Polite Politics

[Mercurial]

2 minutes ago, Minny_Weather said:

I pointed out the irony of that many times in the COVID thread, back when we had that. It was shortly following the outrage towards the anti-lockdown protests, too. 

Yes, I recall police brutality being framed as  a public health issue, thus negating the other public health concerns related to distancing.  Lol.  They don’t call it clown world for nothing.

[SnarkyGoblin]

Not that you guys will care, but protests were outside and there was little evidence COVID spread easily outdoors.

31 minutes ago, Minny_Weather said:

I simply don't see how anyone could rationally argue that 1/6 was worse by any metric than the May 2020 riots. The property damage, deaths, damage to the social fabric of the country, etc. was all markedly worse than an event that was localized in one place, had relatively minimal property damage, and resulted in one death (which was one of their own). Sadly, the party that controls social media has everything to gain by downplaying what happened after George Floyd's death and playing up what happened in January 6 (which I will forever maintain was not the massive deal that the Democrats make it out to be).

There is a lot to unpack in your entire post , but here is why you are wrong on this.

Quote

A bipartisan Senate report, released in June, found that the seven deaths were connected to the Capitol attack. But the report was issued a month before two Metropolitan Police officers — Gunther Hashida and Kyle DeFreytag — died by suicide in July.

#AllLivesMatter

[SilverFallsAndrew]

2 hours ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

and apparently you can only lie to prove your false points.  

https://wapo.st/41DLlPt

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-killed-protests-political-unrest-acled

 

lol

[SilverFallsAndrew]

2 minutes ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

Not that you guys will care, but protests were outside and there was little evidence COVID spread easily outdoors.

There is a lot to unpack in your entire post , but here is why you are wrong on this.

#AllLivesMatter

The only person killed on January 6th was shot by police. If I recall a couple of people had heart attacks and are dubiously included in the death toll (though I believe they were part of the crowd). The report an officer was bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher was a lie. 
 

Counting suicides in the Jan 6th death toll is ridiculous and just a way for you to pad your stats. 

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by SilverFallsAndrew

[SilverFallsAndrew]

https://x.com/mattwalshshow/status/1737548394610962791?s=46&t=5eg8xDNycGakN2HNhic29g

[SnarkyGoblin]

10 minutes ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

The only person killed on January 6th was shot by police. If I recall a couple of people had heart attacks and are dubiously included in the death toll (though I believe they were part of the crowd). The report an officer was bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher was a lie. 

The Senate & doctors know more about this than you and I.  

[Minny_Weather]

40 minutes ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

Not that you guys will care, but protests were outside and there was little evidence COVID spread easily outdoors.

There is a lot to unpack in your entire post , but here is why you are wrong on this.

#AllLivesMatter

Didn't you literally just try to downplay the amount of deaths from the riots by posting WaPo and Guardian articles? If so, yeah, please don't introduce your own metrics to play up the number of deaths caused by 1/6. 

It truly sucks what the police officers went through on that day, they must have been scared shitless and I cannot imagine the trauma that the two officers who committed suicide went through. I am not looking to downplay the impacts on the individuals affected by it. 1/6 was still of a much smaller scale than the BLM riots and was therefore less destructive. I will continue to stand by that.

Regarding the bolded first line of your post, we know that now, but we did not know that at the time. And like I said, there was a lot of hypocritical ire directed at those who were protesting COVID lockdowns due to lack of social distancing in their demonstrations. 

[SilverFallsAndrew]

Just now, Minny_Weather said:

Didn't you literally just try to downplay the amount of deaths from the riots by posting WaPo and Guardian articles? If so, yeah, please don't introduce your own metrics to play up the number of deaths caused by 1/6. 

It truly sucks what the police officers went through on that day, they must have been scared shitless and I cannot imagine the trauma that the two officers who committed suicide went through. I am not looking to downplay the impacts on the individuals affected by it. 1/6 was still of a much smaller scale than the BLM riots and was therefore less destructive. I will continue to stand by that.

Regarding the bolded first line of your post, we know that now, but we did not know that at the time. And like I said, there was a lot of hypocritical ire directed at those who were protesting COVID lockdowns due to lack of social distancing in their demonstrations. 

Exactly the people protesting were literally the same people telling us to isolate ourselves until the end of time because of COVID. 

[SnarkyGoblin]

Lol.  It was republicans who brought the suit in Colorado!  How does that fit your narrative that the Dems are out to get trump, Andrew?

Quote

Having disqualified himself from public office by violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Donald Trump must be removed from the ballot, according to a lawsuit filed today by six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters including former state, federal and local officials, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and the firms Tierney Lawrence Stiles LLC, KBN Law, LLC and Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray LLC.

