Gromnir

why on earth would you read more than one? if you think Gromnir is repetitive... and sure, the democrats would be doing the exact same thing. we have repeated many times how the whole current Court problem is a democrat legacy o' their killing o' filibuster, a fail which obama clear learned nothing from given his john lewis eulogy. wanna go back further? scalia had unanimous senate approval in 86. unanimous. one year later and democrat borking forever changed Justice appointments. had many decades where President's Justice appointment and senate confirmation were merit based and curiously non-political. democrats went and f'd that up and they did so to reject one o' the most impressive American legal minds o' the 20th century. however, like it or not, this situation is the hypocrisy o' mitch, lindsey graham and others and not the democrats. IF the republicans in february o' 2016 had stated they had the votes and were gonna sit on an obama nominee come hell or high water, then they would not be facing the scorn and ridicule o' justa' 'bout every non hardcore trumper today. we will let the voters decide, rings hollow at the moment, no? the republicans tried to legitimize their power grab 'cause they didn't want torpid and indolent democrat voters to come out in numbers to reject what we all knew were gutlevel wrong at the time, but it were legal and Constitutional. don't like the Constitution? tough noogies. solution is to vote. is nothing illegal 'bout what the republicans is doing. is skeevy and a bit underhanded, but am suspecting In The Current Political Environment, democrats would do the same. the thing is, this is not an insular choice. republicans need to win this November 'cause if democrats take back both houses o' Congress after republicans forced through a new supreme court justice in october, or worse as could be a lame duck appointment in december, there will be a reckoning come January 4, 2021. that reckoning will be Constitutional and legal. and so the cycle will continue until somebody has the sense and courage to say, "no more." we keep telling folks that legal and Constitutional is NOT same as right and moral. unconstitutional is never okie dokie, but Constitutional is not same as good or right or just. Constitutional gives republicans the power and the right to make a choice, and their choice will be judged, perhaps quicker than they would hope. "“You’ll regret this and you might regret it even sooner than you might think,” McConnell warned." mitch were right in 2013. the thing is, as mitch 2020 pushes ahead, he should listen to his 2013 self... just to make #s qq HA! Good Fun!

seven sentences and a shrug? am seeing the problem if you find such to be mentally taxing or daunting. if it makes you feel better, we will happily provide a video response if you take another civil rights icon and quote him/her out of context. kinda gotta work with what you provide. as for oro your insights into our background is intriguing. do continue. with the scholarships gone, at the very least we woulda' been back at the rez for a year or two, and statistic that is not a good start to a post high school career. similar, tell us how great non-college opportunities are ignores just how much better college educated americans has done post recession . we do not measure our personal success by our degree, and have noted we believe a degree is overrated, but ignore statistics in favor o' gut is not compelling. american companies don't agree with Gromnir, by a large margin, new jobs post recession has been for folks with college. oh, and Job Losses Hit Workers Without College Degrees The Hardest thanks to trump's inept handling o' the pandemic, his constituency (and underprivileged minority groups) has been hit particular hard by covid job losses. which brings us to the following... am glad you recognize the problem. didn't stop you. HA! Good Fun!

