Republican Politician Shot: Steve Scalise

[Napoleon the Clown]

Update on Steve Scalise's current condition:...snip....

In summary, he suffered significant internal bleeding when the bullet fragmented upon entering his hip. His condition is improving, but he's still in really rough shape. Bleeding has been stopped, but he's going to have an extensive hospital stay.

Just to clarify further, based on what I (admittedly a layperson, but an informed one) know is typical of such injuries:

Most likely, both sides of his pelvic girdle have been shattered. That is, broken into multiple pieces. That will likely affect his ability to walk for the rest of his life, assuming it doesn't eliminate walking entirely.

"Damage to internal organs" usually means damage to bladder and bowel. This can range from "merely" serious and requiring removal of poritions of both, to complete destruction of the bladder (requiring an alternate means of handling kidney drainage for the rest of his life) and removal of major portions of bowel which will require at least a temporary colostomy, and perhaps a permanent one.

Managing infection - because with this sort of wound bowel contents i.e. shit and urine will have spilled into the abdominal cavity - will be a major, major concern for the near future.

There is a significant likelihood of sexual dysfunction for the rest of his life.

Depending on where, exactly, bullet fragments traveled he could also have damage to his kidneys, stomach, spleen, pancreas.... basically, everything below the rib cage. There have even been instances of ribs being fractured by fragments of bullets entering at the hip, as well as heart and lung damage.

Of course, I have no way of knowing his exact injuries but most likely Scalise is going to be permanently disabled to one degree or another for the rest of his life, and also likely a chronic pain patient. This sort of injury is typically a tragedy for both the individual and the family. "Life-changing" is also another typical euphemism. Even now, survival is not a sure thing. A lot depends on what happens in the next month.

I'm glad it seems the other injured are not so grievously damaged and on their way to recovery.

Roughly what I was figuring on his fate to be. Bullets going through any part of the abdomen is quite bad, because much of the abdomen is filled with organs of at least moderate importance. Lower abdomen, where the bowels are... Yeah, I'm betting on there being significant damage to his intestines.

He's definitely going to be receiving the best possible treatment, no expense spared, at every stage hereafter. If only everyone could have that...

[Simon_Jester]

I would argue that we're a lot better off relying on the law to keep violence off the table.

Imagine saying "I don't like what this obnoxious fratboy is saying and he's talking about pouring goop on my car, I'm going to beat him up!"

Now, maybe if you win, you end up in a better outcome than you would have gotten by other means. If nothing unexpected goes wrong with the "beat him up" plan, you win. There is an ideal world where your 'pre-emptive strike' works.

But you have no guarantee of winning the fight with the fratboy. Even if you win, you have no guarantee of thriving in the long term conditions where things like assault charges come into play. You certainly have no guarantee of thriving in the long term conditions where this becomes a habit and you routinely assault people who offend against you.

Your argument basically boils down to there not being a guarantee of success when no one would rightly think in that ideal scenario. There are risks involved in any situations...

My argument is that acting as if a violent "short, victorious war" would solve things is delusional. It wouldn't. It's not just that it's risky, it's that it's fucking stupid-risky. It's embracing a higher cost in the event of failure, and very possibly a higher probability of failure, in exchange for no increase in the odds of success or the rewards for succeeding.

It's like saying "kicking this door with my foot isn't opening it, I'm going to try ramming my head into the door!" Because well, that's change, right? It'll make things different, and any difference would be an improvement! Because the situation isn't already better already, and parts of it are horrible, so changing it will make the horrible parts better, right?

Well, no. Instead of being locked out of the room you're trying to get into, you can be locked out of the room you're trying to get into after receiving a concussion.

Instead of a world where left-wing protestors are occasionally driven violently away from right-wing politicians, we can have a world where they are 'accidentally' shot because 'we thought they were an assassin,' and nobody says much about it because 1% of the time they are assassins.

Instead of a world where unarmed blacks are shot by the police at a rate of hundreds per year, we can have a world in which they are shot at a rate of thousands per year. As a consequence of, say, ten times more actual deliberate violence being thrown at the police, resulting in them throwing ten times as much violence back.

Instead of a world where the police round up right-wing militias when they threaten people, we can have a world where the police enlist them as neighborhood protection or whatever to 'help maintain order,' a thing which has happened before when it is left-wing militias that are disturbing the peace.