 

[SnarkyGoblin]

13 minutes ago, Minny_Weather said:

dn't you literally just try to downplay the amount of deaths from the riots by posting WaPo and Guardian articles? If so, yeah, please don't introduce your own metrics to play up the number of deaths caused by 1/6

They weren't my metrics.  They were the Senate's metrics.

It is you who said only 1 person died as the result of what happened on January 6th with nothing to back up your claim.

[SilverFallsAndrew]

Just now, SnarkyGoblin said:

Lol.  It was republicans who brought the suit in Colorado!  How does that fit your narrative that the Dems are out to get trump, Andrew?

 

Oh for the love of God. Anyone can say they are a Republican. Heck, @hawkstwelve claims to be one!

[SnarkyGoblin]

5 minutes ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

Oh for the love of God. Anyone can say they are a Republican. Heck, @hawkstwelve claims to be one!

You're going to eat crow one day and you'll pretend you weren't part of this madness.

[hawkstwelve]

25 minutes ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

Oh for the love of God. Anyone can say they are a Republican. Heck, @hawkstwelve claims to be one!

I disagree with just about everything the Democrat Party stands for nowadays. Vehemently. I also disagree with nominating a probable felon and chaos agent to be our President just in the name of 'sticking it to the libs' and getting retribution. Contrary to your and MAGA's talking points, that does not make me RINO. 

But please go ahead and keep trying to push moderate Republicans out of the party. We haven't won the popular vote for the past 7 of 8 cycles because we alienate certain groups of people, but I'm sure that will be a winning strategy now. 

[roadtonowhere08]

2 hours ago, Minny_Weather said:

It's actually pretty hilarious how each party keeps handing everything to the other party on a silver platter and the other party just knocks the silver platter out of their hands and spits on it. 

There are honestly very few Dems I wouldn't rather have than Biden at this point. It's indefensible: Biden is not mentally fit to run the country. I effing HATE Newsom and I'd honestly rather see him at this point because he is at least aware of what he is doing.

And with how easy beating Biden is at this point, Republicans are looking to nominate the ONE prominent person (Trump) that I think has a good chance of losing to Biden. While I do not support removing Trump from the ballot by illegitimate means (Colorado), I just wish he would piss off.

Either way, just treat 2024 as a circus that you are there to watch and it'll be all good. Unless one (or both, but not likely at all) of the parties come to their senses and decide that they don't want to nominate the most terrible option.

I love that first sentence.  It's so true.

[SilverFallsAndrew]

8 minutes ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

You're going to eat crow one day and you'll pretend you weren't part of this madness.

Eat crow for what? I'm not even a Trump supporter. I just state facts and opinions you can't handle. 

 

 

[roadtonowhere08]

1 hour ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

Lol.  It was republicans who brought the suit in Colorado!  How does that fit your narrative that the Dems are out to get trump, Andrew?

 

RINOs!

[SilverFallsAndrew]

Just now, roadtonowhere08 said:

RINOs!

Violence has no place here. 

[Minny_Weather]

1 hour ago, SnarkyGoblin said:

Lol.  It was republicans who brought the suit in Colorado!  How does that fit your narrative that the Dems are out to get trump, Andrew?

 

I knew that you were shading Andrew specifically, but it doesn't change my view on it. Still unethical imho.

[Mercurial]

There's very little daylight between the Never Trumpers and establishment Dems.  Actually, the whole Republican-Democrat divide is mostly a mirage.  

[Andie]

8 hours ago, Rubus Leucodermis said:

It will go to the Supreme Court and might well be resolved significantly quicker than you believe. The Supremes can expedite the appeals process a lot when circumstance warrants. And avoiding a constitutional crisis caused by neither candidate appearing on enough ballots to have a chance of winning is just such a circumstance.

I just want a fair election. 
I know….

I’m a dreamer.

[Mercurial]

But yea the establishments of both parties are working together against Trump and the MAGA folks.  It's hardly news, and this vindicates a lot of what Trump has been saying about a rigged system etc.  Mitch McConnell and Pierre Delecto don't want to upset their golfing buddies at the local $100K/year country club.  So they side with country club Dems on every meaningful issue.

[Andie]

Colorado, California, and Michigan are now exploring taking Trump off the ballot. 
If he’s hated so much, just vote. They clearly are pro Biden. Taking him off reeks of fear he’ll win.  

Meantime/

Putin this planning on invading the Baltic nations. 
Pres. Xi is planning taking Taiwan.  

These are real possibilities. Whether successful or not, who knows. The UN Security Council (despite being a bunch of blowhards) will certainly raise the warning flags.  Here we go!

When there is weakness in the WH, the playground bullies flex their muscles and the world grows more dangerous.  

[MR.SNOWMIZER]

I will never visit Colorado again if this passes. Just one step closer to a civil war!!!

[MR.SNOWMIZER]

What needs to happen is a fukkin fair vote regardless of who is running.  We'll never see that again in this corrupt country. 

