The All Things Political Topic - All people love themselves too much to be changed by something as simple as love.

[Elerond]

[Gromnir]

the biggest problem with definitions is people will cherry pick.  ted and others is gonna find an alternative bit o' code or embrace an alternative reading. same goes for insurrection, which the oed and merriam-webster has definitions some do not like. sedition will change subtle but significant depending on if you are using black's or the us code. have seen people try exceptional hard to read a definition so that it supports their pov, and alternatively they will find the outlier definition more palatable and sudden become fans o' a new source. 

as an aside, am not a big fan o' terrorism labels. kinda like hate speech, is our observation that terrorism statutes exist to be criminalizing bad behaviors different depending on how much we dislike or fear the speaker or actor. am not seeing a genuine need for hate speech or terrorism statutes. if somebody blows up a bus and kills a bunch o' kids, is it worse 'cause it were intended to coerce as 'posed perhaps being an exercise in mayhem and chaos? find who blew up the bus and punish 'em for murder and proerty destruction and whatnot. if speech is bad enough that it violates the Constitution, which is a tough threshold to exceed, do we then heap on a greater punishment 'cause the speech is racist, sexist or bigoted? don't seem necessary.

converse, if you got thousands o' people breaking into one o' the essential buildings housing the Article 1 branch o' the federal government, thousands who is intent on delaying or stopping altogether the peaceful transition o' power o' the Article 2 branch o' the federal government, then am thinking you are talking 'bout more than trespass and vandalism.

'course ted has never been in the Gromnir camp insofar as hate speech or domestic terrorism labels, so his waffling has little to do with definitions or integrity. ted squirming is an effort to make sure he don't offend thulsa doom's nightly audience.

edit:

The Capitol Attack Signaled a Post-Christian Church, Not Merely a Post-Christian Culture

"As with the insurrection (and virtually every authoritarian movement in history), an apocalyptic moment is an emergency requiring emergency measures. Thus we get the cognitive dissonance of people who support law and order (sometimes by quoting Romans 13) beating police officers and breaking through windows in order to shut down Congress’s constitutional duty to count electoral votes. These are the people who can ridicule the very words of Jesus Christ about turning the other cheek as naïve and weak."

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Gromnir

[Amentep]

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Im still not convinced we can call the Capitol violence an insurrection, the semantics do  matter.

Wut?

What you just said (substituting dictionary definitions) was "I'm still not convinced we can call the violence in and at the building that symbolizes the government and which at the time had the government actively discharging its public duties a violent uprising against an authority or government; the meanings of words, phrases or systems do matter", or to put it plainly, you're saying the meanings of words matter while also denying the literal meaning of the word insurrection.

[HoonDing]

You had some very fine people among the NAzi insurrectionist terrorists. I can't say the same about Congress.

[Guard Dog]

11 hours ago, Hurlsnot said:

I don't get the John Brown/Harper's Ferry reference at all, GD. That was just 22 people. I guess it was more organized, but I can't see how it really compares. It went way worse for the insurrectionists, too.

Few end well. Fewer still accomplish anything.

[Gromnir]

another thing 'bout reading history is it teaches us that a failed coup is rare the end o' the story. subsequent coup attempts is likely and the follow-up efforts tend to be more successful.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Guard Dog]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

another thing 'bout reading history is it teaches us that a failed coup is rare the end o' the story. subsequent coup attempts is likely and the follow-up efforts tend to be more successful.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Let's hope not

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Let's hope not

OR

'stead o' just hoping, we could take serious and make an effort to prevent another insurrection.  just sayin'.

aside, enjoy a nostalgia twitter post from january 6, 2021.

one year later and a word from tucker carlson changes everything. no longer a despicable act of terrorism.

edit:

*chuckle*

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

[Gromnir]

one last reminder 'bout january 6, 'cause is an important detail people forget. as an American citizen, you do not have a Constitutional right to vote for President. am knowing most assume such a right must exists somewheres, but go ahead and look it up. the states appoint electors. is up to the states to decide how to appoint electors. the electoral college scheme is how the Constitution describes the manner in which we choose the next POTUS. is no mention o' popular vote for President in the Constitution.

