It is time for Republican elites to shut up and listen
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
It has been four years since Republican elites sanctimoniously derided the liberal "coastal elites," the "libtards" in pink hats, the media and urban dwellers generally for failing to "listen" to the "real Americans" in "flyover country" who voted for Donald Trump.
Well, I've been listening.
I've heard about the net loss of 3 million American jobs - the worst economic record in modern American history - as stock markets deliver greater riches to billionaires and ordinary Americans go hungry.
I've heard about a record-shattering $7 trillion added to our national debt and the three largest trade deficits in U.S. history.
I've heard about thousands of Americans dying every day in a pandemic, nearly 400,000 in all - by far the world's worst death toll, in the world's richest country.
I've heard about the abject cruelty of the administration gratuitously (and often permanently) tearing migrant children from their mothers' arms and warehousing them in cages.
I've heard about wanton government violence against peaceful citizens in Lafayette Square, and about support from the president for violent white supremacists in Charlottesville and Kenosha.
I've heard about Iran and North Korea advancing their nuclear weapons programs and Russia executing a galling cyberattack on the United States, while our president withheld U.S. military support from a Russia-threatened ally to extort political benefit.
I've heard about a self-dealing president using his office to try to overturn a free and fair election, and then incite a mob of QAnon followers and white supremacists to launch a deadly insurrection at the Capitol against the people's representatives.
And I've heard that, at this very moment, troops expected to number 20,000 are arriving in the national capital, and countless more in state capitols, to defend democracy against violent totalitarian thugs loyal to Trump.
I'd like to think this is not what all of the "forgotten men and women" had in mind when they voted for Trump in 2016. But this is what Republican elites did in their name.
Now, fully 84,172,012 Americans have voted against Trump in the highest-turnout election in more than a century. President-elect Joe Biden received more votes than any candidate in U.S. history. Democrats held the House and took control of the Senate. For his abuses of power, Trump has been impeached - twice. He departs office as one of the more unpopular leaders in our nation's recent history.
So, Republican elites, please: Spare us your lectures about how the liberal coastal elites don't understand real Americans. It's time for you to listen.
You have manipulated millions into believing that their problems are caused by Black people, brown people, immigrants, college-educated women, Muslims and Jews.
You have condoned and normalized racism and vulgarity in the highest office in the land, allowing both to move from the fringes to the mainstream.
You have disabled the federal government, and state and local governments, to the point that they lack the capacity to deliver the vaccine science has heroically produced.
You have fueled the violent, paranoid fantasies of QAnon, you have weaponized social media to spread falsehoods, and you have attacked the free press in Stalin-esque terms as the "enemy of the people."
You have empowered propaganda outlets such as Fox News to build an echo chamber that misinforms millions.
You have fought to allow unlimited, unregulated, anonymous campaign spending by billionaires and corporations, which have hijacked your primaries so the most extreme candidates win nomination.
You have established purity police in your ranks, such as the Freedom Caucus, that coerce lawmakers to shun compromise.
You sacrificed long-standing principles to co-opt the anti-government passions of the tea party and Trump's anti-immigrant nationalism.
You employed deceit and hypocrisy to stack the Supreme Court with a majority that endorses voter suppression, partisan gerrymandering and the erosion of minority voting rights.
Fully 139 of you in the House and eight in the Senate voted to overturn the votes of the American people.
You have, in sum, discredited American democracy and encouraged political violence and authoritarianism.
And now, as a freshman "QAnon congresswoman" plans to introduce impeachment articles against Biden on his first full day in office, you say it's time for "healing."
After Trump, in his final days, incited a bloody coup attempt, Republican elites could, at long last, do the right thing, as 10 House Republicans did.
But House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), while declaring that censuring Trump would be "prudent," offered up no censure resolution and opposed impeachment.
And Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), while claiming he might vote for removal, blocked a Senate trial from occurring before Trump leaves office - likely killing prospects for conviction.
We hear you loud and clear, Republican elites. Now, how about you listen to the American people?
Tags
Who is online
77 visitors
What a load of horse apples.
The truth hurts.
Yep, unadulterated bovine shyt. Only idiot lib turds would believe such a pack of lies and misinformation.
Why did 139 Republican congresspeople vote to overturn the results of the presidential election ?
As a Republican, you have to either take ownership of this crap or denounce it.
Which part? The part about how many people have died from Covid? Perhaps the part about Lafayette Square being violently cleared so Trump could stand in front of a church and hold a bible upside-down? Maybe you are speaking of the part about millions being unemployed...or hungry people waiting in food lines for 8 or 10 hours for a few boxes of mac n cheese and a week's supply of canned tuna... What about QAnon? Are you saying it doesn't exist...with all of their pedophile and baby-eating accusations? I recommend that you speak to the fool in the horns and holding a spear with an American flag stapled to it. Did large corporations and the very wealthy not benefit from Trump administration policies more than average, or worse, poor Americans? I'm also guessing that what happened on January 6th didn't bother you, that you are not appalled by the death and destruction, that you would have (or actually did) joined them had you the chance. Have you also turned a blind eye to the 545 immigrant children who were ripped from their parent's arms at Donald Trump's behest? I guess if these things don't apply to you and yours, then screw it, right?
So let me ask again: Which part?
Yeah, but what's that got to do with your article?
Please direct me to the areas you are describing as 'bovine shyt'. Verifiable links would be appreciated. Take all the time you need. I'll wait.
I think every sentence in my first comment is accurate.
From what I can tell, neither Trump nor any of his fan base are taking any responsibility for the ugly bloody delusional sad endings of Trumpism. Our sacred Republic has barely survived his lies and the disinformation and his outright defiance of our Constitution...
