I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong...but do you have source material to back any of these claims up? Specifically about which states have characterized the "alt-right" as such, and maybe some more about how they're organized.
Quote:
In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum last year of 382 law enforcement agencies, 74 percent reported anti-government extremism as one of the top three terrorist threats in their jurisdiction; 39 percent listed extremism connected with Al Qaeda or like-minded terrorist organizations. And only 3 percent identified the threat from Muslim extremists as severe, compared with 7 percent for anti-government and other forms of extremism.
The self-proclaimed Islamic State’s efforts to radicalize American Muslims, which began just after the survey ended, may have increased threat perceptions somewhat, but not by much, as we found in follow-up interviews over the past year with counterterrorism specialists at 19 law enforcement agencies. These officers, selected from urban and rural areas around the country, said that radicalization from the Middle East was a concern, but not as dangerous as radicalization among right-wing extremists.
An officer from a large metropolitan area said that “militias, neo-Nazis and sovereign citizens” are the biggest threat we face in regard to extremism. One officer explained that he ranked the right-wing threat higher because “it is an emerging threat that we don’t have as good of a grip on, even with our intelligence unit, as we do with the Al Shabab/Al Qaeda issue, which we have been dealing with for some time.” An officer on the West Coast explained that the “sovereign citizen” anti-government threat has “really taken off,” whereas terrorism by American Muslim is something “we just haven’t experienced yet.”
Last year, for example, a man who identified with the sovereign citizen movement — which claims not to recognize the authority of federal or local government — attacked a courthouse in Forsyth County, Ga., firing an assault rifle at police officers and trying to cover his approach with tear gas and smoke grenades. The suspect was killed by the police, who returned fire. In Nevada, anti-government militants reportedly walked up to and shot two police officers at a restaurant, then placed a “Don’t tread on me” flag on their bodies. An anti-government extremist in Pennsylvania was arrested on suspicion of shooting two state troopers, killing one of them, before leading authorities on a 48-day manhunt. A right-wing militant in Texas declared a “revolution” and was arrested on suspicion of attempting to rob an armored car in order to buy weapons and explosives and attack law enforcement. These individuals on the fringes of right-wing politics increasingly worry law enforcement officials.
Law enforcement agencies around the country are training their officers to recognize signs of anti-government extremism and to exercise caution during routine traffic stops, criminal investigations and other interactions with potential extremists. “The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”
"An officer from a large metropolitan area said that “militias, neo-Nazis and sovereign citizens” are the biggest threat we face in regard to extremism. One officer explained that he ranked the right-wing threat higher because “it is an emerging threat that we don’t have as good of a grip on, even with our intelligence unit, as we do with the Al Shabab/Al Qaeda issue, which we have been dealing with for some time.” An officer on the West Coast explained that the “sovereign citizen” anti-government threat has “really taken off,” whereas terrorism by American Muslim is something “we just haven’t experienced yet.”"
Really?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yamer
Even though he says he only wanted steak and potatoes, he was aware of all the rapes.
What's oddest is the case people make for Trump (like Buster did) is that he's "anti-establishment", but as we've all deducted that's not even close to true and if anything he's as establishment as it gets. I think for the most part the argument that you'll see the most for supporting Trump is that he's not Hillary. Or that he'll "fight for America", again ignoring the large amount of evidence that first and foremost he's going to fight for himself. He'll sell out his supporters to get what he really wants, everything is a negotiation as he likes to say. I do think hatred of Hillary is the biggest driver though.
For me to claim that Clinton is a great friend of the banks is not the same as me saying that Trump is not establishment. Although Clinton as an entrenched beltway operator is certainly the more establishment of the two. You might see a picture of Clinton if you looked up the word.
Trump is anti-establishment with respect to the Rupublican party, certainly.
I don't really consider him anti-establishment in any general sense - although that is the inferred claim when people complain about him. Many of the Trump-ophobes complaints about him are regarding his unpredictability on policy.
Isn't this a case that there is an objectively right choice.
First of all, no - there's no "objective" answer to the question "what makes a good president".
I would say that Clinton is the obviously better choice, and it's not at all close, but that is contingent on my criteria for what makes a good president. The right choice is always going to be subjective. It only becomes objective when you assume that the standards by which a candidate should be judged are X, Y and Z, which no one is really going to agree on. Granted, most of us can agree that whatever X Y and Z are, Trump fails all three, but that doesn't make Clinton the objectively right choice.
Second and more importantly, that's not what I was talking about. Haidt has three central theses, and a bunch of other interesting points that he makes, but probably the central one is that human beings use reason and evidence only as a supplement to their intuitive moral beliefs. Essentially, decide what they think and then look for justification, rather than approaching an issue by asking "let's look at the evidence for either side and decide which I agree with". The Coates article was predictably awful given who wrote it, but those for whom it reflects their already-ingrained views thought it was important and interesting. Of course they did.
You've mistaken the alt-right for ultra-right-wing nationalists. These are different things.