doesn't matter who invented. is how it is used and by whom. "idpol" says more 'bout those who use than it does 'bout those you claim it applies. we hear "idpol" and is not difficult to predict where a post and argument is going. you did not surprise us. shibboleth label clear appropriate. and hey, am getting how embarrassing it must be to have the old select-a-quote routine undermined by mlk in his own words. sure, you were making a kinda silly argument, but you no doubt felt pretty good that you had a quote, out of context, from mlk himself which reinforced your evils o' idpol bit. take it as a learning experience and endeavour to do better in the future. that said, we do tend to repeat self, but you didn't actual offer anything new. just the misquote. *shrug* as for oro's story o weal and woe... as a person who grew up on pine ridge, we can tell you it is possible to succeed in America and thrive no matter how impoverished one begins life. so what? anybody really wanna hear Gromnir's horatio alger story? am also much aware how easy it woulda' been for things to turn out extreme different for us. our mother developed cancer while we were in high school and we had to spend considerable time caring for her. if our grades had dropped, what then? nobody woulda' faulted us if our studies slipped a bit, but a number o' scholarships woulda' been off the table after that. is easy for us to see dozens o' critical points in our life where one small mistake or misfortune mighta' doomed our future prospects. if we came from a nice and stable middle-class family, we coulda' faced such obstacles and failed more than once... call 'em growth or learning experiences. converse, we had zero room for error. none. is all kinda wonderful anecdotal stories 'bout what can be achieved in the US. those stories is real. it is possible to go from bottom 1% to top 1% in one generation. nevertheless need be willful obtuse to ignore overwhelming statistics and realities o' life in the US. is getting more difficult to thrive in the US. is no longer possible to raise a family on a minimum wage job, which only a few decades ago were plausible. is far more difficult to move up from poverty to middle class than in previous decades. etc. and sowell is not 100% wrong on any number o' issues, however, "A Marxist radicalized into a free-market libertarian by a year working at the U.S. Labor Department, Sowell is now the go-to black academic for conservative media outlets. The son of a maid, he earned his way in the old-fashioned style to and through New York’s elite Stuyvesant High School, Harvard College, Columbia and the University of Chicago. He has waged a relentless crusade against those who would try to alleviate poverty or equalize opportunity through welfare, affirmative action or anything else that interferes with the operation of free markets."-- recent book review is not surprising a victim o' the breitbart echo chamber would glomp onto sowell. maybe you got from same place numbers got his mlk quote? dunno. as you aren't quoting or referencing any particular part o' sowell, am left to wonder what insights you derive from his books and lectures. we do note how heavily sowell relies on chance and random factors to explain disparities in income. such variables would not consistent produce the disparities we see which correspond with race. sure, chance will have a significant impact on any complex scenario with multiple and poorly understood factors contributing to the result. to interfere in such poorly understood market factors is dangerous. applies to any extreme complex economic example, but after a few million throws o' the dice, you are gonna see patterns emerge. when the patterns consistent correspond with existing racial breakdowns, it takes a particular curious act o' will to ignore the relevance o' race. generalizing taxation efforts is also ridiculous. for example, progressive taxes is much different than flat taxes. make some non specific and vague observation 'bout taxes shows a depth o' ignorance or an attempt to purposeful mislead. more than once on these boards Gromnir has observed real positive change insofar as taxes had better include an overhaul o' the current capital gains scheme, 'cause that is where most rich folks is making their money. have criticized folks like bernie and warren for their tax the rich approach w/o addressing the biggest issues. but again, repeating self... unapologetically. HA! Good Fun!

none of the female candidates trump is s'posed considering for the nomination pass hawley's test. you want some irony? up until a week ago, the only Justice on the Supreme Court who had public stated previous to sitting on the Court that roe v. wade were improper decided were... J. Ginsburg. The forgotten history of Justice Ginsburg’s criticism of Roe v. Wade HA! Good Fun!

"idpol"? another shibboleth wielder. selective quotes and a general misrepresentation o' mlk does not help your position. mlk, was not in favor o' the "black power" phrase. true. mlk focus were indeed on economic equality. is one reason we keep stressing how is the economic pain being suffered by many disenfranchised groups which should be the focus o' those wishing to bring 'bout change. however, reimagine mlk to fit your preferred version o' him is unsound. mlk would be disappointed by the inability o' those who identify as blm to better disavow and stop violence, but imply the mlk message were less 'bout race than class struggle is untenable. maybe need the full i have a dream speech I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation. Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity. But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. ... I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. again, am convinced mlk would decry the occasional violence, but am having no doubt he would support blm and what that loose confederation o' people and ideals represents. that said, Gromnir has noted more than once, and previous to the whole alt-right exploitation o' widespread white grievance bit, that the insistence on framing broader social issues as the result o' racism or as a result o' white privilege does have a tendency to further aggravate that considerable body o' white voters who has been suffering disproportionate for many years. tell a former factory worker in indiana who is working three part-time jobs and is getting further behind every month as he struggles to support his wife and two kids that he should also feel guilt 'bout his white privilege is not helping bring him into the democrat party fold. yes, the way in which overt zoning restrictions and more subtle home loan preferences denied minorities from having the same home ownership opportunities for generations (and lasting well into the 70s) created a legacy o' racial inequality, a legacy with repercussions still felt today, and unlikely to spontaneous end anytime in the near future. systemic racism is not a past tense issue, but am cognizant o' the reality that such issues cannot be framed so overt as it antagonizes that considerable body o' white voters who is also suffering. working class white voters is a reality and 2016 proved it is unwise to ignore 'em. hillary was certain she didn't need 'em. deplorables. more fool her. HA! Good Fun!