Just now in the case of Philando Castile, he never had the chance to fight back and now his murderer is considered free from ever going to prison. The law was too late for him from the start.

You think that less innocent minorities would be killed, if there were active political violence on both sides? In a situation where there was open warfare involving, presumably, groups of armed minorities actively hunting police, engaging in terrorism against government offices, or otherwise "fighting back" using the tools of violence?

Hint: if that were true, Iraq would be safer for Iraqis today than Baltimore is for African-Americans. It isn't so.

Alternatively, your reply can be "FUCK NUMBERS I WANT JUSTICE!"

In which case you are a useless blob of rage and will serve neither justice, nor vengeance, nor your own side in general, because you don't have a side. You're just another blob of rage. I recognize that sometimes blobs of rage coalesce and destroy civilization- but I refuse to acknowledge it as a good thing or even a vaguely legitimate thing.

Modern liberal civilization works, works in the empirical sense that it creates greater degrees of freedom, wealth, and collective achievement than any competing system. But it works through means that are subtle and sometimes hard to understand on an instinctive level. In particular, it does NOT work through raw animalistic violence directed against its internal enemies.

Unless you're the oppressed, then you just have to continue to take your lumps from the white man. It just goes back to one of Ralin's points, it's ok and works as long as you're one of the safe ones. For everyone else, there is no recourse, but to wait and hope you don't get lynched beforehand.

The people who aren't on the lynch mobs and prefer nonviolence to violence have a much higher chance of restraining the lynch mobs, than the people targeted by the lynch mobs.

3% or 8% or 13% of the population, scattered across an entire country, does not and cannot successfully rise up and destroy their oppressors by organizing a violent movement that spits on nonviolent allies (as you are in the process of doing). My point is not even that this is immoral, my point is that this does not work.

Trying to destroy your enemies by force when you are badly outnumbered is an incredibly stupid idea. If you think the vast corporate and governmental engines of oppression are bad NOW... This is what it's like when 90% of the people in those engines DON'T actively desire your death as a positive good. You're just collateral damage to them, by and large.

You don't want to know what it looks like when the people in the engines decide you're actually their enemy.

I want to break the engines too- but it's not going to happen as a result of you standing up, roaring, waving your fists, and bellowing "HULK SMASH!" as though you weren't outnumbered five or ten or twenty to one. You cannot break the engines that way. All you can do is break the systems that, without your knowledge, were protecting you from them.

You can run a feudal state that way, you can run a grey oppressive dictatorship that only gradually runs itself into the ground that way. You can't run a functional modern democracy that way. And fantasies about purging the state of your political enemies really are fantasies. What will actually end up happening if you try it is very different from what you think will happen.

So saying "why don't we fight as dirty as we think our enemies are going to fight?" is a very dysfunctional approach to trying to win any kind of a long term struggle. Your best-case realistic scenario is destroying the thing you were fighting over, and it only gets worse from there.

That is if we are a "functioning democracy". Democrats outright admit they don't mind rigging primaries for their preferred candidate. Republicans gerrymander district lines to consolidate power, require a poll tax in the form of an ID, etc.

If a functioning democracy means we are able to exist in a stable form of oppression where rights are continually eroded, then I am pretty sure I don't want to live in your version of it. There will come a breaking point and peaceful actions (in which at least one state is trying to make it illegal atm) will not be enough.

Apparently, give me liberty or give me death is too much for the modern human. Or maybe it's just blacks that get to be six feet under.

Buddy, if you think this is what it looks like when a truly undemocratic state truly sets out to for real oppress people it actually views as enemies...

You have a sad, rude awakening in front of you.

[Soontir C'boath]

Again, you're depicting a movement that you think on your own reckoning to be piss poor or wouldn't have consequences. You act as if the chance of victory must be 100% with very little casualties to be had. Or is it that quiet deaths are better than the more immediate ones in front of you that you cannot ignore, but that's the issue isn't it? People dying without proper medical care or being lynched without consequences by those who act on it is apparently fine with you since it's not truly in your face.

Maybe you need to recall the fact that America was founded by resisting the British government that was taxing us without representation which at the time was a great Empire spanning the globe with very few manpower, poor resources, etc. We could have certainly very well have lost and suffered harsher consequences under British rule, but they took the risks and won. With people like yourself, perhaps we would have lost anyway. Or maybe we just have to fight over tea taxes again.

