Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virtz]

OR MAYBE just maybe, hire a security company? one maybe not composed of crazy far-right gun-fuckers? those exist, you know. no one here is against security in principle, and you know that, and to continue talking about "oh boo hoo the lefties don't want them to have security" is fucking despicable of you.

So, this one Republican Party county chairperson thinks that Republicans oughta be using far right-militia types as security for public events.

I find it incredibly ironic that a government official (as low level as he is) wants to use a group that is anti-government. Obviously it's just one guy and may not represent an actual thing that is happening. Also, it was prompted by a question given by a The Guardian reporter, so, whether or not one might accuse liberal media of baiting with the question, you still have to ask yourself 'why is he answering it that way?'

Having private security stuff and groups like the ones mentioned in there (or Hells Angels even) for the Republicans is going to go nowhere good.

Yeah, ok, Descan. Sure. Nobody here is speaking negatively about hiring any kind of private security.

You're also taking the word of some single low-tier scrub as actual announcement of intent. It's like giving a shit what Zhirinovsky said the given week. Stop making the American left look any more outrage-happy than it already is.

The US government already provides security at events.  Most venues such as stadiums either have their own private security or won't object to speakers bringing their own.

You don't need 10, 50, 100 dudes with AR15s to provide security at events.  A dozen mall cops, or a dozen real cops, or a failing that the full riot squad, that's security.  A right wing militia, that's intimidation.

The thing is we've already gone down this path in America a bunch of times.  The Pinkertons, the worse examples of political machines, company towns, that one gold rush boom town run by a conman.  Hell, the actual police for most of our history.  Its awful every time.  Democracy only works if the spooks and the soldiers don't show up to the electoral process and to the protests.  Wannabe military cheerleaders, for this one thing, still count as soldiers.

I mean hell, this same conflict of interest has been playing out in the Middle East for years.  People in Iraq actually need militias, that's part of why its so hard to externally impose democracy in Iraq and similar countries.  Why would you want to bring all those problems to a place where there is no need for militias?  And yes, there really is no need for militias, as much as the gun nuts would like to pretend the US is a war zone with a failed state it most definitely is not.

How's that working out so far?

[Descan]

...?

I'm taking the word of a low-tier scrub as actual announcement of the intent of that self-same low-tier scrub. I don't think that this guy is going to get Donald Trump to hire the The League of Super Evil Gun-Fuckers to secure his events, but I can still yell at the guy who actually said that's what he wants?

Also, okay, I was wrong, SMJ is a bit of an idiot or poorly-worded what he meant, that doesn't change the rest of what I said.

(ily smj plz no haet)

[EnigmaticHat]

Then people would cry about SCARY PRIVATE MILITARY ARMIES ON AMERICAN SOIL COUP IMMINENT. There's either the right to freely associate whatever security they damn well please, or there isn't.

Freedom of assembly is not an unlimited right, neither is freedom of speech.  Intimidation and the threat of violence are not, and have never been, covered by either of those things. In particular, while freedom of speech is near-unlimited in the specific arenas in which it applies, freedom of assembly has never been anywhere near that broad.  As long as local governments give all citizens an avenue to publicly assemble for nonviolent purposes in timely manner, they have pretty wide powers to restrict freedom of assembly and its totally within the constitution.  Even groups like KKK and anti-gay groups have a sacred right to protest, but they still need a license like everyone else.

I mean come the fuck on, do you show up to court date with an AR15 and then shout about the second amendment when you get arrested?  Would you tell a cop you're going to shoot someone and then claim free speech when you go to jail?  No, of course not.  But showing up to a political disagreement in numbers and openly armed, I'm sure the constitution has your back on that one.  That's not even getting into how scary it is that a politician can have non-security guard, private employees that are armed.  Private armies literally and ambiguously ARE a feature of totalitarianism.  Your strawman has a point.

[Virtz]

...?

I'm taking the word of a low-tier scrub as actual announcement of the intent of that self-same low-tier scrub. I don't think that this guy is going to get Donald Trump to hire the The League of Super Evil Gun-Fuckers to secure his events, but I can still yell at the guy who actually said that's what he wants?