joan jett is fantastic. am recalling a late 80s interview with her from some late night show and we thought she were from long island, 'cause she were talking 'bout ny as if it were her hometown, and she sounded like billy joel's little sister. has been a long time since we looked, but am pretty sure she is original from eastern pennsylvania and am knowing she went to high school in socal... or at least some o' her high school were socal. weird trivia, 'cause such is what we do. @Guard Dog referenced a movie not too long ago on these boards, the best of times. am recalling robin williams and kurt russell were s'posed taft high grads. joan jett attended taft high. oh, and as proof o' the all posts is star trek posts, tony plana, who were in the best of times, was a maquis member in a couple ds9 episodes. HA! Good Fun!

no. normalcy were, at the very least, pre-obama. we pointed out how the current supreme Court snafu owes its lineage to obama and harry reid, which is why we were so annoyed obama chose to inject his filibuster bit into the eulogy o' john lewis. you have no idea how difficult it is for us to not add f#@&*ing whenever we read "fillibuster." obama increased, by a significant degree, the capacity o' the fed to spy on americans and used the irs to go after the tea party. no President since lincoln imprisoned more journalists and obama's use o' executive orders (again, don't get confused by pure number o' executive orders) to avoid Congress not only led to the current administration magnifying the abuse but made it all to easy to simple end previous administration practices. etc. is hard to believe nowadays, but rust belt midwesterners voted for obama, and change. by 2016, they felt betrayed. the insanity o' the situation is that the recession were particularly hard on those folks w/o college degrees, punishing many groups o' minority voters AND undereducated white voters. legacy o' the recession is one reason we got so many protests today, and trump in the wh. is ironic, but the mistaken belief that somehow washington were ignoring red states in favor o' urban were utter bs. if not for divisive alt-right narrative which were so effective, minority groups and all those undereducated rust belt midwesterners would/should be natural allies, 'cause as a group they has all suffered disproportionate for far too long. polarization takes folks suffering many o' the same problems and turns 'em into antagonists such that now they can't even be in the same room with each other w/o a fight breaking out. oh, and again, the trump base is undereducated. some will act offended by the label but is not strict streaking pejorative. like it or not, working class whites is the trump base, and by definition that is folks who has a low incidence o' college education. how such folks voted is hardly meaningful proof that normalcy were bad. we would say is at least a strong argument in favor o' our signature. "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927) is so many current problems which can be fixed with education, ignorance being one o' the more pervasive and insidious US problems. ignorance is also not pejorative in and of itself. we worked more than our fair share o' blue color jobs before we became a lawyer. ranch hand. roofing. roofing supply. landscape maintenance. the folks we worked with as we stacked +40 lb armfuls o' hurled concrete tile on the roofs o' homes we could not afford to live in were not, for the most part, dumb. they were uneducated, and their job were back breaking and arduous and whatever extra time they had were invested in overtime. little opportunity to go to college when everyday ended in exhaustion. lack o' education is a far different thing than stoopid, and stoopid itself is forgivable. is willful ignorance which should be intolerable. btw, 9/11 and patriot act sure as hell weren't normal either. regardless, normalcy is a bit further in the rearview mirror than implied. HA! Good Fun! ps we were forgetting how good were the jay pharoah impression o' obama.

why would you think is personal? am suspecting the real question is why you question the significance o' the post we linked, or many similar but a bit less wieldy posts we could link and has quoted. and where is the spin? we reposted your post w/o any effort to describe or characterize. am thinking this whole "spin" concept is a mystery to you. gonna accuse us o' misrepresentation or misleading? am not calling you a white supremacist or a bigot or even an anti-semite. am suspecting such would cross some kinda obsidian board line... though the line is somewhat tidal in nature. repost your posts cannot result in an accusation o' name calling and is 'bout as opposite o' mischaracterization as is possible. your posts, and words, speak for themselves and defy any attempt at spin or a pivot. somehow make this a personal quirk o' Gromnir's? HA! to stay on-topic, am more than a little concerned 'bout the Court if trump manages to install an appointment either before the election or as a lame duck. am not seeing many romneys, flakes or mccains on the democrat side o' the aisle at the moment. the current republican justification for their rush to instal a new Justice is that they got a mandate from the people. is speciscious. is a different justification than 2016. what the senate republicans have at the moment is a simple majority which confers the power to make choices. if democrats win the senate and Presidency, they will likewise have the power to add Justices to the Court. one wonders what will be the response from republicans when, sooner or later, democrats have power to do unto republicans. will sudden minority republicans nod in stoic and silent acknowledgement that the Constitution grants such power to Congress and that the American people voted creating a mandate for change? unfortunate, the President and republicans seem hellbent on doing this regardless o' the consequences. mcconnell gambled four years ago and won. a republican President were installed and a nine month delay in the nomination process proved to be an enormous strategic win for mitch. like him or hate him, but mad props to mitch for his victory. however, the stakes is much bigger this time. if mcconnell forces a replacement through (don't misunderstand 'cause this will be mitch's decision regardless o' what trump wants) and democrats win Presidency and senate, then we predict a mark anthony moment. there will be a political reckoning, and there won't be a democrat version o' mccain to stand 'gainst the tide and demand a return to normalcy. oh, and keep in mind we ain't going all fox media and predicting actual blood in the streets in an attempt to scare the +65 audience which makes up a majority o' their viewers. HA! Good Fun!