[Flagg]

Again, you're depicting a movement that you think on your own reckoning to be piss poor or wouldn't have consequences. You act as if the chance of victory must be 100% with very little casualties to be had. Or is it that quiet deaths are better than the more immediate ones in front of you that you cannot ignore, but that's the issue isn't it? People dying without proper medical care or being lynched without consequences by those who act on it is apparently fine with you since it's not truly in your face.

Maybe you need to recall the fact that America was founded by resisting the British government that was taxing us without representation which at the time was a great Empire spanning the globe with very few manpower, poor resources, etc. We could have certainly very well have lost and suffered harsher consequences under British rule, but they took the risks and won. With people like yourself, perhaps we would have lost anyway. Or maybe we just have to fight over tea taxes again.

The taxes perfectly justified given that the British empire spent a fuckton of money defending the colonies during the French and Indian War? Also known as the pretext for the real reason of the rebellion, that being expansion into the Ohio Valley?

[The Romulan Republic]

Again, you're depicting a movement that you think on your own reckoning to be piss poor or wouldn't have consequences. You act as if the chance of victory must be 100% with very little casualties to be had. Or is it that quiet deaths are better than the more immediate ones in front of you that you cannot ignore, but that's the issue isn't it? People dying without proper medical care or being lynched without consequences by those who act on it is apparently fine with you since it's not truly in your face.

Maybe you need to recall the fact that America was founded by resisting the British government that was taxing us without representation which at the time was a great Empire spanning the globe with very few manpower, poor resources, etc. We could have certainly very well have lost and suffered harsher consequences under British rule, but they took the risks and won. With people like yourself, perhaps we would have lost anyway. Or maybe we just have to fight over tea taxes again.

A revolution America would have fucking lost without Spanish and French aid.

Who, of any consequence, is going to fund a Left-wing revolt in the US? Maybe Putin... he'd happily play both sides against each other to weaken America if he thought he could get away with it.

And even when, after the better part of a decade of war, that revolution was successful, it still took years of trial and error before America had a semi-functional government- with major dysfunctions that it took a catastrophic civil war eighty years later to (partially) sort out.

And this is one of the more successful armed revolutions in history. There are other models one could use. Like the French Revolution, with it Reign of Terror followed by a decades-long cycle of "Monarchy restored, revolution, rinse and repeat". Or Russia, which gave rise to the Soviet Union (which later fell, only to be replaced by the authoritarianism of Putin). Or Egypt just a few years ago, which is pretty much back where they started pre-revolution.

But because America had a relatively successful armed revolution, which has been mythologized endlessly since then, a dangerous number of Americans have this fantasy that any problems they have with their government can be readily solved by a few Patriots With Guns.

Edit: And worse, some people seem to think that any problems with their government, or culture, should be solved with guns, regardless of weather they can or need to be. As if that is the proper "American" way to do it.

[Soontir C'boath]

Great, great, keep strawmanning and making your own shit assumptions on behalf ofyour opponent's. I'm done with that shit.

[Flagg]

Great, great, keep strawmanning and making your own shit assumptions on behalf ofyour opponent's. I'm done with that shit.

If that's directed at me, I'm more or less in agreement with you, I just set a higher bar (I think) for when violence is acceptable. My last response was just pointing out that the American Revolution is a really bad example.

[Soontir C'boath]

Great, great, keep strawmanning and making your own shit assumptions on behalf ofyour opponent's. I'm done with that shit.

If that's directed at me, I'm more or less in agreement with you, I just set a higher bar (I think) for when violence is acceptable. My last response was just pointing out that the American Revolution is a really bad example.

No, it wasn't at you.

Even with the taxes being justified, it wasn't done with representation in Parliament and while they managed to repeal the Stamp Act, that didn't prevent them from continually to pass other measures without their consent that continually brought the colonies to a boiling point of war. For a modern example, I really do damn wish the gas tax gets raised to pay for the roads, but in the end it's another regressive tax and people in general don't like it and should be able to voice their displeasure to their reps and be beholden to it. It's probably one of the few things our elected officials actually listen to, unfortunately as well.

And that's what I am arguing. It's not a matter of if violence is a viable option. It's when if the government don't pull their heads out of their asses and this includes as I said before the Democrats. I'm not being naive either and believe democracy has always been a shining beacon of liberty either, but there are continually changing expectations to what is to be had in a free society and the government will need to respond accordingly or else. Democracy being the best system or not.