Also, okay, I was wrong, SMJ is a bit of an idiot or poorly-worded what he meant, that doesn't change the rest of what I said.

(ily smj plz no haet)

If you really consider them the words of a single low-tier idiot and not the words of the actual Republican party, then shouting "fascism" and "oh no, the nazis are coming" over the words of a single low-tier guy is a bit extreme, don't you think?

Then people would cry about SCARY PRIVATE MILITARY ARMIES ON AMERICAN SOIL COUP IMMINENT. There's either the right to freely associate whatever security they damn well please, or there isn't.

Freedom of assembly is not an unlimited right, neither is freedom of speech.  Intimidation and the threat of violence are not, and have never been, covered by either of those things. In particular, while freedom of speech is near-unlimited in the specific arenas in which it applies, freedom of assembly has never been anywhere near that broad.  As long as local governments give all citizens an avenue to publicly assemble for nonviolent purposes in timely manner, they have pretty wide powers to restrict freedom of assembly and its totally within the constitution.  Even groups like KKK and anti-gay groups have a sacred right to protest, but they still need a license like everyone else.

I mean come the fuck on, do you show up to court date with an AR15 and then shout about the second amendment when you get arrested?  Would you tell a cop you're going to shoot someone and then claim free speech when you go to jail?  No, of course not.  But showing up to a political disagreement in numbers and openly armed, I'm sure the constitution has your back on that one.  That's not even getting into how scary it is that a politician can have non-security guard, private employees that are armed.  Private armies literally and ambiguously ARE a feature of totalitarianism.  Your strawman has a point.

And where does failure to react to violent protesters by regular security fit into it? Or are you just going to conveniently ignore that?

[Max™]

Just to touch back on the TSA bit, I'd expect terrorists consider it a bit of a win that people have to go through so much discomfort, hassle, harrassment, molestation, theft, detainment, and so forth just because of potential new absurd terrorism methods. In internet terms that is what one would call a successful troll.

Regarding militia... I'm a Texan, I still operate under the assumption that I shouldn't pull a gun unless I'm willing to a: shoot someone, and b: get shot at, because c: in Texas it's safe to assume at least one of the people roaming around in public you can see is armed.

Similarly, being from the Dallas area, I can understand why a politician might feel the need to have good security.

Yet, due to the VAST difference between the little pocket of blue in the Dallas area and the sea of red elsewhere, I know enough to say "good security" doesn't include "paranoid innawoods militiamen" or "hate crimes waiting for a thin veneer of legitimacy" ever.

[hector13]

...?

I'm taking the word of a low-tier scrub as actual announcement of the intent of that self-same low-tier scrub. I don't think that this guy is going to get Donald Trump to hire the The League of Super Evil Gun-Fuckers to secure his events, but I can still yell at the guy who actually said that's what he wants?

Also, okay, I was wrong, SMJ is a bit of an idiot or poorly-worded what he meant, that doesn't change the rest of what I said.

(ily smj plz no haet)

If you really consider them the words of a single low-tier idiot and not the words of the actual Republican party, then shouting "fascism" and "oh no, the nazis are coming" over the words of a single low-tier guy is a bit extreme, don't you think?

Why does it matter that he's a low-tier scrub? He is a representative of the Republican party who has said he is willing to look into hiring paramilitaries to provide security for political events. That's something fascists do. Nobody, far as I can tell, has said he Nazis are coming, just saying that hiring paramilitaries is literally fascist, and not something a reasonable person should want to see happening.

Re: regular security not dealing with violent protesters: does this mean both sides need to have an arms race to see who has the bigger, better paramilitaries? If the regular security you've hired doesn't do what they're being paid to do, you perhaps go "I don't think we'll hire them again" and go with someone else. The actual police, for example.

[Max™]

Yeah, I do kind feel bad for wasting the nazi card in the past when a republican has actually pulled a page out of a nazi handbook.

[Lord Shonus]

Why does it matter that he's a low-tier scrub? He is a representative of the Republican party who has said he is willing to look into hiring paramilitaries to provide security for political events.

