Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 16.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I feel this needs to be shared.  

You remember 4, 8, and 12 years ago a candidate going so far beyond the pale that their own party disavowed their statements? You remember former Presidents from the candidate's own party refusing to

Posted Images

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

The man who broke into Pelosi's office and spent such effort to pose and prance in her chair, has been arrested.  As has a state legislator from West Virginia who posted video of himself as he entered the Capitol.  His lawyer is claiming "nothing illegal" but as part of a mob breaking in???  Puh-lease. 

 

 

I thought I'd responded to this but can't find my earlier comment.

 

Watching MSNBC last night, they interviewed a reporter who over the last year has been covering Proud Boys and other white supremacist groups in relation to their political activities.

 

He claimed that he recognized by name most of the people who were shown on video and in pictures inside the Capitol building because he'd been following their movement closely and that they haven't been making their identities a secret.

 

If the police have any trouble identifying the people who did this, I guess they could talk to that guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

That’s an excellent video, thank you for sharing.

 

I disagree with the idea of violence as a mechanism to further political change. He does make compelling arguments, which I largely ate with aside from  that moment.

 

I can certainly respect your disagreement, but there are times when nothing less than violence will make people in general, and/or people in power, truly understand the gravity of the situation.

 

I couldn't help but notice that when yesterday's Washington riots threatened the Congress members' own precious hides, most of their opposition to certifying Joe Biden's election win melted away. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I can certainly respect your disagreement, but there are times when nothing less than violence will make people in general, and/or people in power, truly understand the gravity of the situation.

 

I couldn't help but notice that when yesterday's Washington riots threatened the Congress members' own precious hides, most of their opposition to certifying Joe Biden's election win melted away. <_<

 

The majority of Republican House members still supported decertifying. And I only recall one of the 13 Senators backing away from their decertification position. But I could easily have missed other Senators backing out besides Loeffler because everything ran so late into the morning hours that I quit watching.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cygnia said:

 

"Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting."

 

Finally.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Iuz the Evil said:

I disagree with the idea of violence as a mechanism to further political change. He does make compelling arguments, which I largely ate with aside from  that moment.

 

Without violence, we would probably be looking at the approaching 75th anniversary of American independence, instead of 250th.  However, it is also true that it is far easier to misuse violence, and that the times when violence is appropriate are extremely scarce.

 

We're all familiar with massive social media gaffes.  Read it again before you hit Send, right?  Before you agree to something violent, don't read it again just once, but over and over again.  Is it really, truly appropriate?  Is there systemic, widespread oppression against the people in general, or is this simply a personal affront?  

Part of the problem is the consideration of what is considered "oppressive" is no longer shared.

archer:  the 2 votes to decertify were 93-6 and 92-7.  (I stayed up way too late.)  The difference was, IIRC, Scott of Pennsylvania didn't vote for the Arizona decert, but did vote for the Penn decert.  The bigger switch was that, IIRC, 15 more Reps voted for Penn than for AZ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I can certainly respect your disagreement, but there are times when nothing less than violence will make people in general, and/or people in power, truly understand the gravity of the situation.

 

I couldn't help but notice that when yesterday's Washington riots threatened the Congress members' own precious hides, most of their opposition to certifying Joe Biden's election win melted away. <_<

I can accept that. I also think that the elected body politic can and should respond with all appropriate force to prevent such actions. I was dismayed that was not the case this week.

 

I’m not a pacifist, I am a strong believer in the Rule of Law. If it is acceptable to use violence when sufficiently outraged, or feels that they have a moral imperative to act, people make terrible and misinformed decisions that in retrospect are deeply regrettable. Mob rule does not appeal to me, however noble the intent. Process matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, unclevlad said:

archer:  the 2 votes to decertify were 93-6 and 92-7.  (I stayed up way too late.)  The difference was, IIRC, Scott of Pennsylvania didn't vote for the Arizona decert, but did vote for the Penn decert.  The bigger switch was that, IIRC, 15 more Reps voted for Penn than for AZ.

 

Thank you. So much other stuff has been happening that the political news sites I read first didn't have news stories about the final vote totals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, archer said:

 

Thank you. So much other stuff has been happening that the political news sites I read first didn't have news stories about the final vote totals.