[Flagg]

Great, great, keep strawmanning and making your own shit assumptions on behalf ofyour opponent's. I'm done with that shit.

If that's directed at me, I'm more or less in agreement with you, I just set a higher bar (I think) for when violence is acceptable. My last response was just pointing out that the American Revolution is a really bad example.

No, it wasn't at you.

Even with the taxes being justified, it wasn't done with representation in Parliament and while they managed to repeal the Stamp Act, that didn't prevent them from continually to pass other measures without their consent that continually brought the colonies to a boiling point of war. For a modern example, I really do damn wish the gas tax gets raised to pay for the roads, but in the end it's another regressive tax and people in general don't like it and should be able to voice their displeasure to their reps and be beholden to it. It's probably one of the few things our elected officials actually listen to, unfortunately as well.

I don't want to derail this into an American Revolution debate, so all I'll say is that what passed for "representation" in those days was very, very different than what it is now.

I think a better example for justified violence would be the Native American's use of it (not successful, granted) in resisting the taking of their lands, extermination of their food sources, etc.

[Soontir C'boath]

If that's directed at me, I'm more or less in agreement with you, I just set a higher bar (I think) for when violence is acceptable. My last response was just pointing out that the American Revolution is a really bad example.

No, it wasn't at you.

Even with the taxes being justified, it wasn't done with representation in Parliament and while they managed to repeal the Stamp Act, that didn't prevent them from continually to pass other measures without their consent that continually brought the colonies to a boiling point of war. For a modern example, I really do damn wish the gas tax gets raised to pay for the roads, but in the end it's another regressive tax and people in general don't like it and should be able to voice their displeasure to their reps and be beholden to it. It's probably one of the few things our elected officials actually listen to, unfortunately as well.

I don't want to derail this into an American Revolution debate, so all I'll say is that what passed for "representation" in those days was very, very different than what it is now.

I think a better example for justified violence would be the Native American's use of it (not successful, granted) in resisting the taking of their lands, extermination of their food sources, etc.

If you mean that we had as much representation then as Puerto Rico or DC does now currently sure, but that doesn't mean the evolving sentiment at the time to have representation should be discounted. For example, PR is continually having a referendum to try and become the 51st State. It's still highly unlikely even though it passed again recently, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored either.

But yea, I'll let it go from this post onward.

[Flagg]

More that "representation" meant white male land owners.

[The Romulan Republic]

Great, great, keep strawmanning and making your own shit assumptions on behalf ofyour opponent's. I'm done with that shit.

Was that directed at me? If so, what "assumptions" do you feel I made about you? What straw man?

Are you referring to my closing comment, about Americans who desire armed conflict as a solution to political problems? Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. That was a broader critique of American culture, not one directed specifically at you.

But don't let that stop you from puffing yourself up and acting offended to try to duck having to defend your arguments.

The rest, about how the American Revolution is not such a positive example of an outmatched force overthrowing a tyrannical government as you seem to think, that was directed at you, since you used the American Revolution as an example of such.

[Simon_Jester]

Again, you're depicting a movement that you think on your own reckoning to be piss poor or wouldn't have consequences. You act as if the chance of victory must be 100% with very little casualties to be had.

No, I don't.

My point is, when you have ample precedents of highly successful attempts to make things much less bad, without violent revolution...

And you have ample precedents of violent revolution failing horribly and causing massive death and suffering in exchange for very very little gain, or even NO gain...

You'd have to be a goddamn idiot to reject the former in favor of the latter.

Or is it that quiet deaths are better than the more immediate ones in front of you that you cannot ignore, but that's the issue isn't it? People dying without proper medical care or being lynched without consequences by those who act on it is apparently fine with you since it's not truly in your face.

You're just a charming little moogle-shaped blob of hate, aren't you?

Do you actually have an argument? Because it's starting to sound like your real argument is: "Simon thinks my violent fantasies about saving the oppressed through revolution against the oppressor are a stupid idea that will end badly. So he must be a terrible person who does not care about the suffering of the oppressed."

That ain't much of an argument. It's missing a lot of the intermediate steps, and the conclusion "therefore Simon is factually wrong" is missing too.

Oh, wait, here comes one now...

