The commerce secretary praises the lack of protest in a country where it’s punishable by death - Polidicks

[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/05/22/the-commerce-secretary-praises-the-lack-of-protest-in-a-country-where-its-punishable-by-death/?utm_term=.3bdd3653bc70&tid=sm_tw"]Source[/URL] [QUOTE]Commerce secretary Wilbur Ross offered two highlights from his trip to Saudi Arabia in an interview with CNBC on Monday morning. First, he enjoyed the two bushels of dates he was given by Saudi Arabian security guards and, second, he was pleased that he saw no protester with “a bad placard.” Perhaps because an American-style protest is illegal in that country and can result in a death sentence. Ross was using the lack of protesters as an example of how warmly the Trump administration was received in the country. [media]https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/866629547038576640[/media] It’s sort of fascinating, really, that Ross so seamlessly transitions from “they are liberalizing their society” — a recognition that the Saudi regime is staunchly rigid and conservative — to “and there were no protests.” It’s also fascinating that Ross dismisses the host’s interjection about why there were no protests. “In theory,” there were no protests because it’s illegal? No, in practice. Six years ago, in the midst of the popular uprisings in the Middle East known as the Arab Spring, the Saudi Council of Senior Religious Scholars issued a decree essentially banning public protest in the country. The following February, a 17-year-old named Ali al-Nimr was arrested for participating in an anti-government protest. Two years later, he was sentenced to death by beheading and crucifixion and remains on death row. That case is complicated by the fact that Nimr’s uncle was a Shiite cleric who opposed the regime. (The uncle was executed in January of last year, setting off protests in other countries.) But Nimr wasn’t alone: Three other young men were similarly arrested and sentenced to death. Nor are they the only examples. In 2013, more than 160 people were arrested for protesting the country’s detention policies. In a recent review of Saudi laws, Amnesty International reports that the regime continues to leverage prohibitions on protest to harass and detain political opponents. In the United States, such protests are protected under the First Amendment — although there’s been a new push in 2017 to set boundaries on how protests are organized. In February, The Post reported that new laws curtailing protests had been introduced in 18 states. Those proposed laws — most of which have not gone into effect — range from banning the use of masks in a protest (Missouri) to expanding racketeering laws to punish those who plan a protest that may result in violence (Arizona).[/QUOTE] [editline]22nd May 2017[/editline] Woops, I actually put this in the wrong section, would a mod mind moving?

Trump's administration keeps on "accidentally" praising authoritarianism. This isn't concerning at all. :suicide:

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52263238]Trump's administration keeps on "accidentally" praising authoritarianism. This isn't concerning at all. :suicide:[/QUOTE] Obama praised gun control in the UK while claiming that he didnt want to ban handguns

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52263329]Obama praised gun control in the UK while claiming that he didnt want to ban handguns[/QUOTE] I don't care what your gun culture is and how touchy Americans are about the idea of gun control, the idea of tighter gun control is not even remotely comparable to actual authoritarianism.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52263329]Obama praised gun control in the UK while claiming that he didnt want to ban handguns[/QUOTE] do you think praising gun control itself means banning all guns from everyone, or that the UK is an oppressive regime? do you think that's comparable to praising the torture and murder of political dissent?

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52263329]Obama praised gun control in the UK while claiming that he didnt want to ban handguns[/QUOTE] yeah dude the UK is just as authoritarian as saudi arabia

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52263329]Obama praised gun control in the UK while claiming that he didnt want to ban handguns[/QUOTE] Leaving aside how ridiculous a comparison this is, what does Obama have to do with this? Try actually defending Trump instead of saying "but Obama".

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52263329]Obama praised gun control in the UK while claiming that he didnt want to ban handguns[/QUOTE] i remember all those beheadings in the UK

[QUOTE=mchapra;52263375]i remember all those beheadings in the UK[/QUOTE] Charles I was a political dissident

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52263329]Obama praised gun control in the UK while claiming that he didnt want to ban handguns[/QUOTE] Handguns and peaceful protest are completely comparable.

Listen to the way he speaks. It's infuriating.

[QUOTE=Paramud;52263407]Handguns and peaceful protest are completely comparable.[/QUOTE] Sarcasm aside, they actually are somewhat comparable. There's a constant whittling away of rights to have both. Just like how some cities and states require permits to own handguns, an increasing amount of places require protest permits. Some even have the requirement that you can't protest outside of designated zones, even if they're nowhere near the site of the action/object that's being protested. Out of sight, out of mind as they say. If the protesters can't be heard or seen, then they're not protesting. It can be argued that peaceful protesting can disrupt commerce and cause unnecessary economic damage, just as handguns can end lives. In the eyes of the typical American politician, lives lost are nothing but numbers seen on the news. But lost numbers in the form of money is lost votes for them to stay in office, as well as is being assblasted all over the media. It's a lot more directly detrimental to their livelihood, and thus they fight harder against it to protect themselves. Likewise, deaths to gun violence can be ridden on via anti-gun legislation to gain support and therefore more votes.

