Sessions supported Trump long before anyone else did. Apparently this attack on him is really bothering other loyalist. I'm sure many are wondering who will be next and for what reason.
Trump bans shemales from the military: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html Ladyboys are just too expensive and too distracting.
This sums up my thoughts on Sessions' loyalty pretty well: http://www.dailywire.com/news/18955...m_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro
Link is to William Browder's statement prior to testifying about why attacking the Magnitsky Act is so important to Putin and Russia...and, hey look...Veselnitskaya, the female lawyer that met with Don Jr. and Kushner and Manafort just coincidentally turns out to be connected to that effort. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/07-26-17 Browder Testimony.pdf
New York Post got it right a few days ago. Scaramucci is out. The next person out will probably be Sessions or Tillerson.
Sessions needs to go. I can't think of any redeeming thing he has done since becoming AG. 100% bad, outdated ideology.
Nazis are bad The KKK is bad The Confederacy was bad Driving while black not punishable by death Extreme viewpoints from the radical alt-left
The big problem I have with the free speech argument when it comes to hate groups like the Nazis or the Klan: I don't think they're actually interested in having a conversation. They just want to incite violence and cause chaos. It's similar to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater.
The entire basis of the free speech argument is that people will make asses of themselves without any outside help. Let a Nazi speak and everyone will hear just how stupid their ideas are. Punch a Nazi and you have now committed political violence and created a victim of that violence. Perfect example of this is from Charlottesville. The video of their uninhibited night march was far more damning for their movement than the video from the next day where they are getting beaten with sticks by protesters.
That's why I have mixed feelings about this. The VICE interview actually got them talking, and exposed them for the huge scumbags they are. I think it also revealed to the world that this new wave of White Nationalism is basically the same as the old one. The problem is when they had their rally in Charlottesville, they murdered someone. In Boston, they were quickly run out of town by a massive non-violent group, and nobody got killed. So I guess the answer is get them talking in a more controlled setting like an interview so people can hear how dumb their ideas are, and when they do try to incite violence in a public place, respond with massive non-violent protests that run them out of town. Trying to brawl with them like Antifa is not the answer. It just makes you look bad. Free speech does have limits. You can't use it to incite violence. Fighting words are not protected speech. Inciting chaos like yelling fire in a theater is not protected speech. And in protected cases, it just protects you from arrest. It doesn't mean that people actually have to listen to your crap. What comes out of the Nazis and the Klan seems to be mostly fighting words, which is not protected speech. In summary: Having an interview with a reporter from VICE where you express your ideas = protected free speech Going to the center of town in Nazi regalia with a gun and yelling "all Niggers must die!" = fighting words = not protected speech
I can agree up to point. The problem comes when we have to define what crosses the line. Its the primary problem I have with concepts like "hate speech" or "punching Nazis" is who defines those terms? Obviously, if a person says they want genocide, its a bit more clear cut. However, I've been accused of racism and promoting hate speech before for simply for raising criticism of BLM conduct during their riots in Missouri. Just this week, I made a comment that I disagree with political violence on both the left and right, and I was called a "Nazi sympathizer." Do I deserve to be silenced for dissenting opinion because someone attaches an inaccurate label to me? I am certainly no Nazi, and I'm not interested in anyone whom promotes ethnic states, but yet I was thrown into that pool because someone didn't like my opinion. Does a guy with a confederate flag shirt deserve to be punched? Does a guy flying a Blue Lives Matter flag deserve to have his home vandalized? Does a woman in a MAGA hat deserve to be assaulted? I'm generally libertarian, so don't agree with any of the ideas those symbols are associated with, but I don't want to see the people confronted by violent groups. And I definitely don't ever want their speech to be a prosecutable offense, which will be the ultimate goal of anti- free speech protests. If it just ended at shouting down offensive ideas, that is perfectly fine and acceptable, because every freedom comes with consequences, but that is not where this is going to end. We already know where this goes based on European and Canadian laws that are on the books. My biggest concerns in any political situation is violence and expansion of government authority, and we are headed towards both at an alarming rate.
His quote isn't even accurate. There is no obligation by anyone to even acknowledge other beliefs. I am perfectly within my rights to ignore people if I choose. The question here is are we required to tolerate beliefs or not. Do people have a right to shitty opinions or do shitty opinions warrant a physical response? Who decides which opinions are shitty enough?
The answer is of course no. Violence is not the answer. But that being said, I don't feel the least bit bad for people like this. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. I also suspect that people who do this kind of stuff usually do it to provoke a negative response. Then they try to act like victims when it happens. Which goes back to what I said about fighting words not being protected by the First Amendment.
Also, fun sort of related story. My grandfather liked keeping trophies from the Nazis he killed in WW2. His platoon killed some Nazi officers during the Battle of the Bulge, so he had a large silk headquarters swastika flag. Years later, when my uncles were small children, it was the Fourth of July and people in the community had flags out. My uncles found the flag in the attic and were too young to know what the swastika meant, so they hung it out front of their house. My grandfather saw what they had done and immediately took the flag down, poured gasoline on it, and set it on fire. He regretted destroying something of historical value, but also knew people would be angry and probably throw stuff at their house if they saw it. In the 1950s in rural Vermont it wasn't socially acceptable to be a Nazi or have Nazi shit on display. You'd get your ass kicked for it. Why do people think it's acceptable now?