Maybe you need to recall the fact that America was founded by resisting the British government that was taxing us without representation which at the time was a great Empire spanning the globe with very few manpower, poor resources, etc. We could have certainly very well have lost and suffered harsher consequences under British rule, but they took the risks and won. With people like yourself, perhaps we would have lost anyway. Or maybe we just have to fight over tea taxes again.

The stated reason for the American colonies' revolt was, quite simply, no representation in Parliament. In that era, under those conditions, the colonists had no political voice. The government was three thousand miles and six weeks' travel away, there were no formal positions for accredited representatives of the colonies in that government. The closest the colonies had to a political voice was random private citizens crossing the Atlantic with the support and approval of various prominent colonial citizens- and they had little luck getting a hearing.

They had, quite literally, no way to even communicate their desires meaningfully to people in power.

Now, you're probably going to turn around and say 'well, women and gays and racial minorities and poor people today have no voice!' I'm going to respond to that in advance: No, they DO have a voice. This voice is not always listened to, but it exists. People opposed to the oppressive side of our society can organize, demonstrate, communicate, without this in and of itself being illegal. Here and there in specific instances something terrible happens to someone who does it, but the bare act of doing it is not considered inherent evidence that you are a criminal or a rebel against the state. Dissent is, in fact, allowed, and dissenters have the means to communicate among themselves and to other people who are willing to listen to them.

In Western democracies today, including the US, it is not illegal to say that your oppressed group of choice should have more rights, or to call the government tyrannical. These are not things that in and of themselves can and will get you arrested and convicted of a crime.

In 1775-era Britain, the only thing that would have kept all the Occupy Wall Street protestors out of jail would have been the government running out of jail cells, or running out of troops willing to throw protestors in jail. You can argue that the OWS protestors were not listened to, but that is different from having no legal means to air their grievances.

...

So basically, if your argument is "the American Revolution was a violent revolt against tyranny, and you probably think that it was a good thing..."

Well, the counter-argument that the revolution was not a good thing is over there- [points to Flagg and TRR]- and I'm not interested in joining or opposing it. But totally separate from that, compared to the laws on the books in 1775-era Britain to punish and control public expression, we live in a much freer society where there are many more realistic ways to achieve political reform without bloodshed. Taking the terrible risk of getting what you want by trying to kill all your political enemies has become, if anything, more dangerous... while trying to get what you want by persuading the public to give it to you has become safer and more productive.

Your analogy is deeply flawed. It is flawed because you are having trouble telling the difference between 'tyranny' and 'losing,' between the SS and the Ferguson police, between the brutal apartheid of the early 20th century that ended due to a civil movement that built up a popular consensus to support itself... And the web of grim, grey, economic misery that you hope can (somehow!) be blown away by a massive outpouring of violent revolt that will (somehow!) not provoke an equally violent and better funded counterrevolution.

If you think THIS is oppression, you have no idea how horrible oppression can really be, in the hands of a government and a majority of the population that really want your chosen oppressed group dead, or think their suffering is a positive good, or even just want all the shooting to stop so they can have peace and quiet again.

[Soontir C'boath]

It is rather unfortunate you wrote such a long post. I am stating for the case when the means through peaceful communication comes to a point where it no longer applies and therefore democracy isn't functioning. Meaning your solution is already out the window. Reading a bit of what Dragon wrote, I seem to be on similar grounds with him. Looking back, the first post you replied to me had me stating, "An uprising may have to be in the works not to make the same mistakes. Especially if the establishment Democrats in power keep their heads in their asses." Or in other words, the government no longer functionally listen to the people that you so demand we continue to do instead.

Believe it or not, I do believe in peaceful protests and contacting our elected officials because it can easily turn against us especially with a media that is complicit with the government to paint them as wrong as they possibly can. However, I am not going to also stand by and look around at what's happening and go, "yup a riot/uprising/etc is surely not going to happen among the people who may find themselves hopeless and discarded." either as what happened a couple years ago in Baltimore with Freddie Gray.

P.S.- I didn't really want to bother with TRR's reply because his whole speel was basically what I wrote.

We could have certainly very well have lost and suffered harsher consequences under British rule, but they took the risks and won. With people like yourself, perhaps we would have lost anyway. Or maybe we just have to fight over tea taxes again.

So, not sure why he had to point out that we only won because of French and Spanish and what not helped as if I didn't take that into consideration. But again in this thread reading comprehension seems to be a problem.