so again, what happens if pence did send votes back to the states? no doubt there would be popular disagreement as to whether such were legal (even though there were no real basis for granting pence such authority in a situation analogous to 2020,) but would take time for Courts to decide IF they chose to decide. could very well become a moot issue if the red state legislatures, given the opportunity to revise their elector choices by pence's unlawful action, decided to make trump their choice 'stead o' biden. can states do that? honestly, as bizarre as it sounds, am unsure... and that should scare you. SCOTUS could very well decide such a legal issue is in fact a "political question" not appropriate to judicial review. sure, it would not have been legal for pence to send vote slates back to the states, but irrational as it may seems, such ignores whether or not state legislatures are able to correct the will o' the people. again, 'ccording to the Constitution, states choose how to appoint electors. 

at the time you got jeffery clark as acting attorney general, a guy who were active pushing voter conspiracy theories...

you also have in place a SCOTUS which recent brazen ignored an illegal bounty scheme by texas regarding abortions, refusing to grant petitioners injunctive relief pending their final determination in another abortion case...

and trump is still in office during a time o' utter chaos.

worst o' all, you got many millions o' americans who ignored four years o' trump illegal behaviour. you think that those millions sudden rise up 'gainst tyranny and authoritarianism? if fox news and conservative radio is hour-by-hour convincing audiences that given the still very real questions concerning the legitimacy of the 2020 election, it were perfect justified for individual states to review and decide such an important matter, do you expect those habitual self deluded viewers to sudden reject the narrative they wanna hear? would such be a lie? sure, but what is new 'bout that? the 24/7 news cycle allows 'em to tell their gop audience what they wanna hear. simultaneous and just as important, the new brand o' conservative media would be providing the multitude o' people who ignored four years o' trump an excuse to pretend as if a slow-motion coup were no different than the muslim ban, buried ig reports and white vans in portland, 'cause truth-to-tell, it were no different. 

if you think the Courts would step in and save you as they did with the 2020 election, you is wrong. we noted more than once how the Courts ordinarily avoid interference with elections, which is part o' the reason why so many minority groups is presumptive doomed when they try and fight the transparent prejudicial efforts in states (particularly southern states) where the gop game plan for years has been to limit voting access as much as possible. team trump lost their legal battles as much because they were trying to appropriate the same equal protection arguments voting rights groups had been using for decades to try and overturn state efforts to burden voting rights. sure, the trump teams were also largely incompetent and they had zero evidence whatsoever, but team trump efforts were dismissed based on weakness o' law as often as 'cause o' a complete absence o' factual support.

aside, but keep our observations in mind following the 2022 elections when many democrats is gonna be stunned and perplexed by the callous indifference o' the Courts to obvious gop efforts to undermine voting rights. many o' you will rage at how the Courts is letting the gop in north carolina or texas steal votes from marginalized voting groups, but those Courts let you know what they were gonna do in 2022 in part 'cause o' what they did in 2020 and as they has done consistent for the past couple decades. 

regardless, is disturbing to us how ez it has been to convince so many americans that january 6 were, at worst, an unfortunate expression o' patriotic zeal. folks trespassed and vandalized and those people deserve to be punished, but qq, nothingburger, they are all bad, etc. is disturbing, but not surprising.

HA! Good Fun!

[BruceVC]

 

21 hours ago, Amentep said:

Wut?

What you just said (substituting dictionary definitions) was "I'm still not convinced we can call the violence in and at the building that symbolizes the government and which at the time had the government actively discharging its public duties a violent uprising against an authority or government; the meanings of words, phrases or systems do matter", or to put it plainly, you're saying the meanings of words matter while also denying the literal meaning of the word insurrection.

I am glad  you raised this  possible confusion  of my view, its a view I have ruminated on and followed different discussions around " what is the correct way to describe the violence on 6 January " ?

