• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2024 Election Thread part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
bruto said:
I was under the impression that that's the policy for Arlington in general, but that additional rules were in place for Section 60, where the incident occurred.
Click to expand...

Last time I was there, you couldn't just wander around the grounds. If you are a general visitor or a tourist, you're put on a bus and given the bus tour. The bus drops you off at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, which is the only place you can get off. You can stay there as long as you want, but you have to board the bus to get back to the gate. That was pre-pandemic, though.

The bus tour guide is quite vigilant and will tell you what you can photograph and what you can't (e.g., funerals in progress). And they will yell at you not to photograph if it looks like that's what you're about to do. There's no wink-wink-nudge-nudge.

Visitation and photography policies are different if you're a relative of someone interred there, or if you've planned to visit specific graves. The reason the cemetery provides photographers for your visit in that case is that they're trained on how to photograph just you (and not neighboring mourners) and just the graves you have an interest in. The graves for people most recently lost will tend to be visited by the closest and most emotionally attached relatives. The cemetery's concern is that your private mourning not show up on someone else's social media feed.

Because the Trump team photographed persons and graves that were not part of their group and widely published them, they violated both the spirit and the letter of the law restricting photography in certain sections. These are not rules that families or visitors can waive for important guests. These are separate from the general rules forbidding anyone from using photograph at the cemetery for campaign purposes.

I've taken several beautiful photographs in the cemetery. You can't help but want to. The changing of the guard ceremony is commonly videoed and photographed with the cemetery's blessing so long as you otherwise observe the decorum, which means remaining silent and standing in the designated areas.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Last time I was there, you couldn't just wander around the grounds. If you are a general visitor or a tourist, you're put on a bus and given the bus tour. The bus drops you off at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, which is the only place you can get off. You can stay there as long as you want, but you have to board the bus to get back to the gate. That was pre-pandemic, though.

The bus tour guide is quite vigilant and will tell you what you can photograph and what you can't (e.g., funerals in progress). And they will yell at you not to photograph if it looks like that's what you're about to do. There's no wink-wink-nudge-nudge.

Visitation and photography policies are different if you're a relative of someone interred there, or if you've planned to visit specific graves. The reason the cemetery provides photographers for your visit in that case is that they're trained on how to photograph just you (and not neighboring mourners) and just the graves you have an interest in. The graves for people most recently lost will tend to be visited by the closest and most emotionally attached relatives. The cemetery's concern is that your private mourning not show up on someone else's social media feed.

Because the Trump team photographed persons and graves that were not part of their group and widely published them, they violated both the spirit and the letter of the law restricting photography in certain sections. These are not rules that families or visitors can waive for important guests. These are separate from the general rules forbidding anyone from using photograph at the cemetery for campaign purposes.

I've taken several beautiful photographs in the cemetery. You can't help but want to. The changing of the guard ceremony is commonly videoed and photographed with the cemetery's blessing so long as you otherwise observe the decorum, which means remaining silent and standing in the designated areas.
Click to expand...

You can actually and to the best of my knowledge you have always been able to. With certain limitations. You can't go whooping and a hollering anywhere in the cemetery. If there is a funeral, you will be limited from being anywhere near the ceremony. The cemetery is divided up into areas associated with specific conflicts going back to the Civil War. There are specific tours which sort of limit the experience.
For more detail....see below.
https://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/visit
 
jimbob said:
HTF is Trump above the 27% crazifaction factor?
Click to expand...

Because when he says these things, people believe him and there's no fact checking at a political rally.

Even when it's reported in the mainstream media, a proportion of those who hear it will believe it.
 
JayUtah said:
Last time I was there, you couldn't just wander around the grounds.
Click to expand...

Sure you can.

Recent security is such that you have to enter through the proper gates, but that's it. Once you get it in, you can wander all over. I've done it many times. You can stop at JFK's grave, or go to TUS. Once when I was there I moseyed over to Lincoln's son (Robert Todd Lincoln, maybe?). It's a little out of the way.

It's best to stay on the paths, but yeah, you can explore and wander. Most people don't get there on a tour bus, they take the Metro, which comes out pretty close by.

As others have said, there may be restrictions on days when there is a formal event, like a funeral or something else, but normally, nah.
 
trump's not alone. Last year Gov. Ron DeSantis told CNN in an interview:
Republican presidential candidate Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said in a recent interview that some states allow abortion after an infant has already been born. CNN host Jake Tapper asked DeSantis whether he would support a federal abortion ban as president. DeSantis, who signed Florida’s contested six-week abortion ban in April, said he would be a "pro-life president," but gave no direct answer. "In some liberal states," he said, "you actually have post-birth abortions and I think that’s wrong." WLRN South Florida news link
Click to expand...

Everybody knows it! :boggled:

Seriously, this is a very dangerous trend, leaders with large followings who blatantly lie to their followers. Somehow I can't imagine George W. Bush, John McCain or Mitt Romney saying something like this. Or refusing to retract it when it's demonstrated to be wrong. What's happening?
 
newyorkguy said:
trump's not alone. Last year Gov. Ron DeSantis told CNN in an interview:


Everybody knows it! :boggled:

Seriously, this is a very dangerous trend, leaders with large followings who blatantly lie to their followers. Somehow I can't imagine George W. Bush, John McCain or Mitt Romney saying something like this. Or refusing to retract it when it's demonstrated to be wrong. What's happening?
Click to expand...

Unscrupulous people have discovered that there really aren't any negative consequences for being called out in a lie. In the past the person's own shame would have caused them to feel bad, and retract their statement, for reasons of reputational damage if nothing else.