God not only did not ordain Donald Trump but is noq damning him, his legacy and all those who foisted his abominations upon America.
And, that is nicely as I can sum Trumpism up!
More lies and stinking BS
Yes. The Left clubs the right, specifically Trump, over this number, as if they or he is responsible for how people have associated or distanced themselves, worn or not worn masks or followed any other guidelines. It is put out that, had some responsible Dem been in power, the death rate would be drastically lower. Thing is, there is not one shred of evidence to support this. There's no reason given that could demonstrably prove that things would have turned out significantly different.
Give you this one, except this was the result of one man, not the Republican party. That is, it isn't as if this action was taken by committee.
Yes. This one is just outright propaganda and half a second's thought sees how ridiculous this is. What else could have happened when you close everything down for weeks? And had Dems been in charge, not wanting to open things up as Trump wanted to, it could have been even worse. It will be interesting to see what Biden does. How many millions of service workers and small businesses lost their jobs or closed? What do you think would result from that? Nothing?
What about it? It's not a new thing. Just new packaging. People believe crystals heal the body. That they've been abducted by aliens. Witches exist. Illuminati rule the world. Come up with something and someone already believed it before you thought of it.
Yes, they benefitted. But so did everyone else. Unemployment was pretty low. But since you mention the poor..
Some people are poor because life hasn't been kind to them. Situations and events just don't seem to give them a break. My heart goes out to them. But, in my opinion, many who are poor are poor because of the decisions they have made in life. Same goes for those who weren't but, due to Covid have or are losing everything. Reason? Rampant consumerism. I've seen documentaries about people living in crap apartments but have a Cadillac Escalade, for instance. Or people who bought way too much house. Or have to have the latest toy. Spend, spend, spend.
People live as if what's happening will never happen to them and, when it does, they're ruined. They have no emergency fund, nor ever had one. They didn't save money or invest it for the future. They didn't live within, or better yet, below their means. They had to have the life sold to them on TV every day. That's their measure of success and it betrayed them.
Bad guess, then. I watched a smidgen of Trump's speech and saw it was just more narcissism. Bored me so I did something else. When I became aware of what was happening at the Capital my reaction was dismay. Not for any of that ridiculous "we almost lost democracy" crap. That's just propaganda and spin the left puts out for the unthinking. Whatever fantasies were going through those people's heads about how things would turn out, there was no chance any of them would come to be. NO. CHANCE.
No, my dismay was for two reasons. The first was that what they were doing betrayed everything they were supposed to be for. What conservatives want. They thought they had the right to act for all of us. They attacked police officers, even killing one of them. Put people's lives in danger for a bad cause and no reason. And they did it in the Right's name. That pisses me off.
The second reason was, even though the thought never crossed their mind, it was as if they asked themselves, what could we do that would provide the absolute most benefit to the Dems while hurting their cause the most, and then went and did that. In that they succeeded spectacularly. Whatever evacuation route the Secret Service used to evacuate Pelosi must have been hampered by all the dancing in giddy glee she probably was doing.
What happened and why is so stupendously stupid it is difficult to grasp. Trump has responsibility for his actions that contributed to this fiasco and I hope justice finds him. But these people are responsible for their own actions. They bear responsibility for what they did. I hope justice finds them, too. And I hope it teaches them something useful.
As for your subtle insinuation of my character, believe what you will.
No, why? Are you looking for me to put forth some opinion about this? Here it is. First, I don't have much of a problem with it, in principle. As I understand it, some people who cross the border use children as props. Since I am not personally there or involved in the process to determine whether this is true or not all I can say is it certainly seems plausible. If the child isn't the child of the border crossing "parents", they should be separated until a determination could be made.
But even if they really are related, I find it hard to believe there are 545 sets of parents out there that can't get to their children. I suspect when Biden takes over, he's going to be stuck with those same children and one of two things are going to happen. The parents will suddenly show up to claim the child, thinking they will now get in or no one will continue to claim them because they were props. Maybe orphans or something.
Going after my character again? Whatever. Actually, I'm one person. There is only so much I can actually care about and there's a lot out there to care about. How much do you find yourself able to care about, beyond "tsk, tsk, such a shame"?
I think every sentence in my first comment is accurate.
Except they aren't even close to being true, and you can't provide any proof to the otherwise.
Um, JR posts unsubstantiated declarative statements and you think it's up to someone else to prove them wrong? Not how it works, Sister.
Can you be more specific?
Why have Democratic congress people voted to overturn the results of the last three presidential elections they lost, spread conspiracies about voting machines etc...?
It's really mind boggling to watch Democrats claim it's a threat to the Republic for Republicans to engage in the same behavior they've spent the last two decades normalizing.
But Trump is culpable. As PotUS, his words carried a great deal of weight. Every time Trump downplayed the severity of COVID-19 he influenced tens of millions of people to be less vigilant than they should.
Trump should have been consistently encouraging the entire nation to take this pandemic seriously, follow the guidelines as best they can and work together to minimize infecting each other.
Trump is not fully to blame for the pandemic infections in our nation but to excuse his considerable role in ongoing infections in the USA is not correct either.
Trump has a psychological makeup that does not allow him to be personally responsible for anything that goes wrong. You will look in vain for any Trump acknowledgement of responsibility for anything that went wrong, not just in his term of office as president, but in his life. When he does admit he made a mistake, it is always that he had too much faith in people who let him down. In his mind he has never let anyone down, ever.
