainly does not appear in the official arrest report.
Security can (and its their job to) stand there. No, you can't do that.
Yes, they can prevent you from getting 'too close'. They just can't arrest you for doing so... because it isn't a crime.
Look, i'm all for freedom of the press and not exactly a fan of the current adminstration. But you can't dress in black rappel off the roof of the white house swing in the glass doors to the oval office and say "A QUOTE MISTER PRESIDENT! FREEEEDDDOOOOM!"
Not exactly the case here.
Save the outrage for the real cases of trying to squelch the press.
By all accounts this reporter didn't do anything more than dozens of reporters do every day in the normal course of their profession... follow after a source loudly asking questions while trying to get their recording device close enough to capture a response.
Regular journalism. Not illegal.
Ignore him. Block him. No problem. That is normal. Arrest him? No. That's b@#&%@&+. No crime was committed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you feel like YOUR rights are in jeopardy?
Because you've referenced that you are considering moving for your own safety, so if I'm mistaken in this regard, please correct me.
I'm concerned for everyone's rights..including my own. That's the whole point. Is that point somehow less valid because it's being made by a white heterosexual male?
Save the outrage for the real cases of trying to squelch the press. More are coming.
No doubt MORE are coming. But that doesn't make this not one.
Seriously...wtf did you think the government was going to say, besides he was "disruptive"? That's so vague as to be completely meaningless. All signs were that this guy was arrested for asking the wrong questions, then refusing to be ignored. In other words, being a reporter.
Sorry, but that's a very real case of trying to squelch the press.
Do you feel like YOUR rights are in jeopardy?
Because you've referenced that you are considering moving for your own safety, so if I'm mistaken in this regard, please correct me.
I'm concerned for everyone's rights..including my own. That's the whole point. Is that point somehow less valid because it's being made by a white heterosexual male?
Consider carefully what I'm saying. I'm saying that rights being taken away from people is a reality for decades and centuries. Does that mean I think you shouldn't be concerned about rights being taken away?
When you discuss the possibility of fleeing the country because of how things are right now, you're saying that the country was just fine before. We've always lived in a country that oppresses people and you didn't consider leaving until recently.
Perhaps instead of leaving, consider giving assistance to people who have been resisting oppression for decades.
When you discuss the possibility of fleeing the country because of how things are right now, you're saying that the country was just fine before.
No, I'm not. I'm not even implying it. DOES. NOT. FOLLOW.
All I'm saying is that this is the worst I've ever seen it.
When you discuss the possibility of fleeing the country because of how things are right now, you're saying that the country was just fine before.No, I'm not. I'm not even implying it. DOES. NOT. FOLLOW.
All I'm saying is that this is the worst I've ever seen it.
I'm suggesting to you that things haven't really changed that much, just your perception of it.
Do some searches for police abuse of journalists in 2015 and 2014. You'll see plenty of stories that are a lot worse than one you linked recently. Look up the history of civil forfeiture and how it's abused in cities like Philadelphia. This stuff has been going on for years.
I'm suggesting to you that things haven't really changed that much, just your perception of it.
Do some searches for police abuse of journalists in 2015 and 2014. You'll see plenty of stories that are a lot worse than one you linked recently. Look up the history of civil forfeiture and how it's abused in cities like Philadelphia. This stuff has been going on for years.
Yes, horrible things have been done before, and, in case you haven't noticed, I've often spoken out against them. But the sort of brazen, systemic corruption and disregard for, well, ANYTHING that has been displayed by the Trump Administration is completely unprecedented in my lifetime. If you want to write it off as more of the same, that's your prerogative, but I think you are mistaken. I also think that's what Mr. Trump is counting on.
In any case, I could certainly do without (what I perceive to be) the insinuation that I'm simply blinded by my own privilege. :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps instead of leaving, consider giving assistance to people who have been resisting oppression for decades.
No one resists oppression harder then Comrade Anklebiter!
In fact, I heard he's raising money to resist oppression right now...
Yes, they can prevent you from getting 'too close'. They just can't arrest you for doing so... because it isn't a crime.
Either is punching someone that's just punched you, but you're still going to jail until they sort that out.
Not exactly the case here.
Okay, so now that we've established that freedom of the press is not the freedom for the press to be wherever and do whatever they want...
By all accounts this reporter didn't do anything more than dozens of reporters do every day in the normal course of their profession... follow after a source loudly asking questions while trying to get their recording device close enough to capture a response.
With his Android smartphone in hand to use as an audio recorder, Mr. Heyman said in an interview on Wednesday, he reached over some of the staff and security members surrounding Mr. Price. Linky
Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, was with Mr. Price, and at one point in the recording, a man’s voice is heard saying: “Do not get close to her. Back up.”
Kudos to the guy for bravery. I've had my hand in a wolfs jaws and i still wouldn't get within 20 feet of Conway. I don't mess with necromancy...