[SnarkyGoblin]

8 minutes ago, MR.SNOWMIZER said:

I will never visit Colorado again if this passes. Just one step closer to a civil war!!!

It did already pass. 

And yikes.

[Minny_Weather]

2 hours ago, Mercurial said:

There's very little daylight between the Never Trumpers and establishment Dems.  Actually, the whole Republican-Democrat divide is mostly a mirage.  

It's this train of thought that has been destroying the Republican party ever since Trump came into the picture.

The mentality of "anyone who doesn't suck Trump's nipples must be a RINO" is stupid. Moderates in either party are mostly the only reasonable people we have left in Washington (mostly because there are a couple people firmly on either side of the aisle who I believe have good heads on their shoulders).

If you'd rather have Biden or Harris in office than a Republican, then by all means, continue being a Trump diehard.

[roadtonowhere08]

3 hours ago, SilverFallsAndrew said:

Violence has no place here. 

You sure?  I'm pretty sure you found a lot of room in your heart for violence against the Palestinians the last couple months.

I had to peek.  I knew it would be a doozy.

 

Now give me my "weenie" reaction and then go back under the bridge where you belong.

[Chewbacca Defense]

On 12/18/2023 at 10:16 AM, Rubus Leucodermis said:

I am not the one you asked, but a massive heart attack or stroke. And given his age and body mass index, quite plausible.

Of course, there would still be roughly 15% of Republicans running around saying it was a deliberate assassination by the Deep State and the heart attack is just a big coverup. Or that, like Elvis, Trump is still alive, being hidden someplace. Who knows, maybe Elvis and Trump would be claimed to be cellmates at some black site someplace!

Only 15%?

[roadtonowhere08]

3 hours ago, Andie said:

I just want a fair election. 
I know….

I’m a dreamer.

The elections are fair.  Nobody has found any actionable evidence to the contrary.  That's been done to death.  It's everything leading up to the elections that is rotten.

Trump getting himself into legal trouble and making himself ineligible for state ballots is 100% on him.  Too bad, so sad.

Now, the right can either be "states' rights"... or they can be hypocrites.  I think we all know what path they will choose.

And the funny part is, he still might win the d**n election!

"It's actually pretty hilarious how each party keeps handing everything to the other party on a silver platter and the other party just knocks the silver platter out of their hands and spits on it." - Minny_Weather

[Chewbacca Defense]

On 12/19/2023 at 6:07 PM, SilverFallsAndrew said:

Do you understand what this could mean if allowed to stand? It would mean any candidate could be barred from running for any arbitrary reason. Trump has been convicted of no crime, and isn't even charge with insurrection. 

Even if Trump is ultimately convicted on all 91 counts, this ruling would still be invalid due to the fact they are barring him for insurrection, which again, he has not even been charged with. But this is what we knew would happen, the left would stop at nothing to keep Trump from the presidency. 

Section 3 of article 14 says nothing about being convicted.

 

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/section-3/

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[hawkstwelve]

9 minutes ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

The elections are fair.  Nobody has found any actionable evidence to the contrary.  That's been done to death.  It's everything leading up to the elections that is rotten.

Trump getting himself into legal trouble and making himself ineligible for state ballots is 100% on him.  Too bad, so sad.

Now, the right can either be "states' rights"... or they can be hypocrites.  I think we all know what path they will choose.

And the funny part is, he still might win the d**n election!

This is not a "states right" issue like you are attempting to connect it to as far as the abortion topic, if that's what you are alluding to. False equivalency there. 

Think about the implications of this in a practical sense - Colorado bars Trump from the ballot based on something he isn't even charged with. What's to stop South Dakota from barring Biden on some outlandish legal theory? Or Kansas? Or California blocking Trump? Hell, there's already talk about all that from both sides. Are we now really going to be a country where you can only vote for certain people based on where you live? Where we get told who we can vote for by some bureaucrats? That would be insane. 

Of course, most of this won't matter because the Supreme Court can and will overturn this ruling. At which point extreme Democrats will try and find the next thing they can use to stop Trump and extreme Republicans will continue to nominate a complete and total sh*tbag for president. And round and round we go... 

[Chewbacca Defense]

16 hours ago, Andie said:

It will be interesting if that portion of Right voters sue regarding being denied  their right to vote for their candidate.   
You can have a Communist Party candidate on the ballot, or any other, so this will be interesting how they resolve this.  
It’s an important case in the State Supreme Court. The Civil War era 14th Amendment Section 3 is under the microscope.  Interesting.  

It won’t be resolved quickly and some voters will feel robbed of their right to vote for their candidate.   
This could be seen as legal inconsistency across the 50 States and abuse of the courts for election manipulation.
This could get very complex and go to the Federal Supremes. 