In the election year 2020 Trump wanted to get as far away from covid as possible, if he wasnt associated with it he couldnt be blamed for it. So we got the "it will suddenly disappear" insanity from him. We got the "miracle cures" and the sunny prognostications. We got him ridiculing masks and social distancing. One way Trump "caused" deaths is by giving "half" the country the go ahead to argue about masks with the local 7/11 or CVS or Dunkin Donuts manager, to attend beer blasts at bars in resort towns, and to make fun of those who did follow the announced medical guidelines. We should have put the nation on a so called "war footing" from the start where wearing masks and social distancing would have been seen as a patriotic duty, instead Trump talked and acted as if trying to prevent the spread was an imposition on himself and his followers. No doubt an unknowable number of people have died because of virus spread resulting from Trump irresponsibly pooh poohing measures to slow the spread.
Don't forget all the allegations about voter suppression
What is mind boggling is you trying to compare the Democratic "complaints" about previous election results to what we have witnessed from Trump, his minions, Republican politicians, and now an enraged mob, over the weeks since the election.
The Democratic complaints are equivalent to a splinter in the eye, as in the biblical parable. The Trump/Republican complaints are the boulder in the same eye in the same story.
There may be something to what you say. However, the only way to know is if he had done it and see the results. There's no guarantee that people would have acted significantly different. Mask denier numbers, for instance, may not have been swayed by anyone. However, even if Trump had done everything the Dems wanted to do, I think we would have traded one problem for another (economically), and he'd still have gotten blamed.
Biden will do everything they thought Trump should have done and we will see the results. I have no idea what impact it will have on the death rate but I have my suspicions as what it may do, economically. Depends on what he does.
Trump pretty much repeated what the so called experts told him. You also arrogantly underestimate the intelligence of US citizens when itcomes to trying to sort out all the conflicting information. Most rational Americans don't put all that much faith in what a president says, be they Democrat or Republican. People of all types and stripes did NOT want the Federal and State governments how to live. Masks have greatly helped, distancing has turned out to be pretty much impractical, and the lockdowns were disastrous for millions
We're not talking about Trump, thanks. We're talking about your nonsense propaganda post. Stop trying to change the subject.
My father used to say that any man who uses the word 'smidgen' is a nice man in real life. I bet $50 that you are a nice man in real life.
But even if they really are related, I find it hard to believe there are 545 sets of parents out there that can't get to their children
Please note that just because there are 545 children, it doesn't mean that there are equally as many parents. In addition, would you want any child to be full of panic and concern because they don't know where their parents are? Thirty seconds is too long for any child to feel that way.
Going after my character again?
No. I was asking you a question.
Yes. The Left clubs the right, specifically Trump, over this number, as if they or he is responsible for how people have associated or distanced themselves, worn or not worn masks or followed any other guidelines.
He talked about these very things, day in and day out. It was like he was bragging when his supporters refused to do anything to help stop the spread. Trump made these declarations in televised statements every, single day.
People live as if what's happening will never happen to them and, when it does, they're ruined. They have no emergency fund, nor ever had one.
Did they call you on the phone and tell you their troubles, or what? Personally speaking, I am an older single woman taking care of an elderly and ill aunt. I have enough left in savings and cash to get by for a little while, but not much longer. For you to imply that poor people squandered what they should have saved is frankly, heartbreaking. If you've never given to charity (be it money, food, clothing, etc.), I recommend it. Even if it is just one person that you have directly helped, you can feel it in your heart, and it feels great.
No, he didn't. He either misspoke what experts actually said or contradicted them.
US citizens are generally stupid! That's not an underestimation. It's demonstrable fact! It's something that's been getting progressively worse over the years too.
As Covid demonstrated, that is not quite true.
That's 1 reason why people are stupid. They refused or failed to do what was necessary to contain the spread of Covid. They didn't want to be inconvenienced. Such attitudes are stupid and selfish!
While we do not have a mathematical model populated with metrics to evaluate the various scenarios resulting from actions taken or not taken by Trump, we do have common sense.
If a PotUS downplays a pandemic, common sense and experience tells us that with 74+ millions supporters and 328+ million citizens, tens of millions (conservatively) will take that as an excuse (consciously or subconsciously) to be more lax. Common sense also tells us that any precautions we take to mitigate infection is net positive.
Not sure what Biden will end up doing. If I could, I would recommend Biden take the role of leader and encourage everyone to take the precautions seriously, get vaccinated when possible and work together to end this pandemic so that we more quickly return to a normal life.
As we have seen, people lack common sense. The infection and death rates associated with Covid this past year is a clear indication of that. Certain states refused (and still do) simple measures like mask mandates. We see people ranting about wearing masks, no social distancing, "Covid parties," claims downplaying Covid or that it's a hoax, ect.. And it all starts at the top.
They put up with them in WW2, and to a lesser extent in WW 1.
You are the one complaining that Trump is not responsible for any covid deaths. I am showing you why he is. His psychological makeup has a great deal to do with why he acted like he did about the virus.
You did not pay attention then: ↓
Why, Greg, do you immediately go personal? Do you think that will cause me to take your words more seriously or dismiss them as an attack?
Trump is a lying sack of shit. He had 74+ million people vote for him after observing his behavior in office for almost four years. Tens of millions in the electorate believed Trump's bullshit. I think you are the one doing the underestimating (and not of intelligence, but rather gullibility).
Is your counter-intuitive belief backed by metrics or is it simply your opinion? If it is simply your opinion then why is your opinion not 'arrogant'?
Yeah, so what? I do not want to wear a mask and I do not want to be forced to do so, but I do and will based on the recommendations by experts and authorities that this will help us collectively reduce infection. The recommendation seems quite sound to me.
Not sure where you are going now. Seems you have stumbled off into another discussion. We were talking about Trump downplaying the pandemic and his resultant culpability.