That's not to say there isn't some overlap, because there is, but they are distinct movements. If you want to understand who the alt right is you basically need to look at their descriptions of themselves and what they stand for... except that the problem is that you can't really trust their own accounts because there's a decent chance any such self-description is going to be full of trolling braggadacio. There are a few articles that actually describe the phenomenon without virtue signalling if you look around.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 09-13-2016 at 09:28 AM.
Trump is anti-establishment with respect to the Rupublican party, certainly.
No he's not. Stop with that insanely wrong line of thinking. The GOP will be giving him bills to sign. If he gets a total deregulation of the banks and financial systems on his desk, do you really think he's not signing it? If you do, you're delusional. When he gets bills defunding Planned Parenthood and ending the assault weapons bans, do you think he vetoes them? Basically, do you think he will veto anything the GOP puts on his desk? I guarantee you he won't. Which makes him the establishment.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
No he's not. Stop with that insanely wrong line of thinking. The GOP will be giving him bills to sign. If he gets a total deregulation of the banks and financial systems on his desk, do you really think he's not signing it? If you do, you're delusional. When he gets bills defunding Planned Parenthood and ending the assault weapons bans, do you think he vetoes them? Basically, do you think he will veto anything the GOP puts on his desk? I guarantee you he won't. Which makes him the establishment.
This is wrong. Congress will be giving him bills to sign, not the GOP. Will he sign a bill de-funding planned parenthood? I have no idea. Will he sign a bill restricting gay rights? I have no idea. Will he sign a bill calling for widespread new spending on some social program or other? I have no idea. But it should be obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand that the Republican establishment cannot stand Trump and would have taken literally any other Primary contender over him. The only way he managed to secure a tenative truce with leadership was by taking on their VP choice.
A Trump presidency would basically be the end of the GOP as we know it. Really, that Rubicon might already have been crossed at this stage.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
This is wrong. Congress will be giving him bills to sign, not the GOP. Will he sign a bill de-funding planned parenthood? I have no idea. Will he sign a bill restricting gay rights? I have no idea. Will he sign a bill calling for widespread new spending on some social program or other? I have no idea. But it should be obvious to anyone who doesn't have their head in the sand that the Republican establishment cannot stand Trump and would have taken literally any other Primary contender over him. The only way he managed to secure a tenative truce with leadership was by taking on their VP choice.
A Trump presidency would basically be the end of the GOP as we know it. Really, that Rubicon might already have been crossed at this stage.
And who is going to be in control of Congress? Jesus Christ Corsi you can be extremely dense at times. And you do realize the GOP establishment isn't against him anymore right? Look at who he's putting in his inner circle and cabinet: A lot of GOP establishment. They know they can control him, they see W part 2. Don't bury your head in the sand.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
And who is going to be in control of Congress? Jesus Christ Corsi you can be extremely dense at times.
You're the one suggesting that he's a part of an establishment that just spent over a year doing its level best to get rid of the guy, and I'M being dense?
Sure, it's going to be a GOP-controlled congress, but a democratically controlled Senate. I suspect he's going to get a variety of bills coming across his desk and I haven't even the slightest clue what he's going to do with most of them. If you assume Pence is going to have most of the influence over policy matters, then yeah, Pence is pretty clearly a GOP establishment figure. But he's there as a counterbalance to Trump, who isn't, by any stretch of the imagination.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong...but do you have source material to back any of these claims up? Specifically about which states have characterized the "alt-right" as such, and maybe some more about how they're organized.
It should be noted, that the SPLC's database and monthly reports are highly relied up by the FBI, law enforcement agencies and fusion centers across the country. I would provide details and quotes, but those bulletins have an information label that prevents sharing specific content. Unlike Clinton I won't disseminate that information except to confirm what is already public knowledge, that the bulletins exist. The FBI does identify their partners in combating hate crime though.
It should be noted that the hardcore alt-righters try to distance themselves from Breitbart, and his band of idiots (Milo and Allum), but they acknowledge the importance of having a mainstream publication that provides a voice to their movement.
This is a map that shows the spread of these groups across the nation.
More
Some articles explaining more about the alt-right and dispelling the notion that the alt-right is a bunch of anti-PC scalliwags with a black sense of humor.
From one of source itself, the whitewashed alt-right manifesto. Breitbart's Steve Bannon admits that his publication is the platform for the alt-right.
You're the one suggesting that he's a part of an establishment that just spent over a year doing its level best to get rid of the guy, and I'M being dense?
Sure, it's going to be a GOP-controlled congress, but a democratically controlled Senate. I suspect he's going to get a variety of bills coming across his desk and I haven't even the slightest clue what he's going to do with most of them. If you assume Pence is going to have most of the influence over policy matters, then yeah, Pence is pretty clearly a GOP establishment figure. But he's there as a counterbalance to Trump, who isn't, by any stretch of the imagination.