[Dragon Angel]

Reading a bit of what Dragon wrote, I seem to be on similar grounds with him her.

I thought I'd correct this for the record.

[Soontir C'boath]

Reading a bit of what Dragon wrote, I seem to be on similar grounds with him her.

I thought I'd correct this for the record.

Duly noted.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is rather unfortunate you wrote such a long post. I am stating for the case when the means through peaceful communication comes to a point where it no longer applies and therefore democracy isn't functioning. Meaning your solution is already out the window. Reading a bit of what Dragon wrote, I seem to be on similar grounds with him. Looking back, the first post you replied to me had me stating, "An uprising may have to be in the works not to make the same mistakes. Especially if the establishment Democrats in power keep their heads in their asses." Or in other words, the government no longer functionally listen to the people that you so demand we continue to do instead.

Believe it or not, I do believe in peaceful protests and contacting our elected officials because it can easily turn against us especially with a media that is complicit with the government to paint them as wrong as they possibly can. However, I am not going to also stand by and look around at what's happening and go, "yup a riot/uprising/etc is surely not going to happen among the people who may find themselves hopeless and discarded." either as what happened a couple years ago in Baltimore with Freddie Gray.

P.S.- I didn't really want to bother with TRR's reply because his whole speel was basically what I wrote.

We could have certainly very well have lost and suffered harsher consequences under British rule, but they took the risks and won. With people like yourself, perhaps we would have lost anyway. Or maybe we just have to fight over tea taxes again.

So, not sure why he had to point out that we only won because of French and Spanish and what not helped as if I didn't take that into consideration. But again in this thread reading comprehension seems to be a problem.

How about if you want to critique my posts, you address it to me?

While its true that you acknowledged, briefly, certain difficulties the revolutionaries faced, it nonetheless seemed to me that you were holding up the American Revolution as an example of a successful/positive armed uprising by an outmatched group, and to some extent downplaying those difficulties. So I felt them worth elaborating on.

In particular, I think that the fact that the American Revolution arguably constitutes one of the most successful major armed revolts, and still was in many ways a cluster fuck that we only survived by outside help and luck, makes my point about the dangers of revolution rather well.

[Soontir C'boath]

While its true that you acknowledged, briefly, certain difficulties the revolutionaries faced, it nonetheless seemed to me that you were holding up the American Revolution as an example of a successful/positive armed uprising by an outmatched group, and to some extent downplaying those difficulties. So I felt them worth elaborating on.

I am still not entirely sure how you gleaned that from "We could have _certainly_ very well have lost and suffered harsher consequences under British rule". I wasn't being sarcastic in that sentence.

In particular, I think that the fact that the American Revolution arguably constitutes one of the most successful major armed revolts, and still was in many ways a cluster fuck that we only survived by outside help and luck, makes my point about the dangers of revolution rather well.

Time, after time, and again in this thread, I acknowledged the negative consequences that would occur from such violent actions. By definition, at least one person is going to get hurt. It was you and/or Simon that kept demanding that victory must be assured which I admit made me go off on a divergence I wasn't intending to follow. My point has been that in the end when all that can be said is spoken without much ado, it can seen as a viable last resort to victory, not that it would necessarily lead to it. It would be a huge risk being labeled as traitors by the government and the media and for them to have the "justification" to suppress the revolt. \

I am pretty sure I said before it would not be easy if and when the populace finds themselves desperate enough to act upon it.

[LadyTevar]

HOW THE FUCK DID WE GET FROM REPORTING ON A SHOOTING TO A HEATED DISCUSSION ON THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR?? WHAT THE UNHOLY FUCK PEOPLE? DO I HAVE TO LOCK ALL THE THREADS TONIGHT TO KEEP ROMULAN REPUBLIC, SIMON JESTER, AND FLAGG FROM ATTACKING EACH OTHER??

GET BACK ON THE FUCKIN' OT, OR GET THE FUCK OUT!

[Simon_Jester]

Question to LadyTevar:

Is discussion of the role of political violence in bringing about political change on, or off, topic?