trump wins reelection and then disney and microsoft merge. cyberpunk will need find a new angle 'cause their shtick will no longer be alternate reality or sci fi. HA! Good Fun!

oh, don't underestimate his value. we mentioned elsewhere that if there were not a person present who misunderstood the 94% silliness making its way 'mongst the covid-19 hoaxers, we would need invent such an improbable person. your mod beats us to the point almost every time. if there is bad science or pro china tyranny argument which needs be rejected, you have identified the most likely candidate to offer himself up like the staked goat in jurassic park. sure, we feel a bit guilty at times, but do not undervalue that kinda predictability. skarpen_one is preternatural capable o' misrepresenting any legal issue and yet nevertheless appears unable to restrain himself from weighing in on those issues. meet a person with a peanut allergy who literal cannot stop themselves from eating peanuts? doesn't exist, right? shouldn't possible exist. skarp_one exists. curious. oro posts such as the following: blm protesters don't deserve compassion or understanding, but white supremacists do? somehow manages to act hurt or offended when his message ain't taken more serious. serious? and am not certain what happened to vol in recent years. every bad cop encounter is by definition the fault o' blm or antifa? vol somehow is God's punishment for the 1619 project? for those o' you who wanna frame every event in US and western history as a result o' institutional supported slavery, vol exists as the extreme opposite living response. maybe one or two others... is some folks who contribute to the board not 'cause there is a point in attempting to debate 'em or move 'em or in the initial case, make 'em at least a little more self aware. those folks may nevertheless serve different purposes. they (how does the mod put it?) "qq" at being "misrepresented" with direct quotes o' their posts. is amusing stuff. oh, and is not as if they is all wrong all the time. have specific noted vol is not always wrong and have agreed with not skarp_one but the others in the past, if only extreme rare. have pointed out how am moderate terrified when vol isn't wrong as is kinda akin to deciphering a warning from Revelations in real time. HA! Good Fun!

another reading fail. you don't say? huh. Hu! Good Fun!

Trump targets Seattle, Portland, NYC, DC by threatening federal funding for ‘anarchist’ cities some o' you already forgot or never noticed? were september 2. hate to break it to @BruceVC, but this effort will be as impotent as were the near identical President's memo. furthermore, and apparent bears repeating as is not getting through, but the most consistent lawlessness being displayed in the noted cities is by the federal government sending troops where they is unwelcome and denying due process rights to detainees. keep in mind the funding cut threat were also used when trump threatened sanctuary cities over immigration issues, which an appeals Court quick and unanimous struck down on basis o' separation o' powers. much ado 'bout nothing save for what should be the recognition o' a slow and inexorable slide towards tyranny. HA! Good Fun!