I'm suggesting Trump is a grifter. You surely aren't disagreeing with that are you? Serious question: Do you think Trump is deeply interested in doing all the policy wonk stuff, or do you think he wants to have rallies and presser and stand in front of "Mission Accomplished" signs? He doesn't care about policies, IMO all he cares about are getting laws passed that personally benefit him, namely the estate tax and real estate laws and regulations. He doesn't care about anything else. Donnie Jr apparently already offered Kasich control of domestic and foreign policy when they talked VP. He'll be a puppet, and the evidence he will be is plentiful.
You are intentionally taking a contrarian view for the sake of doing it. And no it's not going to be a Dem controlled Senate, if Trump wins the GOP will 99% likely control both chambers. There aren't enough senate seats truly in play this time, look at the polls. Trump hasn't hurt downballot like expected, probably because Hillary is such a bad candidate. Swap Biden in and maybe we can talk Dems winning the Senate. Trump is George W. Bush. That people want to ignore all the signs is on them.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I find it odd that two of the major complaints about Trump are incompatible:
1. "He's a loose cannon! Completely unpredictable. He gonna mash that nuke button and send us all to the moon!"
2. Trump is a horrible demagogue republican establishment hack that will be very predictable in establishing core Republican values in the next administration.
I'm suggesting Trump is a grifter. You surely aren't disagreeing with that are you? Serious question: Do you think Trump is deeply interested in doing all the policy wonk stuff, or do you think he wants to have rallies and presser and stand in front of "Mission Accomplished" signs? He doesn't care about policies, IMO all he cares about are getting laws passed that personally benefit him, namely the estate tax and real estate laws and regulations. He doesn't care about anything else.
Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, he's a grifter, and you're probably right that he doesn't care about anything but his brand. Pence might end up running the country. That would mean that the GOP establishment is basically running the country.
This is a different claim than "Trump is an establishment figure"; he's not. He beat the establishment, and now they have to reach some sort of compromise with him to get their agenda through. I don't even know if that's going to work, given how erratic Trump is; he might sign a bill, have everyone call him a puppet and then do something entirely anti-GOP just to assert himself and stroke his own ego. As you said, he's a con man, the Republican leadership don't trust him, nor should they.
Again, I have basically no idea what he'll do if he's actually elected, which is downright frightening. Regardless, even if they do get the White House, Congress and Senate (it seems to me that the latter isn't the foregone conclusion you think it is), the current GOP establishment has been badly damaged by this whole saga, perhaps irreparably.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Now we're getting somewhere. Yes, he's a grifter, and you're probably right that he doesn't care about anything but his brand. Pence might end up running the country. That would mean that the GOP establishment is basically running the country.
This is a different claim than "Trump is an establishment figure"; he's not. He beat the establishment, and now they have to reach some sort of compromise with him to get their agenda through. I don't even know if that's going to work, given how erratic Trump is; he might sign a bill, have everyone call him a puppet and then do something entirely anti-GOP just to assert himself and stroke his own ego. As you said, he's a con man, the Republican leadership don't trust him, nor should they.
Again, I have basically no idea what he'll do if he's actually elected, which is downright frightening. Regardless, even if they do get the White House, Congress and Senate (it seems to me that the latter isn't the foregone conclusion you think it is), the current GOP establishment has been badly damaged by this whole saga, perhaps irreparably.
Going backwards....the senate will be under GOP control if Trump wins. I actually cannot see a single scenario where he wins and they don't have control of the House and Senate. Could the Dems win the Senate? Yes, but I give it a 1% chance if Trump wins the White House. Highly, highly unlikely we see a split if Trump wins. Very likely we see one if Hillary wins.
As far as "establishment" goes, if he does whatever the GOP wants, what does that make him other than establishment? Is calling him an establishment puppet better than simply calling him establishment? To me there isn't any difference. He is beholden to them and won't challenge them. Bernie would have been anti-establishment, because he would have proposed ideas that would have made a lot of centrist Dems buck. Trump will do no such thing. Remember, he has no ideas or true policies. The GOP will fill in the blanks for him basically, and he'll sign the bills.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Well, the nice thing about these old threads is that they do give me some food for thought, and send me away with a bit of curiousity about a few things.
So first off, the Sullivan piece is a classic example of high philosophy wrapped in accessible essay style. The man is inimitable.
He has laid out Plato's argument quite well for the most pressing political issue of our time - the death of cosmopolitanism and the rise of the tribe at the expense of the republic or the public thing created specifically for the purpose of preserving a specific identity while still maintaining unity.
We have removed the buttresses of our republics - Christian dignity and liberal self-governance - and the result is an increasingly polarized factions fighting over the household - both economic and cultural conceptions.
Are we laying up for the disaster of tyranny though? I am not sure at all. Plato's concept of tyranny is actually nuanced, and has psychological and anthropological connotations shared by an entire culture of individuals. Certainly, this is probably most apparent in the techno-meritocracy of Silicon Valley.
Man, this is a lot to think about on a Tuesday morning, but last night, I went to the library, and took out a bunch of books. So I thank the posters in here for that.