[TheFeniX]

This thread went places. I don't know what those places were, but whatever. I would however like to point out something that was mentioned a few times I think is an important point when considering politically motivated violence: "Do I have other recourse?" And I feel the majority of Americans do. While voting rights will always be a prime target, if you have the time, the ability to use your voting power to affect change IS THERE. And even though money is a limiting factor (which holds true nearly everywhere), in a place like the U.S. there are very few people and groups who cannot find areas with a solid amount of sympathetic support and those willing to help them get their voice heard.

The U.S. and it's citizens are "getting better." Yes, regressive assholes are pushing back (They ALWAYS push back), but the "massive groundswells" of alt-right bullshit, while not good, do not impress upon me that the U.S. is even close to needing people showing up with guns (or whatever) at all. I've said this before, but all that really happened is an already existing group of people feel emboldened by their new overlord(s). They're exposed for what they are and whereas there are some short-term repercussions that I wish we didn't have to deal with, the anti-pushback seems to be swelling.

The big thing is make sure it continues to swell by using the current NON-VIOLENT system in place that still functions.

But seeing "asshole doing asshole thing because more assholes voted for the asshole than non-assholes voted for their non-asshole" and saying "this is bad" means you don't understand democracy. Assholes have a voice. That's just the way it works.

And even then, the "tyranny of the majority asshole" has balances in this country: Trump can't even have a Travel Ban upheld due to his Twitter shitposting. Yea, you got me, things could be a whole lot better, but they could also be a whole lot worse. And they'd have to get that much worse and start digging past rock bottom for "git mah gun" to be a viable option because the U.S. has actually improved a whole Hell of lot even in my short life-time.

Like, here's my "joke" example, but I've actually found it relevant. When I was growing up, "Dude, that's gay" was pretty much acceptable everywhere. Now it's not. A rather large majority of Americans accepted that idea. Now it's like, those guys/gals who kept saying it and everyone ignored them as assholes and wanted to just forget they existed? Well, Republicans quit ignoring them. Americans have had almost a decade to come to terms with this, why are they still surprised?

[LadyTevar]

Question to LadyTevar:

Is discussion of the role of political violence in bringing about political change on, or off, topic?

I consider that a topic that should have its own thread

[The Romulan Republic]

I would respectfully point out that I did not, to my best recollection, "attack" Simon_Jester, and I certainly did not attack Flagg. Nor, to my knowledge, did either of them attack me.

[MKSheppard]

The care Scalise has received up until now, because it is required to save his life, anyone would get.

This. It's also a major cause of the financial insolvency of major urban area hospitals:

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/23/why_nob ... obamacare/

Basically, Salon writer gets shot in DC, gets 200K bill for 10 day hospital stay, the emergency trauma surgery to save his life etc.

Deductible on his Obamacare insurance cleaned his bank account out, but it saved him from bankruptcy.

http://www.urban.org/sites/default/file ... saults.PDF

Etc.

When someone with insurance gets shot, he gets stuck with the bill; but what do hospitals do with those who can't pay but they give care to?

There's a reason all the major urban hospitals have all become part of gigantic health care conglomerates in the last few decades....

[Simon_Jester]

Yes. There is a very good reason for this, as you say.

This is exactly the same reason for the passage of the Affordable Care Act in the first place. Because it is unconscionable to refuse to treat people who don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars of ready cash for life-threatening medical emergencies. But without providing insurance for everyone, there's no way to pay for the people thus treated. Because you can't get blood from a stone and you can't get a hundred thousand dollars from an inner-city dweller who got shot because they were a bystander (or a participant) in a gang war. If they had a hundred thousand dollars in the first place, they'd probably use it to move to a place that doesn't have gang wars, and you wouldn't be treating them in the first place. And that's before we even talk about the people who are rushed to the emergency room because of other life-threatening problems that have nothing to do with the terrible neighborhoods... but still can't pay, because of urban poverty levels.

Thus the insolvency of the urban hospitals (which have the most patients that cannot possibly pay for treatment). And thus the ACA, which got insurance to a lot of these patients, addressing the problem.

The ACA is the very bill that Scalise himself recently worked so hard and (presumably) competently to destroy. He played a vital role in the House's attempt to do that.

And now, to complete the irony, his having any kind of a future life worth anything depends on his being able to slowly climb the ladder of expensive post-emergency-room care. Of therapy, and secondary operations to help him have a normal life, and expensive medical supplies and nursing.

He needs that ladder so very, very much, and he's going to get it... After trying to break off the bottom rungs of the ladder so that millions of other people couldn't have the ladder.