actually, we specific noted you and oro were hopeless causes. am not least interested in your opinion 'cause is nothing more than the mindless doggerel the alt-right echo box continues to vomit forth. your responses is however illustrative o' why we do not care 'bout your opinions... well that and the irrationality and self-contradictory nonsense. attributing skarp_one description o' blm protester motivations to the protesters as a whole? *chuckle* nope. is precise why the government don't get to define or ascribe motivations. heck, as already noted earlier in the thread, blm has never been able to win trademark recognition 'cause there is no singular and recognizable blm. is gonna be considerable variation o' protester motivation, but am suspecting almost none agree with skarp_one characterization. nevertheless, skarp_one's imagined description o' blm motivations should be meaningful? sure ain't meaningful to us as. you don't matter. oh, and another reading comprehension fail. we specific said your focus on the illegal behaviour o' the protesters is flawed. we pointed out how you failed to recognize the illegal actions o' the government. playing ostrich doesn't mean Gromnir needs ignore the genuine pivotal issue. in spite o' your earlier denials, both hk protesters and blm has resorted to violence. skarp_one fail from the get go. furthermore, am as disinterested now as previous in having a stephen miller wannabe explain to us how swell is the folks in hong kong and how vile is blm protesters. however, "other folks at least claim to be motivated by conscience, and bruce should have the extreme real example o' how the apartheid government o' sa used brutality under the guise o' law and order to suppress protesters and dissent." am genuine curious 'bout the self described conservatives o' conscience and others who manage to sympathize with the lawless and often violent protests in hong kong, but somehow see the blm protests as an existential threat. the only reason we got any interest whatsoever in continuing to discuss with skarp_one his venomous pov o' the blm protests is in hope one o' those conservatives o' conscience will have the courage to step forward and either agree with you or reject. instead, we get silence from the conscience while oro and skarp drone on 'bout the chinese hegemony and leftist shills and whatnot. @Guard Dog have explained multiple times what we think were wrong in citizens united. the Court weaponized free speech in a way we thought were dangerous. commercial speech has always receive less protection than full first amendment would afford a person. the transactional nature o' commercial speech meant that selling soap on tv were viewed different than advocating for a candidate running for office. pacs is no less transactional than is tv soap commercials, and corporations should not be seen as having same fundamental rights as people. a corporation cannot run for office, but the reasoning o' citizens united makes one wonder why such is not possible. here is the part @Amentep may or may not be aware and is the reason we were conflicted 'bout the ruling-- buckley v. valeo had previous removed the limit on individual contributions to pacs. buckley were way back in 1976 which decided pac spending by individuals were a free speech issue and individual limits were unconstitutional. so, sooper rich folks could contribute unlimited money to a pac, just as long as the pac were at leas s'posed not dedicated to financing a specific candidate/campaign. utter bs, but that were the law. the Court in citizens united said it were unfair that pacs so favored the wealthy contributor. the Court opened the door to small investors banding together to make contributions on par with wealthy voters. sounds fair, no? 'course the reasoning o' the Court complete ignored the reality o' pacs and the threat o' hidden foreign investment and a whole host o' other issues. scalia wrote a nineteen page dissent in mcconnell which chided the Court for ignoring a few realities such as how soft money favored incumbents by a better than 3:1 margin. nevertheless, he went along with the majority in citizens united, albeit with a concurrence which were less than enthusiastic. citizens united were required 'cause the Court so bungled the issue in mcconnell v. fec. the problem is the Court addressed the wrong issue. pacs and corporations is not people for purposes o' elections or election contributions. to frame as a fairness question were misguided. https://www.nytimes.com/video/obituaries/100000003489698/john-paul-stevens-obituary.html we should all weep for the mistakes made by the citizens united court. mccain-feingold might' been the most important election related legislation evar, and the Court killed it. shame. HA! Good Fun!

nazis in skokie do not get less protection from the Constitution than does the Little sisters of Mercy. thank goodness. again, in the US, it is illegal for the government to use motivations and message as the basis for suppression. you admitting the protester motivations is your guiding principle on this kinda issue is an auto fail, which you nevertheless fail to realize. and why on earth do you think the illegal nature o' the protesters is an appropriate rebuttal to the government's illegal behaviour? you somehow imagine cops and government, when confronting suspects, is subject to unwritten marquis o' queensbury rules? government need follow the rules just so long as does the suspects? only fair, yes? that can't possibly make sense to you, can it? you are so weird-- perpetual wrong and weird. HA! Good Fun!