While this has been said before, it bears repeating. Political parties in the US are extremely decentralized, informal, and affiliation is defined solely by what people declare their affiliation to be. This particular person has little more connection with the Republican Party as a whole than you do - if you declare yourself to be a Republican, you will have exactly the same connection.

[smjjames]

...?

I'm taking the word of a low-tier scrub as actual announcement of the intent of that self-same low-tier scrub. I don't think that this guy is going to get Donald Trump to hire the The League of Super Evil Gun-Fuckers to secure his events, but I can still yell at the guy who actually said that's what he wants?

Also, okay, I was wrong, SMJ is a bit of an idiot or poorly-worded what he meant, that doesn't change the rest of what I said.

(ily smj plz no haet)

Don't call me an idiot, dood....

I did try to emphasize that it's just one person (and probably some other locals) and that it doesn't mean the whole Republican party is doing it. Also, later I (and the article seems to have missed it too) realized that the guy may have been trying to be sarcastic.

[Max™]

[People who can jokingly suggest policies Hitler favored] [Republicans]

[EnigmaticHat]

...?

I'm taking the word of a low-tier scrub as actual announcement of the intent of that self-same low-tier scrub. I don't think that this guy is going to get Donald Trump to hire the The League of Super Evil Gun-Fuckers to secure his events, but I can still yell at the guy who actually said that's what he wants?

Also, okay, I was wrong, SMJ is a bit of an idiot or poorly-worded what he meant, that doesn't change the rest of what I said.

(ily smj plz no haet)

If you really consider them the words of a single low-tier idiot and not the words of the actual Republican party, then shouting "fascism" and "oh no, the nazis are coming" over the words of a single low-tier guy is a bit extreme, don't you think?

Then people would cry about SCARY PRIVATE MILITARY ARMIES ON AMERICAN SOIL COUP IMMINENT. There's either the right to freely associate whatever security they damn well please, or there isn't.

Freedom of assembly is not an unlimited right, neither is freedom of speech.  Intimidation and the threat of violence are not, and have never been, covered by either of those things. In particular, while freedom of speech is near-unlimited in the specific arenas in which it applies, freedom of assembly has never been anywhere near that broad.  As long as local governments give all citizens an avenue to publicly assemble for nonviolent purposes in timely manner, they have pretty wide powers to restrict freedom of assembly and its totally within the constitution.  Even groups like KKK and anti-gay groups have a sacred right to protest, but they still need a license like everyone else.

I mean come the fuck on, do you show up to court date with an AR15 and then shout about the second amendment when you get arrested?  Would you tell a cop you're going to shoot someone and then claim free speech when you go to jail?  No, of course not.  But showing up to a political disagreement in numbers and openly armed, I'm sure the constitution has your back on that one.  That's not even getting into how scary it is that a politician can have non-security guard, private employees that are armed.  Private armies literally and ambiguously ARE a feature of totalitarianism.  Your strawman has a point.

And where does failure to react to violent protesters by regular security fit into it? Or are you just going to conveniently ignore that?

It doesn't fit into that because its not a significant problem.  Possibly excepting antifada but I'm intentionally not having an opinion on them because no one has ever given me a convincing explanation as to who or what they actually are (don't try to change it, I've heard too many opinions and too much speculation, I'm just waiting for a really good expose from a major news organization).

For years every single liberal protest has been a riot.  Bernie Sanders supporter lifts up a chair at a DNC event and big time journalists including at CNN report it as a riot.  Now every Trump rally has a violent liberal protester that needs to be thrown out.  It was bullshit before and its bullshit now.  I never called Bush or McCain supporters violent.  I've never claimed that the Republican presidential candidates of recent history espoused violence or that their supporters have been uncommonly violent.  Very few on the left did.  The reason we're saying Trump espouses violence and Trump supporters are uncommonly violent is because we call it as we see it.  Whereas people on the right, at least when it comes to the violent/non-violent protest issue, call it like they want it.  So you'll have to forgive me if I'm not impressed by the evidence that we should upend our democracy over this "problem" that has been fake for my entire lifetime.  Yeah, every time thousands (or, heh, millions) of people show up to a protest someone's going to do something dumb and nowadays its going to be filmed.  That does not a riot make.

[Virtz]

...?