[QUOTE=Reds;52263337]I don't care what your gun culture is and how touchy Americans are about the idea of gun control, the idea of tighter gun control is not even remotely comparable to actual authoritarianism.[/QUOTE] No, but a total gun ban is totalitarian, no matter your view on the subject.

[QUOTE=Megadave;52263507]No, but a total gun ban is totalitarian, no matter your view on the subject.[/QUOTE] That's a uniquely American point of view.

[QUOTE=Megadave;52263507]No, but a total gun ban is totalitarian, no matter your view on the subject.[/QUOTE] imagine being so touchy about gun control that the idea of tighter gun control means a total ban on guns, which in turn makes your country a fascist dictatorship, because if everyone can't have guns, then the government is tyrannical. [editline]23rd May 2017[/editline] why are you even talking about gun control in this thread when the leaders of your "free" country is sucking the dick of authoritarian regimes.

Look how well taking guns away from Venezuelans ended up. Now you have protesters with rocks against full-auto equipped police/military. Can't really overthrow a totalitarian government with rocks unless you want to pile the streets with bodies. Each law restricting protesting or access to guns is a restriction on your freedoms.

[QUOTE=Unsmart;52263989]Look how well taking guns away from Venezuelans ended up. Now you have protesters with rocks against full-auto equipped police/military. Can't really overthrow a totalitarian government with rocks unless you want to pile the streets with bodies. Each law restricting protesting or access to guns is a restriction on your freedoms.[/QUOTE] is that because they took the guns away? they restricted guns in the uk and in australia and we dont have a totalitarian government. are you insisting if the us had tighter gun control, protesters would be mowed down by the military? or even that if they still had guns they would wage civil war? also each law restricting access to guns is restricting your freedoms but some freedoms should be restricted. thats why we have laws against murder and fucking kids, sure it takes away your freedoms but its for the greater good.

[QUOTE=Unsmart;52263989]Look how well taking guns away from Venezuelans ended up. Now you have protesters with rocks against full-auto equipped police/military. Can't really overthrow a totalitarian government with rocks unless you want to pile the streets with bodies. Each law restricting protesting or access to guns is a restriction on your freedoms.[/QUOTE] The argument that owning guns makes one able to overthrow the government always seemed silly to me coming from someone who lives in the country that has the most powerful army in the world. Nothing short of convincing the military to orchestrate a coup would enable people to overthrow the US government.

[QUOTE=Unsmart;52263989]Look how well taking guns away from Venezuelans ended up. Now you have protesters with rocks against full-auto equipped police/military. Can't really overthrow a totalitarian government with rocks unless you want to pile the streets with bodies.[/quote] The US military has the ability to crush any attempted rebellion, guns or no guns. In the modern world, guns do not ensure the freedom of a population. [quote]Each law restricting protesting or access to guns is a restriction on your freedoms.[/QUOTE] The lawful ability to protest and the lawful ability to own guns are two vastly different and completely unrelated things. Not being able to lawfully drive without a licence or insurance is also restrictions on one's freedoms as well. Something simply being a restriction on one's freedoms does not make it a bad thing automatically. Modern society is built around an array of laws (and social expectations) that all restrict one's freedoms.

[QUOTE=Megadave;52263507]No, but a total gun ban is totalitarian, no matter your view on the subject.[/QUOTE] I'll take 'phrases that can only have come out of an American's mouth' for 200, Alex!

[QUOTE=_Axel;52263760]That's a uniquely American point of view.[/QUOTE] It's not really. A TOTAL ban of guns would indicate some very strong authoritarian leanings.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;52264077]I'll take 'phrases that can only have come out of an American's mouth' for 200, Alex![/QUOTE] I don't care, I'm all for sensible gun control but a total gun ban is totalitarian. I feel like I'm missing the point but I want to be clear on this. It is totalitarian, no amount of mental gymnastics will change that fact. The only reason I'm talking about it is because I'm not going to let little offhand remarks go unnoticed. I'm very anti-totalitarian, and I will bark and attack any point that is totalitarian, it is a useless system. [editline]23rd May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=DaMastez;52264030]The US military has the ability to crush any attempted rebellion, guns or no guns. In the modern world, guns do not ensure the freedom of a population. The lawful ability to protest and the lawful ability to own guns are two vastly different and completely unrelated things. Not being able to lawfully drive without a licence or insurance is also restrictions on one's freedoms as well. Something simply being a restriction on one's freedoms does not make it a bad thing automatically. Modern society is built around an array of laws (and social expectations) that all restrict one's freedoms.[/QUOTE] They have the ability, but do you think the whole of the military would attack US citizens? No, if there is a rebellion it won't end pretty for either side, because I guarantee a good half of the military will declare a mutiny. Point being I'd assume people would care more about freedom than no matter how little chance of succeeding. That's kinda the whole point. [editline]23rd May 2017[/editline] But I'm getting heavily off subject, the right to protest is the greatest or second greatest right we have (freedom of speech is first), and a government official even getting in the ballpark of disregarding that right should be immediate treason.

