The Political Thread

[Modern Panther]

if anyone has any news sources to add please let me know.

In response to the "it's not a Muslim ban" argument...

Trump, prior to election stated that he would introduce a ban on Muslims immigrants.  Here he is doing it...

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/06/13/donald-trump-orlando-attack-muslim-ban-nr.cnn

So shortly after election, Trump assembles a team to look at how to do it.  Here's Rudolph Giuliani explaining it it was put to him as part of a propaganda broadcast...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jPnKYyjIRcw

"He first announced it and said "Muslim ban".  He called me up and said "put a commission together and show me how to do it legally.".

[Modern Panther]

In local news, I've just received a glossy, full colour, A4, four page leaflet from a local politician.  There is only one mention of the party they a member of.  It's about size six font at the foot of a block of text and it says...

(Scottish Conservative and Unionist)

It's a little reassuring that they're ashamed of themselves.

[Frank]

47% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction.

51% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump's job performance.

There's so much hatred for Trump in the media, both mainstream and alternative, but these numbers don't seem to reflect this

Rasmussen only contact confirmed voters, rather than a representative sample of the general population, since their aim is to predict the results of elections, not take the temperature of the nation as a whole. Their final poll had Clinton ahead of Trump by 2%, which is what actually happened, although they got the totals wrong.

All of that is perfectly legitimate, but their data doesn't support the idea that the US population in general is supportive of the new administration. Even Rasmussen's own numbers show 35% of those polled Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing versus 41% who Strongly Disapprove. The other quarter are presumably Meh.

Different pollsters use different methods; for what it's worth, Rasmussen's numbers are outliers:


Economist  -   46  49   -3
PPP (D)      -   44  50   -6
Quinnipiac  -  39   52   -13
Fox            -  42   55   -13
Rasmussen -  52   48   +4
Reuters      -  50   50   Tie
CBS           -  32   42   -10
ABC           -  40   54   -14
CNN           -  44   53   -9
NBC           -  38   48   -10
Monmouth  -  35   45   -10

[Professor Bear]

Scotland has other parties?  When did this happen?

[Modern Panther]

Scotland in fact has 3 political parties.  The "SNP", the "Greens" and the "Not the SNP Party".

The Not the SNP Party is divided into three main factions:

The Ruth Davidsons (whose principle Ruth is the Ruth of more Ruth), the rotting corpse of Labour, and Willie Rennie.  The main goal of the Not the SNP Party is to oppose every single thing the SNP proposes, even when they agree with it. 

[The Legendary Shark]

Pretty sure Hitler didn't personally kill any Jews. 'Technically' not a monster?

Nice trolling, there - trying to get me to say something you can misrepresent as a defence of Hitler when you know very well I was pointing out the difference between ordering murder and actually committing murder.

"You are both a Grade-A nutcase and a colossal
arse. Welcome to my 'ignore' list. Doubtless,
you will be proclaimed the new Mayor of the
forum in short order."

[M.I.K.]

Shark, you are reading far too much into Mr. Campbell's posts based on your pre-existing opinion of him. That is not what he was doing.

[Jim_Campbell]

Nice trolling, there - trying to get me to say something you can misrepresent as a defence of Hitler when you know very well I was pointing out the difference between ordering murder and actually committing murder.

I was doing no such thing. I was asking whether responsibility for those carrying out an order rests solely on the shoulders of those carrying out that order, or whether those issuing the order bear responsibility for  knowable and/or intended consequences of those orders. I believe that they do.

After the previous mess this thread got us all into, I'd be very careful where you go with this. I was treated to a one-week ban also, despite having been on the receiving end of some flagrant trolling (not by you, I hasten to add) which I reported and on which no action was taken. I'm not keen to repeat the experience.

[The Legendary Shark]

Previous experience, M.I.K., I'm afraid - he knows how to push buttons and I'm sick of it.

Whatever, my online experience is now Jim-free, something I've resisted for ages because it feels like a poor option but now it seems like the only sensible thing to do - probably for everyone's sake.

[Theblazeuk]

But handcuffed children doesn't technically make Trump a monster - unless he's the one who physically slapped them on.

All this was doing was applying your logic to another well-known case of 'only following orders' rather than an attempt to push buttons. Missed a pretty amicable response from Jim by the way.

I think wielding executive power so callously is worse than being the tool that must carry out those orders. Trump has clearly never heard Uncle Ben's pearls of wisdom.

[Prodigal2]

Nice trolling, there - trying to get me to say something you can misrepresent as a defence of Hitler when you know very well I was pointing out the difference between ordering murder and actually committing murder.