Possibly you are right. However, you may be putting to much into how much people listen to the president. It seems like those who do listen do so because he's already saying something they agree with, most of the time.
But more than that, even though Trump downplayed the pandemic, there were plenty of people telling them about the proper precautions. Looking back, we see tons of people do whatever the hell they wanted to do, regardless of political affiliation. Protesting, parties, gatherings and whatnot. Honestly don't expect that to change much with Biden taking control. People have plenty of information about what they should do concerning the pandemic. They've always had it.
I'm skeptical about the efficacy about the importance of what leaders say. I think it has an impact, but I think it's limited. Americans tend to make their own decisions on these things, in my opinion. I'm not sure Biden is going to make much difference with his message. I may have to change my opinion in six months or so. We'll have to see.
Yes, that's a part of it, too. People are going to do what they do regardless of what others say, even the president.
Except that some states that do have mask mandates aren't faring any better. New York comes to mind.
But we see the same in people who believe in wearing masks, social distance, don't believe it's a hoax and all the rest. Because even these people don't always follow it strictly. College kids having a party for instance. Gather to protest. We can say it starts at the top but what matters is behavior at the bottom. It may be that trying to control a pandemic may be akin to trying to control a hurricane because trying to control human behavior to the extent necessary for something like this without becoming North Korea may not be possible.
Democratic congressmen voted to overturn the results of the last three times they've lost. That is exactly what you just attacked Republicans for doing. It's the exact same thing.
Tell me John, if Trump had found a path to victory similar what happened in 2016, how many Democrats would have voted overturn the election in Congress? Given their embrace of violence over the summer, only a fool would claim the protests following a Trump victory would have been less violent than what we've seen. In fact given the dozens of deaths that occurred the the last time the left engaged in mass protests, odds are it would have been much worse.
Maybe your own side purge itself of those who voted to overturn elections, pushed baseless conspiracies about voting machines and elections in Georgia, and defended violent rioters and worked to keep them from being punished before you start denouncing Republicans. Those with unclean hands....
Data isn't their friend on this, so they rely on unsubstantiated declarations.
That is part of my point. People naturally do not want to wear masks. We naturally want to congregate (parties, bars, etc.) We naturally do not want to be on guard 24x7, constantly washing hands and cleaning surfaces, etc. It does not take much to influence behavior if someone of authority (much less the PotUS) suggests that you really do not have to be as vigil as you thought. The PotUS was giving people excuses to do what they would prefer (no precautions) vs. what they should do.
People "spend spend spend" because advertising works, and human nature suggests that people try and keep up with the Joneses. Poor people want I phones because they see advertising and television series that depict that unless you have an I phone you are a hopeless loser. Even poor people dont want to be hopeless losers. So they will buy that phone and other consumer goods instead of saving money. Good luck ever trying to change that dynamic.
There is one great immutable truth that very very many people ignore, all the time.
Capitalism creates poverty and a permanent underclass. That is because profit for the few is the basis of capitalism. Any time you direct "profit" to a smaller group you are going to have poverty and underclass. That is 'OK' we say, because capitalism gives all these great benefits to the world in terms of material progress, new tech advances, great restaurants, travel opportunities, great lifestyle choices, etc. Thats fine, but with capitalism comes a responsibility to help the people who will always be left behind in a capitalist economy. People who are successful should consider government spending on the underclass to be the cost of having the great consumer economy that we have. It is not only unavoidable , it is necessary.
Your comments on this topic are so strange they are not even worth engaging with.
That's false Sean. Get educated.
Please.
That isn't quite what I said. There are poor who simply are poor through no fault of their own. I stated this. Then there are poor who remain poor because they make poor consumer choices. They buy crap they don't need. Like having to have the newest iphone or something. A nicer car than they can actually afford. Big screen TV. They are poor because they have to have their dreamed of life now, not later. Some are poor because they spend what they have on drugs. Some are poor because they wasted school in pursuit of the most expensive sneakers and latest CD's, dreaming of being rock stars. Some are poor because partying and having a good time is everything. Buying stuff they don't need at all. They have no concept of the principle of delayed gratification. Going without now to have something later.
This may seem like I have a cold attitude towards the poor. I do not. I care very much about them. I have done things for them and look forward to my retirement so I can do even more. But it is no disservice to the poor to recognize why a lot of them are poor. It's just facing facts.
I give to charity. Thanks.
Just knew this was coming. Total crap. People move up and down the scale all the time. And most can take advantage of profits simply by investing. All they need do is make the effort and work hard.
You guys spend too much time worrying about how much someone else has rather than simply taking care of yourself.
And we've once again been diverted totally off topic.
false Sean. Get educated.
Of course it isn't and don't project your own insecurities about your lack of education onto me, please.
Sure John, I can see why the Democrats recent history is impossible to acknowledge if you are going to claim that our current state of affairs is somehow all the Republicans fault.
Oh but it IS false. The FACT is that prior to 2021 there has been ONE vote on whether to object to the results of ONE state in the last three Presidential elections Sean. That was in 2004.
Wow, talk about projection.
I have NO insecurities about my level of education Sean. I posit that my above refutation of your FALSE statement is evidence that I need have none.
Oh and BTFW, after ALL this time you STILL can't seem to figure out how the fully block quote a comment...
You will not have a modern capitalist economy that is not also a welfare state. You may wish that you could, but its not going to happen. In a capitalist economy there will ALWAYS be a permanent underclass that needs government help. If you dont like it, leave.