 

I know how that goes.  I still haven't found out whether Yvette Herrell voted for one or two of the objections...but I also decided it didn't matter in the end, as both votes were held WELL after the attack on the Capitol.  Once is too much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2021 at 9:24 AM, TrickstaPriest said:

Mussolini and the fascists managed to be simultaneously revolutionary and traditionalist;[83][84] because this was vastly different from anything else in the political climate of the time, it is sometimes described[by whom?] as "The Third Way".[85] The Fascisti, led by one of Mussolini's close confidants, Dino Grandi, formed armed squads of war veterans called blackshirts (or squadristi) with the goal of restoring order to the streets of Italy with a strong hand. The blackshirts clashed with communists, socialists, and anarchists at parades and demonstrations; all of these factions were also involved in clashes against each other. The Italian government rarely interfered with the blackshirts' actions, owing in part to a looming threat and widespread fear of a communist revolution. The Fascisti grew rapidly; within two years they transformed themselves into the National Fascist Party at a congress in Rome. In 1921, Mussolini won election to the Chamber of Deputies for the first time.[18] In the meantime, from about 1911 until 1938, Mussolini had various affairs with the Jewish author and academic Margherita Sarfatti, called the "Jewish Mother of Fascism" at the time.[86]

March on Rome

In the night between 27 and 28 October 1922, about 30,000 Fascist blackshirts gathered in Rome to demand the resignation of liberal Prime Minister Luigi Facta and the appointment of a new Fascist government. On the morning of 28 October, King Victor Emmanuel III, who according to the Albertine Statute held the supreme military power, refused the government request to declare martial law, which led to Facta's resignation. The King then handed over power to Mussolini (who stayed in his headquarters in Milan during the talks) by asking him to form a new government. The King's controversial decision has been explained by historians as a combination of delusions and fears; Mussolini enjoyed wide support in the military and among the industrial and agrarian elites, while the King and the conservative establishment were afraid of a possible civil war and ultimately thought they could use Mussolini to restore law and order in the country, but failed to foresee the danger of a totalitarian evolution

 

This aged well, me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

Without violence, we would probably be looking at the approaching 75th anniversary of American independence, instead of 250th.  However, it is also true that it is far easier to misuse violence, and that the times when violence is appropriate are extremely scarce.

 

We're all familiar with massive social media gaffes.  Read it again before you hit Send, right?  Before you agree to something violent, don't read it again just once, but over and over again.  Is it really, truly appropriate?  Is there systemic, widespread oppression against the people in general, or is this simply a personal affront?  

Part of the problem is the consideration of what is considered "oppressive" is no longer shared.

archer:  the 2 votes to decertify were 93-6 and 92-7.  (I stayed up way too late.)  The difference was, IIRC, Scott of Pennsylvania didn't vote for the Arizona decert, but did vote for the Penn decert.  The bigger switch was that, IIRC, 15 more Reps voted for Penn than for AZ.

Similarly, I don't know if was mentioned in the Georgia runoff, but there was a 17-18k difference in the votes going on between the 2 republicans AND the 2 demorcrats, which means that many who were voting for one of the 2 republicans (strangely, the one who got covid and couldn't campaign the last week or 2) then the other one (the lady, whom Trump showed up at her rally) and they switched their vote to the Black Democrat. And the number was pretty consistent the whole time. I am sure I missed people mentioning this somewhere in the last 150 pages or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, slikmar said:

Similarly, I don't know if was mentioned in the Georgia runoff, but there was a 17-18k difference in the votes going on between the 2 republicans AND the 2 demorcrats, which means that many who were voting for one of the 2 republicans (strangely, the one who got covid and couldn't campaign the last week or 2) then the other one (the lady, whom Trump showed up at her rally) and they switched their vote to the Black Democrat. And the number was pretty consistent the whole time. I am sure I missed people mentioning this somewhere in the last 150 pages or so.

 

I'm not sure I'm following the point you're making, slikmar. Are you saying that the vote totals for the Republican and Democrat candidates abruptly flip-flopped at some point during the election?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The final margin wasn't that different between the two races...but Warnock was declared the winner over Loeffler FAR earlier...some time Tuesday night.  Ossoff wasn't declared the winner until, IIRC, very late Wednesday morning.  I believe it was before the joint session opened, but not that much.

 

The number alone doesn't tell you that much.  You have to put it in context.  Warnock won 51-49, and had that 1+% lead much of Tuesday night, so the pattern was clear.  Ossoff's margin was much smaller;  Perdue might even have had a very small lead well into Tuesday night.  It was definitely in recount range until mid-morning Wednesday.  But oscillation is to be expected because different areas will have different voting patterns and will report/get counted at different points in the process.

 

BUT the difference between Warnock's and Ossoff's final total was only about 17,000.  That's really small;  had that been the margin between Ossoff and Perdue, that's automatic recount range.  So Loeffler managed to turn off 17K more voters.  Heck, for all we know, that might be nothing but a sexist reaction.  The difference between the 2 races is really too small to try to draw much of a conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What unclevlad said. My wife and I both found it interesting that somewhere in there, and again, it isn't big, that there were 17k voters who voted Perdue but NOT Loeffler (and yes, could have been a sexist thing). I would have expected going in that the 2 races would have basically mimicked each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...