add to the file o' news which should shock nobody. HSBC Escapes Prosecution as U.S. Ends 5-Year Deferred Deal Justice Department Announces Deferred Prosecution Agreement with HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA Gangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail got these record setting fines, which amounts to a functional wink and a nod given what hsbc makes in a year, fines which is evential paid for by hsbc customers. no criminal prosecutions. as an aside, deutsche bank and jp morgan is also 'mongst the possible nogoodniks mentioned in icij report. am stressing "possible" 'cause this is a classic smoke w/o fire situation. the manner in which the baks handled and seeming manipulated their sars responsibilities is enough to make any reasonable person suspicious, but isn't conclusive proof. however, gotta be kinda obtuse not to be suspicious and concerned. am not thinking it is fair to generalize in such a way. however, we do agree his past posts regarding totalitarian government responses, as well as his frequent indifference to state actions to limit liberties of citizens, were representing an unfortunate trend. is why we specific said we were not overly surprised but were disappointed. nevertheless, to make broad generalizations based on a person's race, national origin and occupation is, at the very least, unfair. make assumptions 'bout a woman latino judge from the US? am talking J. sotomayor or trumps' appointee candidate, barbara lagoa? both catholic and children o' immigrant parents. that said, am thinking bruce deserves a chance to respond as 'posed to need fight stereotype. @BruceVC will once again appeal to you to consider that the US federal government, which already has overwhelming advantages o' resources and law when dealing with groups and individual protesters, nevertheless resorted to overt illegal and unconstitutional means to suppress protesters in multiple american cities. those arrested by unnamed fed police is frequent denied due process. sedition laws do NOT apply to local protesters asking for a mayor to resign, and it is patent unconstitutional for the fed to send troops to states and cities where they has not been welcomed either the governor or the legislature. if the US government can't deal with protesters w/o routine breaking its own rules, we suggest there is cause for concern and more than a little suspicion. am not suggesting protesters is always right. we has even criticized blm for making it too easy for fox and trump to create a false narrative. even so, if the federal government is consistent violating its own traditions, rules and laws to bring about law and order, am thinking even bruce would have cause to be suspicious o' the suppression o' protests. you, more than many o' us here, do not need set the wayback machine to the 1950s thru early 70s to be recalling the last time we had lasting protests in multiple major us cities for an extended period o' time. civil rights and vietnam war protesters were not popular with the public at large at the time. nevertheless, for most americans, this is the stuff o' movies, grain black & white news footage, and snippets from a high school textbook. you should be acute aware o' the advantages a government has in framing the narrative regarding protests. not all protests is worthy o' sympathy. violence is never ok; am talking to all you closeted antifa supporters. setting fires to property is almost never a good look. etc. nevertheless, where the Government is routine breaking its own rules and laws to suppress protests, am thinking there is a duty to serious consider the possibility that the villains is not blm and other such groups. HA! Good Fun! ps is effective a response to the most recent bruce post.

where? for a start, away from trump and his mendacity and corruption. call it a good start. HA! Good Fun!

you claimed the hk protests were peaceful. confronted with visual evidence to the contrary, you showed a story 'bout hk protesters involved in post violence cleanup. poof so, strict speaking not universal "peaceful," similar to blm protests. you didn't even try and refute the spurious peace claim. instead you tried a pivot... to cleanup? huh? *shrug* also failed 'cause is similar stories o' blm cleanup efforts. furthermore, 'ccording to skarp_one, blm is "looting in the name of junkie that overdosed in police presence." your own tortured words makes apparent that the justification for unconstitutional and illegal use o' force by the government to suppress blm is 'cause you disapprove o' the motivations o' blm. has been numerous posts by Gromnir showing how the doj efforts to suppress protests in places such as portland is unconstitutional and illegal. no pushback from skarp_one on that point which is a good thing as the pas has shown how ill-equipped you are to deal with questions o' law. so again, hk ain't been exact peaceful and nevertheless creates sympathy. the US response to blm protests has been illegal and thus by definition lawless. nevertheless, skarp_one sees US actions as justified. ... now am s'posed a china supporter? okie dokie. makes as much sense as calling us a leftist shill, but go ahead and channel your inner vol if such deflection helps you endure your embarrassments. am a scalia quoting, obama critical (foreign policy and domestic,) defender o' police and state rights who decries national debt and activist judges... not to mention we defend bush from the wmd lies claims. the left is not gonna be inviting us to run for office anytime soon. our lefty views put us in good company. am similar lefty to mattis, former admiral mcraven, the late john mccain, jeff flake, chuck hagel, william howard taft iv, michael vickers, thomas ridge, mitt romney and 1000 former fed prosecutors add lindsey graham to the list... circa 2015 lindsey that is. oh, and the governator the problem is that a bunch o' alt-right nutters (and trump) has hijacked the republican party so that traditional conservative values is actual criticized and ridiculed by trump loyalists. is no room in the republican party for traditional conservatives. pro china accusation is even more amusing. HA! Good Fun!