Not true. Democrats in Congress objected to certifying the 2000 election, and 2016 election.
n. I posit that my above refutation of your FALSE statement is evidence that I need have no
But my statement wasn't false and you obviously don't know what the word "refutation" means. . Start your educational journey with looking that up.
e you STILL can't seem to figure out how the fully bl
Guess not.
YOU stated:
Again, that is FALSE.
NOW you want to move the goal posts and change it to:
Those are entirely DIFFERENT statements Sean. That kind of bullshit illustrates BAD FAITH. Especially when you follow it with this bullshit:
Your statement was irrefutably FALSE Sean. Your bad faith effort to change your posit now doesn't make it any less FALSE.
My refutation of your FALSE statement proves that I do.
No need. I'm sure that my comment history illustrates that my vocabulary is above average.
Maybe because they had the Constitutional right to question the results?
BTW....Do you take ownership of Barbara Boxer doing the exact same thing?
I'm sure you think what she did was "different".
Barbara Boxer specifically said she had no intention of overturning election results, merely of calling attention to election irregularities in Ohio which were at that time being adjudicated.
False equivalence.
Nope.
Hawley and Cruz did the exact same thing. They wanted a 10 day review of the election to ensure everything was on the up and up because of irregularities and questionable actions in 6 states..
Nowhere did they say they did it to overturn the election.
They wanted a 10-day review to what purpose? Ten more days to find evidence that hadn't existed for two months? In Boxer's case, the outcome of the election was never called into question - Bush was always going to win, and Boxer acknowledged that he had won. Hawley and Cruz are merely feeding into the "stop the steal" myth, belief in which has shown itself to be dangerous to democracy. Hawley and Cruz, et al., are feeding into the frenzy that led to attempted insurrection.
I told you in 1.1.51
Nope again.
News reports are stating that the rioters planned what they did long before January 6th, the Capitol police knew about it, and did nothing to avert it. I don't know why. Maybe it is because it is well known Trump supporters have never caused this type of violence in the country, the direct opposite of BLM and ANTIFA , who are well known for causing violence and destruction everywhere they are. Trump, Hawley and Cruz had nothing to do with it.
BTW...what EXACTLY did Trump say in his speech that was the cause for those idiots to do what they did. I hear that the phrase "go to the Capitol peacefully and patriotically" supposedly triggered a bunch of leftists to claim that he really meant "go take over the Capitol".
Don't you, like millions of other patriotic Americans, think that is just loon crazy talk?
Democrat Jones said the same thing as Hawley almost verbatim.
What a load of shit. They specifically voted for a resolution that would keep Bush's win of Ohio from being certified, electoral votes he needed to win. Just because they knew they would fail doesn't change what they voted for. What matter is what they tried to do, not their claimed motivations for doing so. They could have presented a resolution in Congress without trying to throw out Ohio's votes if that's what they actually wanted to do.
Except that it's not, because they have.
Kyle Rittenhouse.
The plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer.
And then we find a bit more detail about that objection:
"This objection does not have at its root the hope or even the hint of overturning the victory of the President ; but it is a necessary, timely, and appropriate opportunity to review and remedy the most precious process in our democracy. I raise this objection neither to put the Nation in the turmoil of a proposed overturned election nor to provide cannon fodder or partisan demagoguery for my fellow Members of Congress. I raise this objection because I am convinced that we as a body must conduct a formal and legitimate debate about election irregularities. I raise this objection to debate the process and protect the integrity of the true will of the people."
There was no attempt in 2005 to overturn an election.
Oh and how soon they forget the 'MAGA bomber' and the El Paso shooter.
They voted to refuse to certify the electors from Ohio. That's what matters. It's a binary vote. Accept the election results or not. . If they had succeeded, the result would have been the same as if Cruz did. Either you accept each state's certification or you don't. The excuses and justification for not accepting are ireelant and dishonest. It's like voting for a war and then turning around and saying well, my vote for the war was a protest against war.
I raise this objection because I am convinced that we as a body must conduct a formal and legitimate debate about election irregularities
Which is essentially what Cruz and Hawley stated. But again, either you accept a states certified vote or you don't. To claim one different from the other is dishonest. And of course, you can make that argument at any time and place.
Of course.
Context and intent matter, Sean. And the cases in the 2004 election were still in court, not having already been thrown out repeatedly.
That's your argument? Good lord. Man have you ever heard of relevance? Just once, try and make a substantive argument.
The objections to the certification by Democratic Congressmen in 2000 and 2016 was an attempt to try and stop electoral votes from being counted. They just failed at an earlier step in the process then they did in 2004. The intent, which is what matters, is the same.
. Pretending there is some sort of substantive distinction between objecting to certification and voting against certification is the epitome of bad faith. Democrats tried all three elections they've lost to stop the certification of the electoral college by Congress. That's all that matters for the terms of this debate. Th
It definitely is. Neither one ever stated their intention was to overthrow the election. If one is going to say it for one party, they must agree the other party did the same.
Standard fare from some when their argument is weak.
That, and "context" which some know absolutely nothing about.
Hell they bandy those words around so much, it has become like calling someone a racist---meaningless drivel.
I'm not making an argument Sean. I stated a FACT.
YES. Have you ever heard of a good faith argument Sean?
I already have, you are just unwilling to admit it. That's okay, every other member here can see it for themselves.
There you go again, desperately trying to pretend that you didn't START with 'Democratic congress people voted to overturn the results'. Just ADMIT it, they didn't VOTE Sean. Your statement was FALSE. You can do it. A moment of adulting and it will be all over.
Nope. You said one thing and now you know it isn't true yet you just can't get yourself to man up and admit it.
Now your devolving to the 'I'm rubber you're glue' defense. Pathetic.