It's been demonstrated that, if you appeal to a certain demographic, there's no fear of reputational damage the lie aligns with the beliefs of that demographic, so there's no shame, and no retraction.
 
This is why I mean when I say trying to force moral/argumentative standards without enforcing intellectual standards DOESN'T ******* WORK.

If someone can sit there and lie, and I don't mean lie but I mean LIE, just repeatedly make statements over and over that have are so false there is no intellectually honest way of saying them, but they do so calmly and politely and follow all the civility theater and you consider that "civil" you are part of the problem.

This is why getting us to a Post-Facts world was so important to conservatives. Their whole routine only works if there is no distinction between something being factually wrong and something being unpopular.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
This is why I mean when I say trying to force moral/argumentative standards without enforcing intellectual standards DOESN'T ******* WORK.

If someone can sit there and lie, and I don't mean lie but I mean LIE, just repeatedly make statements over and over that have are so false there is no intellectually honest way of saying them, but they do so calmly and politely and follow all the civility theater and you consider that "civil" you are part of the problem.

This is why getting us to a Post-Facts world was so important to conservatives. Their whole routine only works if there is no distinction between something being factually wrong and something being unpopular.
Click to expand...

It's up to the "adults" to enforce the standards. in the case in the media that's the FCC (or equivalent body), in the case of politics it's the party leadership and in the case of the law it's the judiciary.

Penalties have to be applied and they have to be significant. In the case of fines they have to be large, and actually be collected. If it's a withdrawal of privileges then they have to be meaningful. This simply isn't happening AND the public aren't holding the authorities to account because enough people are finding the whole circus quite entertaining.
 
carlosy said:
Because I'm not from the US, is there anything to it? I couldn't imagine, but you'll never know. Why would he say a specific number for the states?
Click to expand...

A number of states allow third trimester abortions in certain, limited, circumstances. At that point the foetus could be notionally viable.

According to a Google search, six states and Washington DC have no term restrictions - but that doesn't mean that post birth abortions are a thing.
 
carlosy said:
Because I'm not from the US, is there anything to it? I couldn't imagine, but you'll never know. Why would he say a specific number for the states?
Click to expand...

The topic he is referring to is palliative care. There are states that have specified procedures allowing for palliative care of terminal infants.

Imagine that a baby is born with a severe congenital defect. Something that is going to cause them to die. Severe hydrocephalus, for example, where the brain is basically just water. That baby is not going to survive.

States have specified that those babies can be given palliative care, which involves pain management and comfort until they die. What the prolifers want is that there needs to be unlimited effort to keep the baby alive, for example, by putting them on life support indefinitely, even though there is no possibility of ultimate survival. Basically, they think it should be illegal to "pull the plug" on a baby on life support.

When they say that "states allow abortion after birth" what they are talking about are states that allow palliative care for infants and do not require indefinite, unlimited, pointless medical treatment. The key here is that the medical care in these cases is pointless.

It's not "abortion," nor is it infanticide. It's palliative care.

Look up Dr. Jen Gunter's story about her twins. One survived, the other did not. She wept as she held the baby in her arms as it died, because there was nothing that could be done to save it.

Trump et al think, that should be illegal.
 
The Don said:
It's up to the "adults" to enforce the standards. in the case in the media that's the FCC (or equivalent body), in the case of politics it's the party leadership and in the case of the law it's the judiciary.

Penalties have to be applied and they have to be significant. In the case of fines they have to be large, and actually be collected. If it's a withdrawal of privileges then they have to be meaningful. This simply isn't happening AND the public aren't holding the authorities to account because enough people are finding the whole circus quite entertaining.
Click to expand...

The FCC doesn't actually have the power to do anything like that, though. They can license broadcast bandwidth and enforce decency standards on said bandwidth. They have no power over cable.

I can't stand Aaron Sorkin, but he occasionally gets something right. When he has his Mary Sue on the Newsroom go on a rant about how the government should have never let the nightly news be a for-profit enterprise.
 
pgwenthold said:
The topic he is referring to is palliative care. There are states that have specified procedures allowing for palliative care of terminal infants.

Imagine that a baby is born with a severe congenital defect. Something that is going to cause them to die. Severe hydrocephalus, for example, where the brain is basically just water. That baby is not going to survive.

States have specified that those babies can be given palliative care, which involves pain management and comfort until they die. What the prolifers want is that there needs to be unlimited effort to keep the baby alive, for example, by putting them on life support indefinitely, even though there is no possibility of ultimate survival. Basically, they think it should be illegal to "pull the plug" on a baby on life support.

When they say that "states allow abortion after birth" what they are talking about are states that allow palliative care for infants and do not require indefinite, unlimited, pointless medical treatment. The key here is that the medical care in these cases is pointless.

It's not "abortion," nor is it infanticide. It's palliative care.

Look up Dr. Jen Gunter's story about her twins. One survived, the other did not. She wept as she held the baby in her arms as it died, because there was nothing that could be done to save it.

Trump et al think, that should be illegal.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this - that explains where this strange and weird claim came from - I see how it has percolated through his skull and is ejected through his mouth.
 
The Don said:
A number of states allow third trimester abortions in certain, limited, circumstances. At that point the foetus could be notionally viable.

According to a Google search, six states and Washington DC have no term restrictions - but that doesn't mean that post birth abortions are a thing.
Click to expand...

Ok, thanks. Well, he said that "you are allowed to kill the baby after it's born". Even if it isn't happening, is it actually allowed?

Edit, ok answered after that post, thanks!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom