What gossip Disgraceful! Anything else to discuss today? BORING!!
It all depends on the assumed definition, I guess.
One could argue that American government is an ultra-liberal experiment.
Our form of government is in its infancy in a historical context. Divergence from historical norms is liberal. Our governance is an anomaly, and it is fragile. The fragility of democracy is evidenced by its present day retreat in several countries around the world.
The pro-slavery Trump confederate terrorists that violently attacked the Congress were just fighting for a return to conservative principles of slavery and restricted voting rights? Plebs shouldn’t have a say in governance. That every citizen gets an equal vote is an ultra-liberal idea. That a king can’t just demand to stay in power? Also Ultra-liberal.
1 Like
People have spent the past 6 months villianizing the mere suggestion of potential fraud, sweeping the concerns under the rug instead of addressing them. The seeds had been planted, watered, and sprouted long before election day.
And then after, you (again, a generic you) were shouting down every legal challenge and investigation before it had barely started. The actual conclusions were just inevitable formalities.
It was painfully obvious. When people are concerned about an upcoming process, you need to address those concerns in advance or the result of that process will never be accepted. And you need to respectfully let any legal challenges or objections play out through the proper channels, or those doing the challenging will never feel like their postition was given due consideration.
I dont care how crazy some of the claims have been, they’re just claims. The reactions to those claims have been far more damaging. This was handled like you handle the town crazy guy who stands on the street corner all day with random signs yelling gibberish - ignoring the fact that the dismissive approach simply does not work when there are tens of millions of people supporting the claims.
It would’ve achieved exactly what I said it’d achieve - let everyone feel that all the cards were put on the table and considered before any conclusions were finalized. It’s called building buy-in. There’s no reason to oppose it, unless you are afraid of while will be uncovered. Or if you want to make sure a lot of people continue to feel that the deck is stacked against them - the best way to recruit new believers is to ensure there is as big of a gap as possibile between you and the other option. Which is to say, the Democrats dont want unity, they want their opposition to continue looking as crazy as possible so they dont have to compromise to gain support.
1 Like
Except it would be completely illegal. There is no constitutional authority to do such. There were not multiple conflicting slates of electors submitted from any states. Every state certified their electors, none were in dispute. There was not even a premise presented that anyone objected that the received votes didn’t match those that were certified by the states, they weren’t intercepted in transit and changed. Congress does not have the power to “not count” the votes of the electors. The Sedition Caucus votes to challenge the properly certified electors were illegal. They were in bad faith and directly violated their oaths of office.
You also show your ignorance of history without recognizing the terrible results of the previous commission “example” held high (even though the circumstances were different with multiple slates of electors submitted, so it doesn’t even apply as an example of Congress being able to challenge electors whose certification is not in dispute. ). Multiple Republican members expounded on this yesterday while imploring to their seditionist colleagues to reconsider their planned illegal actions.
The confederate battle flag that the seditionists marched under as they violently attacked Congress yesterday is the same flag, so I guess at least that part is in concert with the invalid “precedence” example…
Why would it be illegal? Senators can vote to reject the count. And they can offer a remedy that would resolve their objections. It’d only be “illegal” in the sense that it’d attempt to build consensus, when everyone knows you’re supposed to be hellbent on winning at all costs.
I know, it’s horribly outrageous that Republican Senators would dare consider opposing the vote count. Democrats would never even consider challenging the result of a presidential election like that, except when they did in 2000, 2004, and 2016…
1 Like
ONLY if the certification is in dispute. Which it was not. It’s illegal to violate one’s oath of office…
VP Pence and several other Republican members plainly stated it would not be legal to vote against counting the votes. The certification of the votes were not in dispute. There were not multiple slates received. There were no allegations of tampering of the paper certificates in transit.
What about…
Meanwhile, in an alternate universe:
And…
" Confused Americans Think the Rioter’s Name Who Stole Podium from US Capitol is ‘Via Getty’"
“We need to immediately arrest Via Getty and his accomplices Via Reuters and Via Ap”
2 Likes
I know. It’s only illegal when the people you dont like are doing it.