I enjoy all and any debates with anyone who wants to engage with me but  sometimes how you frame an argument or disagree with someone  can influence if the debate is meaningful and constructive ...and that for me is why we debate, its  not about  being right or  assuming  everyone will agree. Its about sharing information and informing people about something they may not know and its sometimes our opinions 

You are one of those Obsidian members who I have always appreciated how you engage in most debates and then  make your point. You not prone to emotion generally  and how most of us will frame a valid point in an ideological way. You make your post with facts, data and real examples where applicable and you have changed my opinion on several topics which is appreciated

So when you  ask "how I can say this  " I know you will read what I have to say and if you disagree you  may post  a link or explain why you disagree. Also another consideration is  about the question "can you call  January 6 an insurrection " its not unequivocal or defined  and their interesting opinions that say it is and some who say it isnt

Unfortunately this debate in the US has become one of those debates that for many people it  is no longer about the issue or reality of the event but its 100 % politicized by both the left and right....not all debates are like this but this is one of them. Its demonstrated if you watch the more Trump\Conservative view on FOX or the left\liberal CNN view and this is about the journalists and not the overall stance of everyone

FOX will always raise the " some of the protestors were just patriot Americans and committed no violence "or say " why is the Biden\Democrats government  and FBI only focusing on arresting people involved in this protest but they fine with violence and attacks on police in BLM and ANTIFA  protests " 

And CNN commentators will generally say " of course it was an insurrection, how can anyone say it wasn't this? We warned you guys this was going to happen and Trump is responsible ...this was the darkest day in US history " 

And both these views have some truth to them but these comments also make certain generalizations and are framed to support certain narratives around politics so what is the truth ?

For me it had certain components of your typical insurrection but surely an insurrection has to have an objective that can be achieved? If you consider the deeply spurious views of almost all the protesters is that they like Trump didnt accept  that Biden had won the election and their was no real vote rigging or cheating...they chose to believe fake news and misinformation about something as old and successful as the legitimacy of the US elections 

The whole 6 January event  at the Capitol is normally ceremonial as far as  I know, so in other words lets say the worse outcomes of what some of the mob was chanting was realized and they had killed Pence, Nancy Pelosi and other prominent politicians would  that negate that Biden was president? It would delay the process but Biden would still be president because he won the election with the votes of more Americans than Trump got 

I just think you shouldn't call this an insurrection based on what is was suppose to achieve?

But here is a more important question, why does it matter so much what we call it? I refer to it as Capitol violence or the Capitol attacks and Im more concerned with who was directly responsible for planning it so they can also  be prosecuted 

People who  attend any protest or march  and commit any crime should be arrested and charged and face jail time if appropriate. This is always my view on protests generally 

 

 

 

[ComradeYellow]

On 1/7/2022 at 10:46 AM, Gromnir said:

another thing 'bout reading history is it teaches us that a failed coup is rare the end o' the story. subsequent coup attempts is likely and the follow-up efforts tend to be more successful.

HA! Good Fun!

 

I did like how they were shouting "Treason!" during the insurrection, though.  Like they represent the forces of treason!  If they shouted things like "Freedom" or "Liberty" I may have taken them more seriously.  What is it that these people want anyway?  Their objectives are non-sensical, the person who said it was just butthurt over their preferred candidate losing sums it up perfectly I think.

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, ComradeYellow said:

I did like how they were shouting "Treason!" during the insurrection, though.  Like they represent the forces of treason!  If they shouted things like "Freedom" or "Liberty" I may have taken them more seriously.  What is it that these people want anyway?  Their objectives are non-sensical, the person who said it was just butthurt over their preferred candidate losing sums it up perfectly I think.

And you still want to call it an insurrect, like insurrection? It was a violent riot with definite right wing influence?

Comrade can I share something important with  you I learnt in the school of white, male privilege and neo-colonialism....Im not suppose to share this type of knowledge but I dont think anyone will know?