I think in all likelihood it will be resolved quickly.  The Supreme Court has already said they are fast tracking a couple of other cases related to Trump and his interesting "claim" of Presidential immunity and the J6 trials (I am blanking on the details on that one right now).  I think responses for the immunity claim were due to SC today or tomorrow, and there is the possibility of them handing down an opinion without the full report they usually provide.  I forget the terminology, but basically when a quick turn is needed, SC can give their opinion with a quick summary, then follow up with their usual write-up 2-3 months later.

I've said this before:  Though Trump nominated 3 of them, I think SC ultimately recognize that Trump is a threat to them and their power.  Trump has already shown a very strong disregard for the court system, and would easily toss them aside as soon as they hand down a ruling for something he does not like (and assuming he were to get another term).  I don't see them allowing that to happen.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

15 minutes ago, hawkstwelve said:

This is not a "states right" issue like you are attempting to connect it to as far as the abortion topic, if that's what you are alluding to. False equivalency there. 

Think about the implications of this in a practical sense - Colorado bars Trump from the ballot based on something he isn't even charged with. What's to stop South Dakota from barring Biden on some outlandish legal theory? Or Kansas? Or California blocking Trump? Hell, there's already talk about all that from both sides. Are we now really going to be a country where you can only vote for certain people based on where you live? Where we get told who we can vote for by some bureaucrats? That would be insane. 

Of course, most of this won't matter because the Supreme Court can and will overturn this ruling. At which point extreme Democrats will try and find the next thing they can use to stop Trump and extreme Republicans will continue to nominate a complete and total sh*tbag for president. And round and round we go... 

Oh, I've thought about it.  This case will go nowhere.  It's all theatrics.

I was not alluding to abortion, but since you opened the door, yes, I view abortion being used as a states' rights issue as insanity.  The majority of Americans view abortion as a mother's medical right to varying degrees.  Playing the "if you want to have an abortion, go live somewhere else" game is disgusting.

One could easily turn around and say "if you want so and so on the ballot, go live somewhere else".  Stupid sounding, eh?  Same mentality.  Both are basic rights.

[Chewbacca Defense]

12 hours ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

Oh, I'd love to see the silly bargain basement lawyer reasons they might come up with.  It'll be pathetic for sure.

Alina Habba, says "hold my beer"

[roadtonowhere08]

1 minute ago, Chewbacca Defense said:

Alina Habba, says "hold my beer"

Jockeying to be the new Mrs. Trump I see:

https://www.queerty.com/trumps-lawyer-alina-habba-has-been-filling-in-a-lot-for-melania-lately-people-are-starting-to-ask-questions-20231218

Gross

[Deweydog]

Pace yourselves…

[hawkstwelve]

17 minutes ago, roadtonowhere08 said:

Oh, I've thought about it.  This case will go nowhere.  It's all theatrics.

I was not alluding to abortion, but since you opened the door, yes, I view abortion being used as a states' rights issue as insanity.  The majority of Americans view abortion as a mother's medical right to varying degrees.  Playing the "if you want to have an abortion, go live somewhere else" game is disgusting.

One could easily turn around and say "if you want so and so on the ballot, go live somewhere else".  Stupid sounding, eh?  Same mentality.  Both are basic rights.

The right to vote is a fundamental pillar of this country that has been in place for over 200 years. The same can not be said for the right to an abortion.

They are not equivalent. Period. 

[roadtonowhere08]

14 minutes ago, hawkstwelve said:

The right to vote is a fundamental pillar of this country that has been in place for over 200 years. The same can not be said for the right to an abortion.

They are not equivalent. Period. 

The fight for personal autonomy is older than voting itself.  Nice try.

[roadtonowhere08]

You can slap your forehead all you want, hawks.  I did not bring up abortion.  You did.  I'm not backing down because you don't agree.

The right to personal autonomy is a more fundamental right than voting.  It just is.  I don't care if you agree.

[Chewbacca Defense]

46 minutes ago, hawkstwelve said:

This is not a "states right" issue like you are attempting to connect it to as far as the abortion topic, if that's what you are alluding to. False equivalency there. 

Think about the implications of this in a practical sense - Colorado bars Trump from the ballot based on something he isn't even charged with. What's to stop South Dakota from barring Biden on some outlandish legal theory? Or Kansas? Or California blocking Trump? Hell, there's already talk about all that from both sides. Are we now really going to be a country where you can only vote for certain people based on where you live? Where we get told who we can vote for by some bureaucrats? That would be insane. 

Of course, most of this won't matter because the Supreme Court can and will overturn this ruling. At which point extreme Democrats will try and find the next thing they can use to stop Trump and extreme Republicans will continue to nominate a complete and total sh*tbag for president. And round and round we go... 

He doesn't have to be charged or convicted.  See my post a few posts up where I cite Amendment 14 section 3

And as for the Biden thing, if they are operating under the same principles as the farce that is the Biden impeachment, then Biden voters don't need to get too concerned.