You can call it a case of overactive security if you want to, but he was doing more than loudly asking questions. He got arrested for being pushy. Occupational hazzard. Suck it up. It's not some overaching conspiracy to silence the truth or stop him from publishing.
They don't need to do that. Facts and reality don't matter. They're not the least bit secret about what they're doing. They go on tv and admit they're lying, they publish a bullet point tax plan that spells out "all money to the rich" , and push a healthcare bill that says "here's 8 billion for shovels, you're going to need them" Reporters aren't a problem when your supporters live in an alternate reality.
All we need now is kissinger back in the white house and the nixon comparison will be comple...and there he is.
|
|
You can call it a case of overactive security if you want to...
Overactive police.
Again, security stopping him is fine. Police arresting him is not. There was no valid charge.
Do police abuse their authority like this all the time? Yes, though less often with journalists than the public in general. That doesn't make it any less an abuse.
Do police abuse their authority like this all the time? Yes, though less often with journalists than the public in general. That doesn't make it any less an abuse.
That is not remotely abuse. Don't demean the word. Save it for actual abuse, like when they arrest people for what they print. Or laughing at the press secretary...
There is no journalistic requirement to be at 4 feet instead of 12. There's a line of security, stay on the other side of it. He went over it. How is security supposed to do their job if they're busy playing post up with the paparazzi? He's the one disturbing the meeting, with more than words, so the police removed him. To have the legal authority to do that, its easier if they just go ahead and arrest him and let the judge sort it out.
Its not a trend, its not systemic abuse, its not silencing reporters, its not shutting down their newspaper. "Eh buddy, thats too close back it up..." he was warned, he was told he was too close, he has no valid reason to be that close and he got his butt thrown out. That's it.
|
|
That is not remotely abuse.
If false arrest is not an abuse of power then this country is done.
He's the one disturbing the meeting, with more than words, so the police removed him.
You continue to base your position on things that did not happen.
There was no meeting.
They were walking. In a public building. The reporter had just as much right to be there as they did.
Its not a trend, its not systemic abuse, its not silencing reporters, its not shutting down their newspaper. "Eh buddy, thats too close back it up..." he was warned, he was told he was too close, he has no valid reason to be that close and he got his butt thrown out.
You also keep going back to things which aren't in dispute.
Again, YES, security can block the press.
THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS ARRESTING SOMEONE ON A FALSE CHARGE.
If false arrest is not an abuse of power then this country is done.
False arrest doesn't mean you didn't do it. It means someone knew you didn't do it and got you arrested for it anyway. The statute is broad enough that he was probably violating it, but the real reason for his removal was he wasn't listening to security. You are too close to the person i'm protecting is security's call to make
You continue to base your position on things that did not happen.
Whether they were moving or not is not the basis for my position. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the person with the security detail belongs there.
They were walking. In a public building. The reporter had just as much right to be there as they did.
The guy with a security detail pretty obviously works there, and is proceeding from point A to point B. They are allowed to do that, you are not allowed to block them.
THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS ARRESTING SOMEONE ON A FALSE CHARGE.
It's not a false charge. Its a very broad statute. He was a problem and needed to be removed, so he was removed.
Hmm... looking at the latest poll numbers, it looks like Trump's hit a disapproval rating of about 58% - which is, what, pretty much all Democrats and Independents? (I've heard some off-hand citations that most elections are for the ~20% of swing voters)
...
I admit, I'm curious to see if the disapproval rating keeps rising.
Hmm... looking at the latest poll numbers, it looks like Trump's hit a disapproval rating of about 58% - which is, what, pretty much all Democrats and Independents? (I've heard some off-hand citations that most elections are for the ~20% of swing voters)
...
I admit, I'm curious to see if the disapproval rating keeps rising.
538 has him around ~53 disapproval. That's really high, but it seems like the republican core base still supports him. I am not sure what he would have to do to inch him past 60%. Nothing else he has said and done so far seems to be impacting the Republican base.
|
|
Nothing else he has said and done so far seems to be impacting the Republican base.
If you look further in the data there are indicators that he IS starting to lose his base.
His approval:disapproval margin among the non-college educated whites who tipped the election his way has dropped from 57:38 to 47:46... a 19 point spread down to just 1. Those 'strongly' approving of him has also dropped to just 25%, while 51% strongly disapprove.
|
Police arrest folks all the time for "obstruction". It can be beat in court 90% of the time if you got the cash to fight it (which most poor folks do not.) This admin is pro police so they are not going to shy away from tossing some annoying reporter in the clink for a night. Sad, but its no different than ten or even a year ago. Things suck right now but id love to hear how they suck more than 2000 under GWB.
In other news, the st olaf MN university "windshield note" turned out to be fake. These cases are really damaging to equality movements and I wish folks would knock it the f off.