You taught certain rules and proven realities of how to become effective and leave a good legacy. But you must never create  a definition that can be used against you, rather wait unless you are 100% sure this was a insurrection 

 

[rjshae]

The Jan. 6 event was clearly a Trump-inspired rebellion to disrupt the Constitutional authority of the government to manage the Presidential transition, so I think it's quite acceptable to call it an insurrection. The fact that it failed is mainly due to Trump's unwillingness to directly lead the mob, which caused it to peter out after their initial success. Fox News would like it to be white-washed and apply some less-loaded label, but that's just spinning the event.

Next time we may not be so lucky.

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, rjshae said:

The Jan. 6 event was clearly a Trump-inspired rebellion to disrupt the Constitutional authority of the government to manage the Presidential transition, so I think it's quite acceptable to call it an insurrection. The fact that it failed is mainly due to Trump's unwillingness to directly lead the mob, which caused it to peter out after their initial success. Fox News would like it to be white-washed and apply some less-loaded label, but that's just spinning the event.

Next time we may not be so lucky.

The definition of an insurrection says it can succeed or fail but I am making a different point 

An insurrection has by its definition an objective that is achievable, the violent mob had no objective to stop Biden becoming president, how? Even if they killed dozens of senators I am sure Biden is still president while they reorganize the event. And the event will be held again but heavily guarded and Biden would be officially president

So my question is still unanswered and that is " what was the objective that would have somehow stopped Biden becoming president " 

[rjshae]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

The definition of an insurrection says it can succeed or fail but I am making a different point 

An insurrection has by its definition an objective that is achievable, the violent mob had no objective to stop Biden becoming president, how? Even if they killed dozens of senators I am sure Biden is still president while they reorganize the event. And the event will be held again but heavily guarded and Biden would be officially president

So my question is still unanswered and that is " what was the objective that would have somehow stopped Biden becoming president " 

They were led by a man who is mentally ill, so yeah it doesn't make logical sense. But he sat there and watched it so apparently he was hoping for some type of outcome.

[Gromnir]

57 minutes ago, rjshae said:

They were led by a man who is mentally ill, so yeah it doesn't make logical sense. But he sat there and watched it so apparently he was hoping for some type of outcome.

am not sure why some people think logical is important. misunderstanding. worse, too many people just don't realize what were at stake.

more boardies need read history. 1876 for example. the fate o' the Presidency were decided in a hotel room in february, long after the s'posed certification were s'posed to take place. weren't decided by voters or even by a vote on the floor o' Congress following lengthy debate, and 1876 is what the gop were aiming to repeat. am suspecting is why @Guard Dog is silent on this issue 'cause he had mentioned recent how he had read the history regarding 1876.

biden and harris were elected by popular vote, which means nothing from a Constitutional pov. it is states which decide who becomes President. if gop had gotten their way, there woulda' been a commission appointed such as were the case in 1876, and in the present situation, the goal were to have state legislatures, state legislatures which were heavily red leaning btw, review the counts.

january 6

lindsey graham were right (mostly) 'bout history. he were right 'bout how dangerous were the insurrection and how misguided were the gop efforts to establish a post election commission to potential overturn the results o' the election.

january 9. lindsey graham is heckled in an airport. similar situations happen to other republican law makers. lindsey does a complete 180 following january 9 and is back to being a 100% pro-trump.

so, seeing events o' january 6 and january 9, if you are a republican state legislator in wisconsin or arizona, how likely is it that you vote against a state resolution which would declare the inconsistencies o' the 2020 election too significant to ignore? some lawmakers would indeed choose integrity, but recall how @MedicineDan and others excoriated mitt romney for choosing to vote conscience regarding trump. if you is promoting the greenbay sweep solution, all you need is a handful o' state legislatures to invalidate their state electoral slates, 'cause then the 2020 Presidential election is decided by Congress, with each state getting a single vote. is more red states, so...

the mob may have been delusional. trump may be unhinged. the thing is, while the plan to overturn the election were illegal, it could have worked. four years o' trump taught many o' you people nothing. "he can't do that." meaningless. "that would be illegal." how many times did trump do anyway? if the Court declared the issue political and stayed silent as they had during all other 2020 fights, then the only way to prevent trump and the gop from doing illegal would be impeachment, and we all saw how that played out a couple times, yes?