No Sean. You had more than one chance to correct yourself and admit that your statement was false. Trying now to pretend that it's all the same is merely a weak attempt to save face. Too fucking late.
BTFW, this isn't a debate. This is me trying to give you a chance to correct your mistake and now having to call you out because you keep insisting that you've been right all along. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
Exactly. As if we’d listen to the OP or the seeder on the issue. Actually the GOP elite were never with Trump in the first place. The Lincoln project and other never trumpers have always opposed him and often sided with democrats against their own party base.
This is typical of Newstalkers!
The seed gives details. You don't bother to answer those details; you just dismiss them.
... and the daily food-fight begins...
I can't view the seed. I can only go by what he posted. What he posted was non-sense. I'm pretty sure what I'd see in the seed because of that.
Vocabulary:
seed: What the NTer posts
Original Article: The source for what the NTer posts; can be reached via the big "Seeded Content'' button.
Let me put it another way so you can, maybe, understand. I can click the seed. It takes me to the site, which says I have to pay money to see it. I'm not going to pay money to see it.
Do you understand now or do you wish to continue being a smartass?
What I posted is word for word what is in the original Washington Post article. Nothing was added or left out. The writer is a well known columnist Dana Millbank.
As I said, I stand by every word that I posted from his article. What specifically do you object to ?
Both the Washington Post and The New York Times are behind a paywall. I can access them through the Public Library in my city. Everyone one who can should get a library card and check out their website for what materials are available online. You might be surprised.
For example, the Chicago Public Library offers people full access to the Encyclopedia Britannica online, for free, as well as hundreds of other publications and reference books. I'm sure other libraries have similar services.
Okay, fine then Bob was full of crap. The seed does not in fact give details. Just declarative statements without evidence or explanation as to why they are true. In other words, they are true simply because they say they are and that is what you are standing by, again, without evidence. And once again, you posted them, the onus of proving them as true is on you, not on me to prove them false.
As to what I specifically object to, start at the first word and include everything between that and the last word. Every last point is a distortion of the truth. So, yeah, I could make the effort to refute all of them, but it would be a wasted effort. The way things are today nobody gives a damn about the truth. They only care about what they want to believe.
Are you suggesting that John's copy/paste is not a faithful copy?
Seriously?
... but you don't prove it.
Somebody is full of crap...
You have never seen an opinion column in the newspaper before? Dana Milbank has been writing a column for 15 or 20 years, i think.
Does George Will or Bill O' Reilly put statistics and "proof" for what they say in their columns? No because thats not what an opinion columnist does.
Well then you want to be ridiculous. I can't do anything about that.
No, I'm going off the implication that your post suggested that by following the seed, I'd see content that would explain the reasoning for what appeared in JR's post. In other words, your post as quoted above, indicated that there was information about JR's post not contained in JR's post, otherwise, why tell me I needed to look at the seed?
Now, by JR's own words, what JR posted was the seed posted in it's entirety. That means you were either lying or have no understanding of the word "details".
Now you want to make it out as if this is about me claiming I am disputing the authenticity of JR's post. Totally typical, Bob. Classic you.
I think I'll leave it to others to judge just who that is.
Don't give a crap. I'm not addressing them or anyone who posted their stuff. I'm addressing you and the crap you posted.
I really dont think you calling something crap and then spending the rest of the day giving no specifics is going to impress anyone. Keep pulling your hair out for all I care.
Right. So, what you're saying is you can spew whatever nonsense you want and it's true unless we spend the effort to prove it wrong. Got it.
So...
Your post is communist propaganda designed to herd the unthinking, publicly educated masses toward eliminating capitalism, thereby ushering in communism and, thereby, willingly enslaving themselves to the same elitists as before, but under a new system.
Now prove me wrong.
Yikes!
Ditto!
Actually...no.
I owe you a debt of thanks for the article you made on how to post a YouTube video. I recently was able to post something because of it. I thank you, good lady.
You are most welcome. I am very glad that it worked for you and you were able to post your YouTube. (smile)
Your persnickety pettifogging is a deflection from the actual substantive argument. It's a dishonest technique used by small minds when they've can't author a coherent, relevant argument.
Democrats in Congress tried to stop the certification in Congress of every Presidential election they've lost this century. Since you can't argue that, you've been reduced to making superfluous distinctions between the forms of objections. What matters is, of course, that Democrats in Congress have tried to stop certification of the electoral college vote three times. Your little diversionary attempt doesn't dispute that. No one can dispute that. Well, I should say, no honest person can dispute that. I've learned my lesson about that.
Take that bullshit elsewhere Sean.
It is impossible to conduct a substantive debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge that their posit is false.
Your comment was FALSE. PERIOD, full stop.
That FACT is unequivocal and proven by the FACT that you tried to change your statement and failed.
Your projection is noted.
I have to wonder why you bother to post replies that merely devolve into unfounded personal comments.
This is my favorite comment of the year, so far. Not only is it a perfect assessment, but I never get to see people use "pettifogging." What a delightful word! And with persnickety (a favorite word) as well!
LOL. Dana Milbank is a mainstream center-left columnist for the Washington Post. You are probably the first person outside of QAnon or Infowars type people to refer to him as a communist. Get a grip.
The one who crossed state lines looking for a fight and then claimed self defense.
Looking for a fight, not flight.
If you go looking for a fight, self-defense is a hard case to make.
Putting words in other people's mouths is dishonest. Don't do it. What I think is that he shouldn't have been a vigilante.
He had no business being there.
He had no business carrying a gun.
He shot and killed two people.
Is there really anything to say in his defense? Seriously?
No, there isn't.
What's a horse apple?