missed all the blm t-shirts in those pictures o' people cleaning? https://blockclubchicago.org/2020/06/03/thousands-in-north-side-march-told-if-serious-about-helping-come-to-south-and-west-side-cleanup-events-this-week/ regardless, your bs 'bout the difference 'tween peaceful hk protests v. blm protests evaporated in an instant and you then retreated to some kinda cleanup effort story in an attempt to distinguish. turns out the same stories exist for blm. so, now what? you efforts to legitimize is transparent. you approve o' the motivation and goals o' the hk protesters who has resorted to violence frequent. converse, you disapprove o' blm motivations, so you see unconstitutional police state tactics employed by the government as a legit response to the blm protests. you clear ain't self aware enough to realize the hypocrisy and boarderline insanity o' such a position. am not surprised oro and skarp_one glomp onto the fox narrative. a few o' the other trump supporters is indulging in the sunk cost fallacy we mentioned earlier as a way to justify their mistake. how do you continue to support trump w/o believing he represents the last defense against an existential threat? if such a threat don't exist, then one must be imagined. the threat doesn't need be reasonable; just needs be plausible enough to allow trump supporters to sleep at night w/o having to face their personal colonel nicholson moment. am uncertain 'bout bruce. am disappointed in bruce. again, given his awareness o' the sa apartheid government tactics, one would think bruce would be particular suspicious o' a government narrative which frames protesters as seditious terrorists. we would expect a doubting thomas approach from bruce. am not over surprised by bruce and others buying into the +100 days of rampant and uncontrolled lawlessness reducing dozens o' US cities to smoking ruins narrative. am disappointed. HA! Good Fun!

People Are Coming Together Across The Country To Clean Up Neighborhoods After A Weekend Of Protests same stories o' destruction. same stories o' rebuild. you see blm motivation as insufficient and thus police state action is warranted. predictable. would be tragic if not so predictable. please do, 'cause at the moment you would appear to be doing same shtick as skarp_one and approving police state tactics o' protest suppression. bruce is buying into a narrative much different from what is actually happening. HA! Good Fun!

anybody at all surprised a skarp_one description would be woeful inaccurate? hardly an isolated example. the thing is, am suspecting you identify the real pivot point, if only by accident. the blm protesters, in your mind, have insufficient motivation. blm is "looting in the name of junkie that overdosed in police presence." therefore it is just and proper for the US government to resort to police state tactics to suppress the blm protests. converse, the people in hong kong are fighting the good fight 'gainst the chinese hegemony we has been hearing 'bout so much o' late. hong kong protesters deserve sympathy and support. blm deserves liberal use o' police batons, nameless federal troops and tear gas. it may be a difficult concept for skarp_one to grasp, but what you imply is fundamental unamerican. see, the message and motive is never the justification for government limits or suppression o' protests. 'course such a misapprehension o' American values, perhaps understandable foreign to skarp-one and his ilk, ignores point that what the US government is doing to suppress blm protesters violates Constitution, federal statutes and state laws. nevertheless, somehow the lack o' legitimacy o' blm makes such violations o' law not only tolerable but desirable for trump supporters. am not surprised by skarp_one's reply. however, it is the individuals who claim conscience and yet remain noticeable quiet when they is asked to defend muslim bans and the police state response to blm protests who is most disappointing and a bit chilling. much as trump clear knew the dangers 'o covid and nevertheless pressed forward with a plan to minimize rational government response to a global pandemic, am suspecting many trump supporters is equal clearheaded 'bout the manner in which their chosen candidate daily violates the rule of law and any concept o' decency. the faustian bargain has been struck and there is no going back for most such faux republicans who has lost their way. each additional proof o' incompetence and corruption from trump has the curious opposite impact from what would be reasonable in such circumstances. skarp_one is one o' the lost causes and he needs no such justifications to embrace police state tactics. am more curious 'bout the salvageable souls 'mongst the trump flock. HA! Good Fun!

what is curious to us personal is how many o' the folks here who see on tv the hong kong protesters and sympathize with them is nevertheless calling for more police state when is blm protesters in portland. sure, a couple obsidian posters is channeling the david duke fringe element o' the republican party and we consider such folks a lost cause, but other folks at least claim to be motivated by conscience, and bruce should have the extreme real example o' how the apartheid government o' sa used brutality under the guise o' law and order to suppress protesters and dissent. we mentioned at the time o' ferguson, the protests are symptomatic o' larger societal concerns beyond what eve the protesters claim is their raison d'être. bruce is looking at unrest and seems to think law enforcement is a solution. he should know better. law and order may be effective in suppressing the protests but such is only exacerbating the problems if there ain't simultaneous efforts to fix the underlying causes o' the protests. and no, am not suggesting lawless behaviour should be ignored. don't need to search very hard on these boards to see where we complain 'bout the failure o' any kinda protester leadership which might disavow and help control those behaviours which do not lead to progress and would make john lewis weep. protests is a symptom. past Presidents have failed to adequate address the causes. is no question the problems is massive. however, trump is the first President in our lifetime to encourage the divisiveness which is one o' the causes o' the protests. trump has ignored the Constitution and sent federal troops to enforce his view o' law and order in states and localities where his efforts has been categorical and overt rejected. there has been arrests by individuals claiming to be fed who refuse to identify selves and who routine fail to observe due process and miranda rights o' those detained. labeling o' protesters as domestic terrorists and purveyors o' sedition? really? as such, why would anybody vote for trump if they is genuine concerned 'bout protests? is so the Opposite o' law and order, but it is consistent with police state behaviours. but perhaps we misread bruce. perhaps he does see blm and hong kong protesters as analogous and mayhap bruce thinks more Chinese style police state behaviours is the appropriate response both in portland and hong kong. HA! Good Fun!