I was doing no such thing. I was asking whether responsibility for those carrying out an order rests solely on the shoulders of those carrying out that order, or whether those issuing the order bear responsibility for  knowable and/or intended consequences of those orders. I believe that they do.

After the previous mess this thread got us all into, I'd be very careful where you go with this. I was treated to a one-week ban also, despite having been on the receiving end of some flagrant trolling (not by you, I hasten to add) which I reported and on which no action was taken. I'm not keen to repeat the experience.

The judgement at Nuremberg would strongly confirm your judicial analysis.

On an aside from Jim's post and referring back to some earlier posting, as someone who had a serious dalliance with the extreme right in his youth I am extremely grateful for people engaging with me and discussing the issues.

[Steven Denton]

Previous experience, M.I.K., I'm afraid - he knows how to push buttons and I'm sick of it.

Whatever, my online experience is now Jim-free, something I've resisted for ages because it feels like a poor option but now it seems like the only sensible thing to do - probably for everyone's sake.

The ignore function is actually ok. It just hides the persons posts when you are logged in, but you can see they have posted and expand if you wish. I was pretty disappointed at first but then realised that the extra time it takes actually slows me down. I still read as many posts as I ever did but now that replying has that extra step, I find I'm a lot less quick to get involved and to be honest it's only this thread that winds me up. 

[The Legendary Shark]

Blaze, this is at the core of what I believe. Yes, ordering a person to commit a crime is bad but not as bad as committing the crime because of orders. If I told someone* to stick his finger in the fire, whose fault is it if their finger gets burned? If I tell someone to pull a trigger, whose fault is it when the trigger is pulled? The main fault is in the action itself. It doesn't matter if the person telling you to do something is me, your priest or your president - what you do is your own personal responsibility. Nobody has the right to order you to do an unlawful thing - all they can do is ask, suggest, cajole, lie or hint.

This, of course, leads to some pretty disturbing implications - at least it does for me. It means that supporting government means supporting all government does. There are things in this world I cannot and will not support - from turning people out on the streets in this country to dropping bombs on people in other countries. "Yes, but, libraries and hospitals" is not a valid counter-argument. No matter how much I support the existence of libraries and hospitals I cannot lump that support together with the rest. The second a government or leader commits violence against another person - be that theft or murder - then it/they have no more rights than any common criminal. This is why I cannot and will not support the government in its current form, for to do so means supporting actions that go against my personal morality. I won't steal or murder and certainly won't support any person or body doing these things in my name or on my behalf. Yes, I like hospitals and libraries but I won't condone or support people stealing from others in order to provide them for me - to support a thief, to benefit from theft, is as bad as being a thief.

If some government official orders me to do something against my will or morality then I'm not going to do it. Period. I'll go to jail first. I'll die first. That's because the officials issuing the orders aren't using their own powers to achieve whatever goal they want, they're trying to usurp my personal power. And if it is in my power to commit whatever crime I'm being ordered to commit then it is also within my power to not do as I'm told. Indeed, individuals saying "no" is the greatest power there is and the only thing governments are afraid of, which is why they present themselves as being "in power" so vigorously.

The act is worse than the order to act. People know this (if I told you to stick your finger in the fire...) but choose to believe otherwise because it's easier, more convenient. As soon as people believe that others have the right to order them to do anything at all, they abdicate all responsibility for their own morality, their own rights and their own powers. Then along comes a Hitler, or a Stalin, or a Trump and the weak-willed fall under their spells like Pavlov's dogs.

Well, not this dog. This dog bites back.

Thanks for mentioning Nuremberg, Prodigal. Although it was in some ways a show trial it did raise significant points and demonstrate the importance of not blindly following orders.


*When I say "someone" here I refer to a normal, properly functioning human being. Ordering someone with a mental disability, or an undeveloped mind, to do wrong is a different argument in which the order is worse than the action.

[Jim_Campbell]

Yes, ordering a person to commit a crime is bad but not as bad as committing the crime because of orders.

I didn't suggest that being ordered to do something reprehensible absolves the person carrying out that act of responsibility. I was saying that ordering people to do monstrous things makes the person issuing the order a monster, not that the people carrying out those orders aren't.

(Edit: I know Shark won't see this, but I feel it's important to clarify my position given that I think he's mis-characterising what I said. Also: the suggestion that I would somehow lay a 'trap' in order to claim that someone, anyone, supported Hitler is one to which I take particular exception.)

[Goaty]

In the Times today;