pretending as if the results o' 2020 had to be rational and reasonable is what is genuine delusional. we had no idea what trump had planned pre or post january 6, but 'cause of four YEARS o' trump violation o' rule o' law and reasonable, we warned for people to be prepared and plan for worst. few listened. 'course we had no idea january 6 would play out the way it did, but we were not genuine surprised something terrible happened neither... and we wouldn't have been shocked if trump had been successful. over and over trump got away with illegal 'cause people claimed trump couldn't or wouldn't do the unthinkable... gop senators wouldn't just go along with trump insanity. proved wrong over and over again, but the lesson so obvious to Gromnir never penetrated. too many americans shrugged with indifference.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited January 9, 2022 by Gromnir

[ComradeYellow]

Not to mention America is a breeding ground for someone like Trump to win anyway, as the constitution forbids too much government interference in local educational standards, does it not?  It was only a matter of time before before all these yokels got a champion to represent them, the bittersweet irony being some known con artist and shyster from New York City xD.

[Gorth]

I mentioned elsewhere, federal election is going to happen this year. @Guard Dogmight appreciate this bit about independent mp's

 

[Guard Dog]

More and more I'm coming around to @Gromnir's way of thinking on this. 

[Gorth]

47 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

More and more I'm coming around to @Gromnir's way of thinking on this. 

It doesn't have anything to do with another 'G'?

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Gorth said:

I mentioned elsewhere, federal election is going to happen this year. @Guard Dogmight appreciate this bit about independent mp's

we got something similar here in the US, but is doubtful many democrats agree with the conclusions in the video. two US senators, joe manchin and kyrsten sinema, are functional dictating policy for Congress and the white house. unfortunate, our current compromise minority government is in favor o' opening more coal mines and cutting federal food subsidies for children. 

...

perhaps am being unfair.  joe manchin is in favour o' pollution and hungry children. sinema is... well, frankly am admitting to being not 100% certain what sinema is trying to accomplish. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps (edit) information o' the kind @Gorth has no reason to be aware:

kyrsten sinema represents arizona, and arizona is a near unique US state in that near 1/3 of registered voters is declared independents. closest thing we got to a three-party state.

significance? independents is more likely to champion gridlock than is either republicans or democrats, and am s'posing that courting the independent vote could be sen. sinema's  goal. however, am gonna recognize any polls we has seen for sinema has her overall popularity dropping, and she is current more popular with republicans than democrats, though is not as if she is actual popular with republicans either. also, independents do not vote in primaries for democrats, so even if she were sooperfantastic popular with independents (she isn't btw) it wouldn't do her much good unless there is some kinda enormous deep well o' independent campaign money filling her war chests. am admitted perplexed. 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Gromnir

[ShadySands]

I think I mentioned something similar about Sinema to Bruce before. She isn't really representing AZ and she definitely isn't representing the people that put her in office, AZ Dems. I dunno if she's angling for a lobbying position or what because it doesn't make much sense since she's probably going to get primaried and lose at this rate.

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, Gorth said:

I mentioned elsewhere, federal election is going to happen this year. @Guard Dogmight appreciate this bit about independent mp's

 

Great way to start the week with my favorite hottie on the right, nothing like humor to make political points. Their facial expressions and imitations of accents  is a huge part  of the humor, like  when they both say " a hung parliament " 

You can see the obvious problem with the Oz political system, you guys  need to get more candidates like them in your system !!!

I see they work for the Juice Media and the girls are both actors amongst other skills  , https://www.thejuicemedia.com/about/

Small company but making some good points 

 

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

I think I mentioned something similar about Sinema to Bruce before. She isn't really representing AZ and she definitely isn't representing the people that put her in office, AZ Dems. I dunno if she's angling for a lobbying position or what because it doesn't make much sense since she's probably going to get primaried and lose at this rate.

Yes you did raise serious concerns with the motives of Sinema, strange thing is she doesnt come up as much as Manchin on the likes of CNN so I know very little about her outside of what is commonly known