[QUOTE=Turing;52264119]It's not really. A TOTAL ban of guns would indicate some very strong authoritarian leanings.[/QUOTE] Denmark practically has a total ban on guns. Getting a permit is an extremely long process, expensive, and even if you get it, guess what? Guns and ammo are also very expensive, and more over, [I]the weapon and ammo must never leave your home.[/I] You're not allowed to take them anywhere. And guess what? Denmark is one of the most well functioning democracies in the world.

[QUOTE=Megadave;52264154]I don't care, I'm all for sensible gun control but a total gun ban is totalitarian. I feel like I'm missing the point but I want to be clear on this. It is totalitarian, no amount of mental gymnastics will change that fact. The only reason I'm talking about it is because I'm not going to let little offhand remarks go unnoticed.[/QUOTE] Do you also think affordable healthcare for all is a communist thing, by any chance?

[QUOTE=Megadave;52264154]I don't care, I'm all for sensible gun control but a total gun ban is totalitarian. I feel like I'm missing the point but I want to be clear on this. It is totalitarian, no amount of mental gymnastics will change that fact. The only reason I'm talking about it is because I'm not going to let little offhand remarks go unnoticed. I'm very anti-totalitarian, and I will bark and attack any point that is totalitarian, it is a useless system.[/QUOTE] Can you at least provide arguments for your point of view instead of just repeatedly stating "it is authoritarian"? Like I'm all for guns myself but I don't think wanting them banned is an outrageous opinion either.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;52264178]Do you also think affordable healthcare for all is a communist thing, by any chance?[/QUOTE] God no, trust me I'm not a flaming republicunt. I just see a total ban on guns to be useless when you are in a country as big as the US, it is going to be total hell controlling things coming in and outside of the country illegally, as well you have to collect what's already in the country which is going to be even a bigger hell, while also sparking at least a bunch of shootouts with the cops. As well you open up the door to screw up even more amendments, now that the main checks and balances are barely gone. It is a door that will not work for the US. I admit that guns should be gone, but I just don't see any feasible way to enforce total gun bans, the end simply does not justify the means at this point. But you ask me on any other subject and I'm about as far left as you can get without being violent.

[QUOTE=Megadave;52263507]No, but a total gun ban is totalitarian, no matter your view on the subject.[/QUOTE] Good thing we don't have a total gun ban, and that you can still get a license to own firearms for purposes of hunting. We just have strict gun control, so you have to demonstrate that you have a need for them and that you can secure them safely.

Has anybody put together a list of every verified awful thing Trump's posse has said/done over the last year yet? I'd like to have it. I feel like I've had this feeling of "holy shit dude what is PR" at least 30 times at this point but it seems like every bad thing he says gets drowned in the sheer quantity of it all. A record'd be handy.

[QUOTE=Megadave;52264154]They have the ability, but do you think the whole of the military would attack US citizens? No, if there is a rebellion it won't end pretty for either side, because I guarantee a good half of the military will declare a mutiny. Point being I'd assume people would care more about freedom than no matter how little chance of succeeding. That's kinda the whole point.[/quote] Thus, a rebellion can only succeed if it has the support of the military; if the general population is armed has little to no impact on the success of a movement, just how many people die. Additionally, historically, violent movements are far less likely to succeed when compared to non-violent movements ([url=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/opinion/10chenoweth.html?_r=0]source[/url]). Perhaps having no delusions of success through violence just because one has a firearm would be more likely to lead to a successful movement. Though, I would argue if legal gun ownership increases the odds of a rebellion succeeding isn't really an important consideration in regards to gun ownership laws. The day to day impact of the restrictions (or lack thereof) on gun ownership is far more important than giving some theoretical violent rebellion a few percentage points higher chance to succeed. [quote]the right to protest is the greatest or second greatest right we have (freedom of speech is first)[/QUOTE] I completely agree. Guns have nothing to do with this though.

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;52264337]Has anybody put together a list of every verified awful thing Trump's posse has said/done over the last year yet? I'd like to have it. I feel like I've had this feeling of "holy shit dude what is PR" at least 30 times at this point but it seems like every bad thing he says gets drowned in the sheer quantity of it all. A record'd be handy.[/QUOTE] You honestly expect me to have something the size of a fucking phone book on hand?