McConnell, Mike Pense, Ivanka, Jared, Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, Chuck Grassly and other prominent Republicans were never with Trump in the first place?
WTF???
WTF is right. His comment is beyond delusional.
Consider the source.....
Vigilantes can also be cowards.
He had no business being there.
He had no business carrying a gun.
He shot and killed two people.
Is there really anything to say in his defense? Seriously?
You're
Nobody ever said he was a good vigilante.
Actually John, those house and senate members the article mentions did the will of the base of the party and they are whom we are going to rally around because they did that. They are American heroes and great Patriots.
They are American heroes on the same level a Benedict Arnold or Joseph McCarthy were American heroes.
[deleted]
Republicans can't do anything now. Democrats are in charge.
The military has not been deployed to Washington D.C. by Republicans. And the military deployment won't deliver social justice or protect civil liberties.
The political class could do nothing when cities were under siege. It's amazing how swiftly and decisively the political class can act when their own bread & butter is threatened.
What we are seeing is how Democrats intend to govern because Democrats are in charge. Republicans can't do anything now. Blaming Republicans for what Democrats are planning to do is nothing more than political propaganda.
Huh ?
At 12:01 PM Wednesday, the ball lands squarely in the left wing side of the court. Everything, good or bad, that happens after that is the responsibility of the Democrats. If the Dems play nice and fairly, the Republicans might help them pass common sense legislation and worthwhile and effective programs. Be thankful that HRC wasn't in charge during these troubled times.
Yes. I'm wondering what things they may try to pass, using the Capital fiasco as the reason. I suspect they're going to ride this horse for all they can get out of it. I wonder what America will look like in four years.
Well the R party needs to seriously rethink how it operates. I realize that the R establishment did not want Trump in 2016 but the electorate pushed him through nonetheless. So they were stuck with him and we see how they operated. They first resisted him and eventually (again due to his supporters) acquiesced and worked with him. Eventually they wound up carrying his water.
In a sense, they sold their souls. Now that Trump is (in effect) history, they need to figure out how to repair themselves. Trump caused serious damage to the R party and the stain will be with them for decades (much like Nixon). They need to pay attention to the policies that the people liked from Trump and find a way to support those kind of policies but with good candidates. With people that at least come across as wanting to do well for their constituents and not simply pursuing power.
Our system should have at least three major political parties. We are instead moving into a single party. The D and R parties are not so distinct anymore and if the R party cannot recover we may have, in effect, a single party system with the D party dominant and a feeble R party. (Chances are, however, that the D party will engage in its own level of screw-ups and, in so doing, help the R party to look better in the eyes of the electorate.)
Democrats are known for whipping dead horses. Just look at the Democratic politics surrounding slavery.
So are you saying that we should stop pursuing legal actions against the insurrectionists and rioters that took over the capitol building?
I am saying that whatever response is deemed appropriate for the violent protest at the Capitol building would be appropriate for all violent protests.
What is happening in Washington D.C. sets the standard for responding to violent protests anywhere in the United States.
Unlike Republicans...who never , ever, did that sort of thing when they had the majority!
/sarc
I'm quite sure they did. It's why I think all of Congress is such a clown show.
Then they better do something about matters. Clinging to / defending Trump is the absolute wrong thing to do.
Good for you. Nothing wrong with standing up for policies you believe in. But, as you might have noticed, there are a number here who continue to defend Trump and excuse his behavior (especially the post-election behavior).
The racism? The xenophobia? The transfer of public property to private owners? The reduction of regulations that protect the public? What?
You might want to check your calendar.
Trump is the Commander in Chief RIGHT NOW.
Yet Trump has insisted that military deployment was the answer to all things protest for the whole of 2020.
Argle-bargle.
Again, I direct you to a calendar.
Who is doing that Nerm?
The calendar says the 117th Congress convened on January 3, 2021, and will end on January 3, 2023.
The White House and executive branch weren't the focal point of the riot, either. The charges of sedition and insurrection are the result of an attack on Congress.
And Democrats were vehemently opposed to military deployment for border security and quelling the violent riots. Democrats opposed using the military to protect the country but adamantly support using the military to protect Congress, especially since Democrats now control Congress.
Under a deep blue sky.
And, again, the calendar says the 117th Congress convened on January 3, 2021.
The seeder did not provide that information but Dana Milbank of the Washington Post gets the credit.
And I wonder just what the stolen NG Humvee will be used for. I firmly believe we will see it show up on 1/20/21 at the DC Capitol checkpoint and ram the gates in order to force entry to the Capitol area that will allow the rabid traitors behind it to gain access to the Capitol. Again.
However, this time it will be an actual battle scene, with firearms of various kinds in use on both sides. If the insurrectionists think the NG won't use fire power against them, they may well be in for a surprise. Bigly!
But, the NG Humvee is well armed, and can deliver deadly fire power very quickly. And I am willing to bet that it will be driven by an ex-military person who is very familiar with its weapons and how to use them. And that is very sad. To think that, a person would use their military training, meant for use against a foreign enemy, would use it against their own country and fellow Americans.
That is the saddest part of what Trump has done to America.
JMOO
Well, except for Mike Pence. They wanted to string him up.
What's your fucking point Nerm?
Since Jan. 3rd and RIGHT NOW, who is the Majority Leader of the Senate?
Is Trump STILL in the WH today Nerm?
What does that have to do with your comment that started THIS thread Nerm? Hint: Not a fucking thing. So why defect?
DEFLECTION!
Nope. Democrats opposed TRUMP sending in the military. Governors called in their states NG.
That is a lie.
So do seem the Republicans. Or do you have a link where a the GOP is decrying the deployment.