so, thanks for sharing the hannity/carlson/inghram narrative? HA! Good Fun!

dog whistle much? the suggestion being a woman and person o color "meets all the requirements o' the far left" will be the fox news and breitbart spin. thanks for being the obsidian board voice box for the conservative media echo chamber. such silliness will be yet another way for trump to make race and gender issues. choose a woman evangelical who is public opposed to roe v. wade and suggest she meets requirements o' liberals is what we expect and should be transparent and hollow... but it will play to the trump base. HA! Good Fun!

already addressed in our ps. trump wants to juice his campaign and distract from covid-19. is gonna be a hard push from the wh to get this done before november 3. am also thinking mcconnell believes he won't have the political clout to get a lame duck appointment through senate. mcconnell is more concerned with his legacy o' fed court appointments than anything else, which is why this has been the most unproductive Congress in modern history. mitch has tabled everything but appointments. am honest not sure how this all plays out 'cause trump is impulsive and often irrational. that said, am suspecting the best predictor o' what becomes the strategy for trump and the republicans is to watch fox the next couple days. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking too many people is forgetting how to read a calendar. in 2016 this were an issue 'cause the election would decide if the Court swung activist or remained in the hands o' the textualists. if trump gets a supreme court justice nominated and approved before november 3rd, then you have removed the immediate voting motivation o' folks indifferent to trump v. biden, but concerned 'bout the SCOTUS composition. am suspecting trump wants to nominate an individual who will anger liberals so as to energize his base. such is not good news for senate republicans who are in danger o' losing their seats. collins might be fighting a doomed battle precise 'cause o' her support o' kavanaugh. other vulnerable senate republicans need support o' independents and even a few democrats to win reelection. this upcoming SCOTUS battle is not what most senate republicans facing reelection want. sure, there will be an effort to frame this situation as a repeat o' 2016, but that ends as soon as folks remember how to read a calendar. even so, this will be an issue trump uses to energize his base, so he will probable choose an evangelical as unpalatable to democrats as possible... though will likely be female as he has taken a considerable hit 'mongst women who voted for him in 16. choose somebody who at least appears to reject roe v. wade. the more divisive the candidate, the better it is for trump... and the worse it is for senate republicans fighting close battles. rush through background investigation and do a lightning fast committee review is not gonna be a good optics but is gonna be necessary to get this completed before november 3. oh, and not that democrats wanna hear this, but this nonsense all started 'cause obama and harry reid were frustrated with republican intransigence regarding appointments and they went nuclear as a solution. needed sixty votes for Presidential appointees. democrats changed the rules and at the time mcconnell and other republicans cried foul, warning there would be a reckoning for violating time honored traditions. an eye for an eye for an eye foraneyeforaneyeforaneyeforaneyeforaneye... you reap what you sow. the thing is, if this kinda thing don't stop, is only gonna get worse. after four years o' trump and republicans one-upping the democrats, does anybody believe the democrats, if they wrest control o' the senate, will try and reset to a more sane and sober political environment? democrats, faced with the long list o' trump and senate republican violations o' constitutional law and government norms will indeed be justified in their efforts to do unto the republicans as has been done unto them... and so the cycle will continue. "“You’ll regret this and you might regret it even sooner than you might think,” McConnell warned." am knowing it is too late for mcconnell to look in the mirror and have a discussion with his 2013 self. we will all suffer 'cause folks on both sides o' the aisle refuse to stop and reflect on the consequences o' their actions. ps is nothing to stop trump and mcconnell from pushing forward this effort even if trump loses. nothing precludes a lame duck appointment. is a couple republican senate seats which may change sooner rather than later, but until at least january 3, 2021, mitch has control o' the senate, and trump stays in office 'til january 20.