I'm taking the word of a low-tier scrub as actual announcement of the intent of that self-same low-tier scrub. I don't think that this guy is going to get Donald Trump to hire the The League of Super Evil Gun-Fuckers to secure his events, but I can still yell at the guy who actually said that's what he wants?

Also, okay, I was wrong, SMJ is a bit of an idiot or poorly-worded what he meant, that doesn't change the rest of what I said.

(ily smj plz no haet)

If you really consider them the words of a single low-tier idiot and not the words of the actual Republican party, then shouting "fascism" and "oh no, the nazis are coming" over the words of a single low-tier guy is a bit extreme, don't you think?

Why does it matter that he's a low-tier scrub? He is a representative of the Republican party who has said he is willing to look into hiring paramilitaries to provide security for political events. That's something fascists do. Nobody, far as I can tell, has said he Nazis are coming, just saying that hiring paramilitaries is literally fascist, and not something a reasonable person should want to see happening.

Re: regular security not dealing with violent protesters: does this mean both sides need to have an arms race to see who has the bigger, better paramilitaries? If the regular security you've hired doesn't do what they're being paid to do, you perhaps go "I don't think we'll hire them again" and go with someone else. The actual police, for example.

I don't think hiring paramilitaries as security is part of the definition of fascism.

Modern police are afraid to do much of anything in response to protesters, because that tends to earn them bad press, even if they try and go after the violent ones, which is often times impossible since those just do the deed and then run back into the crowd. And certain groups of protesters are assholes who will help hide the violent ones amongst nonviolent ones and even discourage narcing, basically leaving police legally helpless. It doesn't get any easier for private security either.

Also, the video Playergamer linked to showed riot police on site. That was apparently not enough.

I don't think paramilitaries themselves would legally help matters either, though. At most they'd be crazy enough not to care for the legal consequences and maybe serve as a deterrent. Probably not, though.

It doesn't fit into that because its not a significant problem.  Possibly excepting antifada but I'm intentionally not having an opinion on them because no one has ever given me a convincing explanation as to who or what they actually are (don't try to change it, I've heard too many opinions and too much speculation, I'm just waiting for a really good expose from a major news organization).

For years every single liberal protest has been a riot.  Bernie Sanders supporter lifts up a chair at a DNC event and big time journalists including at CNN report it as a riot.  Now every Trump rally has a violent liberal protester that needs to be thrown out.  It was bullshit before and its bullshit now.  I never called Bush or McCain supporters violent.  I've never claimed that the Republican presidential candidates of recent history espoused violence or that their supporters have been uncommonly violent.  Very few on the left did.  The reason we're saying Trump espouses violence and Trump supporters are uncommonly violent is because we call it as we see it.  Whereas people on the right, at least when it comes to the violent/non-violent protest issue, call it like they want it.  So you'll have to forgive me if I'm not impressed by the evidence that we should upend our democracy over this "problem" that has been fake for my entire lifetime.  Yeah, every time thousands (or, heh, millions) of people show up to a protest someone's going to do something dumb and nowadays its going to be filmed.  That does not a riot make.

"We are unbiased. It is they who are biased."

Ok. And based on what do you "call it as you see it"? That a media article wrote so? That someone said some hurtful words? As far as I've seen (and admittedly I don't follow this too closely, I have my own country's right-wing populists to worry about), most recorded incidents have involved left-wing groups and individuals.

[Strife26]

And forum survey says: nope. Right to assembly is limited only to the "good guys".

Thanks for your participation.

[Dorsidwarf]

is somebody seriously arguing that hiring an extremist armed group to "event security" is a politically neutral act.

I mean obviously its not "lol america nazis now" but the point people are making is that for all people joke about "lol the other side are nazis", armed volunteer 'protection groups' are a notable feature of the start of any fascist movement and pointing that out is hardly doomsaying.

[smjjames]

...?

I'm taking the word of a low-tier scrub as actual announcement of the intent of that self-same low-tier scrub. I don't think that this guy is going to get Donald Trump to hire the The League of Super Evil Gun-Fuckers to secure his events, but I can still yell at the guy who actually said that's what he wants?