You do realize that I did not mention it to try to justify it, but to point out that it’s being trumped up into this horrible unprecedented action that will destroy democracy, when in reality it has been done following 3 of the last 5 elections (by Democrats all 3 times) and no one hardly batted an eyelash.
In keeping with that, I see AOC is lining up signatories to impeach Trump, again, in his last two weeks in office. In Shopify has deplatformed the Trump store, because his merchandise might be “dangerous” (BLM is praiseworthy however).
I wonder if, as soon as Trump leaves office, they’ll give him the Julian Assange treatment where the State decides you need to be guilty of something and thrown in a hole, and they arrest him and figure out what later… maybe 5-10 years later, while you sit in jail in the meanwhile. Maybe there are different rules for billionaires, or maybe not. I guess we’ll find out.
1 Like
4 Likes
You know what the left cant stand? Having their propaganda called out as propaganda and it doesn’t matter by whom. Here’s a long time liberal professor teaching an NYU class on propaganda and pointing out, while wearing his mask, the similarities between propaganda techniques and current mask mandates. That was enough to get him branded a racist hate-speaking transphobic Un-person who needed to be fired at once.
as my case shows, you don’t have to be on the right to be attacked this way. I’ve heard from many people, professors at other schools, who’ve had their slings and arrows, had those shots at them, risked getting fired. Some have been fired. And they’re long-time left people, but… the left today is… not the left that I remember, that I have long considered myself part of, which is antiwar, which is about rectifying grotesque income inequality, strengthening the working class, certainly civil rights… Those are, I see them as left issues. Many of them are also libertarian issues. So what the left has now become is a pro-censorship army. It wants censorship, so the left has changed immensely, and I think that I’m sort of a casualty of that.
He’s suing all the signatories of the university’s letter denouncing him for things he didn’t even say, so that’ll make for a nice work environment I’m sure.
“Many on Twitter were quick to point out how differently law enforcement behaved over the summer, deploying rubber bullets and tear gas in many instances across the country. On Wednesday, the police response in Washington, DC, appeared more muted.”
Today’s demonstration, which turned violent far more quickly, with pro-Trump rioters breaking in to Congress and causing the Federal building to go into lockdown, seemingly did not inspire the same response from law enforcement, even as Trump supporters vandalized Federal property.
One officer could even be seen posing for a selfie with one of the rioters."
I haven’t been counting, but maybe you know how many BLM protestors were killed by cops during their protests this summer? Because 4 people are dead from this capitol protest, and that doesn’t seem like as much restraint as we saw, for example, in Portland.
For reference, in Portland, a single conservative was assassinated for his hat by an Antifa thug, and no one else died at all at the hands of cops at all and that was in over 100 peaceful protests last year.
He should have been removed from office yesterday. I think it’s unclear who would have presided over the joint session if Pence was acting president.
"Trump was behaving like “a total monster,” [which means as expected] an official told the Post. The outlet noted that the president had to be persuaded to issue a statement to calm his supporters.
Yet instead of telling them to immediately leave the Capitol, Trump posted a video to Twitter in which he merely told the rioters to act peacefully, telling them, “We love you.” The social media platform has now banned the president from posting out of fear that he will incite more violence."
"Several White House officials have resigned due to the incident. Among them are Stephanie Grisham, the first lady’s press secretary, and Mick Mulvaney, the former White House chief of staff who still had an administration post as special envoy to Northern Ireland.
Others are reportedly considering making an exit with just 13 days left in Trump’s term.
“Those who choose to stay, and I have talked with some of them, are choosing to stay because they’re worried the president might put someone worse in,” Mulvaney told CNBC."
1 Like
There is more to that story:
6 Likes
You know that Trump will abandon you, too, right?
What is Trump doing about the massive Russian cyberattack? The most recent “Solar Winds” one? Is he busy dealing with it?
I can guarantee he’s been phoning his daddy and begging for him to give him Hillary’s emails. Also Fidel Castro’s emails with Pelosi conspiring to steal the 2020 election.
3 Likes