Also, okay, I was wrong, SMJ is a bit of an idiot or poorly-worded what he meant, that doesn't change the rest of what I said.

(ily smj plz no haet)

If you really consider them the words of a single low-tier idiot and not the words of the actual Republican party, then shouting "fascism" and "oh no, the nazis are coming" over the words of a single low-tier guy is a bit extreme, don't you think?

Why does it matter that he's a low-tier scrub? He is a representative of the Republican party who has said he is willing to look into hiring paramilitaries to provide security for political events. That's something fascists do. Nobody, far as I can tell, has said he Nazis are coming, just saying that hiring paramilitaries is literally fascist, and not something a reasonable person should want to see happening.

Re: regular security not dealing with violent protesters: does this mean both sides need to have an arms race to see who has the bigger, better paramilitaries? If the regular security you've hired doesn't do what they're being paid to do, you perhaps go "I don't think we'll hire them again" and go with someone else. The actual police, for example.

I don't think hiring paramilitaries as security is part of the definition of fascism.

Modern police are afraid to do much of anything in response to protesters, because that tends to earn them bad press, even if they try and go after the violent ones, which is often times impossible since those just do the deed and then run back into the crowd. And certain groups of protesters are assholes who will help hide the violent ones amongst nonviolent ones and even discourage narcing, basically leaving police legally helpless. It doesn't get any easier for private security either.

Also, the video Playergamer linked to showed riot police on site. That was apparently not enough.

I don't think paramilitaries themselves would legally help matters either, though. At most they'd be crazy enough not to care for the legal consequences and maybe serve as a deterrent. Probably not, though.

It doesn't fit into that because its not a significant problem.  Possibly excepting antifada but I'm intentionally not having an opinion on them because no one has ever given me a convincing explanation as to who or what they actually are (don't try to change it, I've heard too many opinions and too much speculation, I'm just waiting for a really good expose from a major news organization).

For years every single liberal protest has been a riot.  Bernie Sanders supporter lifts up a chair at a DNC event and big time journalists including at CNN report it as a riot.  Now every Trump rally has a violent liberal protester that needs to be thrown out.  It was bullshit before and its bullshit now.  I never called Bush or McCain supporters violent.  I've never claimed that the Republican presidential candidates of recent history espoused violence or that their supporters have been uncommonly violent.  Very few on the left did.  The reason we're saying Trump espouses violence and Trump supporters are uncommonly violent is because we call it as we see it.  Whereas people on the right, at least when it comes to the violent/non-violent protest issue, call it like they want it.  So you'll have to forgive me if I'm not impressed by the evidence that we should upend our democracy over this "problem" that has been fake for my entire lifetime.  Yeah, every time thousands (or, heh, millions) of people show up to a protest someone's going to do something dumb and nowadays its going to be filmed.  That does not a riot make.

"We are unbiased. It is they who are biased."

Ok. And based on what do you "call it as you see it"? That a media article wrote so? That someone said some hurtful words? As far as I've seen (and admittedly I don't follow this too closely, I have my own country's right-wing populists to worry about), most recorded incidents have involved left-wing groups and individuals.

A lot of recent (as in the past two years or so, basically the entire campaign up to now) ones have been, but there have also been clashes between right wingers and left wingers. Trying to argue who started it for every specific incident is going to be fruitless because both sides will say the other started it.

It doesn't help that Trump has been using rhetoric to label all protestors as if all of them are violent.

Of course though, what about incidents outside of 'protestors at a Trump rally'? Protestors and clashes are nothing new.

And yeah, the media has been using the term 'riot' a bit too loosely perhaps.

is somebody seriously arguing that hiring an extremist armed group to "event security" is a politically neutral act.

I mean obviously its not "lol america nazis now" but the point people are making is that for all people joke about "lol the other side are nazis", armed volunteer 'protection groups' are a notable feature of the start of any fascist movement and pointing that out is hardly doomsaying.

A local GOP representative making a dumb choice does not make a fascist movement. The Nazis actively did the armed volunteer groups as a whole, so, is the GOP doing it as a whole? no. If the Republicans started doing it actively as a policy over a large area such as statewide or at the Congressional level, THEN I'd start being worried.