Rinsing and repeating the same lie doesn't make it more true.
Which is just as irrelevant as the first time you said it.
WHAT did he SAY? Link? Oh and please find one that isn't behind a fucking pay wall.
Well that would be a drive that would be a MAJOR 'pucker' test. LA to DC in a big fucking Humvee with and all points bulletin out for it.
Unfortunately, that's my biggest concern, too. A show of force invites a show of force. We've seen the same play out with the BLM protests. Deploying National Guard resulted in an escalation of violence before the situation could be brought under some semblance of control.
IMO the distinction is that the BLM protests were attempting to coerce the political class to become allies. That's not the objective for these protesters. The situation is far more dangerous but, IMO, less of a threat to democracy or the government than were the BLM protests.
That's what tractor trailer rigs are for.
Well, it does not have to be driven itself. Knowing that it will be on the list of every LE agency across the country, it could easily be trucked across country in just a very few days to DC. As the old saying goes, where there is a will there is a way.
However, it may also show up in Sacramento as a show of force against the Capitol NG there.
I could be wrong on all sides, but, it is safe to say that given the situation at hand nation wide, that it was not stolen just for a joy ride by some juvenile idiots.
Sorry Nerm, I can't agree with that part of your comment. The BLM protests were not aimed at overtaking our country's house of Democracy, with the only aim of their protest was to kill our current Vice President and kill or capture as many of our Lawmakers as possible in order to take control of America and insure Trumps rule as Dictator.
They are two totally different situations. One being a protest, the other an insurrection. In other words, Apples and Habanero peppers.
And I am afraid it will not end on January 20th, regardless the outcome of that planned nationwide rebellion. As President or not, Trump can never let go of his hate of being a loser, and his unrelenting determination to be the Dictator for life of America. Nor will his rabid followers let it go, choosing to believe Trumps' lies over the truth.
Exactly. And there are many backroads between LA and DC that will not likely be monitored by LE, and have much less traffic, especially, when traveling by night.
BLM attempted to subvert the political process of representation by the undemocratic means of threatening the general population.
We may elect our representatives democratically but our representatives do not govern democratically. BLM attempted to coerce our representatives into governing as BLM wished by using threats of violence and actual violence as a form of lobbying.
BLM threatened violence against the general population to demand representation. The Trump protestors threatened violence against the political class to demand representation.
IMO, subversion of the political process of representation is a greater threat to the republic than insurrection.
Yeah, but when have Trump followers ever shown that level of intelligence? Remember, these are the guys that videoed themselves committing federal offenses at the Capitol building, then promptly went online to boast about it.
Nope.
Of course they can.
So what, exactly, can they do?
They can work together with Democrats for the good of the country!
Rather than obstructionism, both parties would have to compromise-- and ignore the extremists.
(Some politicians on both sides of the aisle seem to be coming around to realizing that. Will the sensible ones prevail? Only time will tell)
This by itself considered: Much is being made of something that happens all the time. Votes are turned over or invalidated a lot in our system.
Here in California, the people vote a lot on propositions that become law. Sometimes they are even state constitutional amendments. More than one of them has been overturned on the grounds that they are unconstitutional. Governors and presidents regularly veto the votes of the representatives of the people.
In 2020, these Republican members of Congress referenced here voted to disallow votes on grounds that something about them violated the law (or so they say, at any rate).
But famously, just four years ago, many Democrats were urging members of the Electoral College to disregard the votes of the people in their respective states and cast their votes for Hillary Clinton. The grounds for that? They simply preferred choosing her over Trump. They didn't actually think there was anything illegal about those votes.
So there is quite a bit of hypocrisy - not to mention ignoring the rules of our government and its history - in being so vehemently outraged about trying to overturn the votes of the people.
That's a false equivalency. The question of faithless electors is totally different then rejecting the electoral votes of multiple states.
Each elector represents a couple hundred thousand. Trump's minions wanted to delete the votes of about 27.5 MILLION.
How is it different? People voted and their votes are being rejected by someone else. Sounds very similar.
Why is the amount of votes important? Are you saying we shouldn't care about protecting the votes of even one person? What is the number where we should care or not care?
Well for one thing, EVERY elector, even a 'faithless' one, STILL represents a proportion of voters. What those 140+ Republicans voted to do was the disenfranchise ALL of voters of Arizona and Pennsylvania. They THREATENED to do so for at least 4 other states. In fact, while the Capitol was under siege, Rudy, Trump's lawyer was calling Senators to get them to object the EVERY state.
I hope that clarifies how it is different Tacos.
Well because the amount of votes decides who becomes the POTUS. DUH.
In 2016 one party was asking the electors of the EC to BACK the peoples vote, while in 2020 one party was asking the electors of the EC to FUCK the peoples vote, (for a second time).
In 2016 the largest rally in Americas history turned out to peacefully protest Trump's becoming president despite the will of the American voters.
In 2020 a murderess mob of insurrectionist desecrated the Peoples house in hopes of keeping Trump as president DESPITE the will of the American voters.
No, that is incorrect. The electors were duty bound to vote the way the people of their respective states voted - not the way people in some other state voted. The rest of your comment is unrelated to my post.
Actually, 17 states do NOT 'bind' their electors 'to vote the way the people of their respective states voted'.
Next?
Were people only trying to get electors to be unfaithful in those specific 17 states? If not, then your fact is irrelevant. Were the people calling for electors to be unfaithful specifically avoiding such a call in these 17 states because of this distinction? If not, then again your fact is irrelevant.
Next?
There was a SC case and a ruling on this that now electors cannot go rogue.
Yeah, and I think that's the right call Constitutionally. The Constitution says the states can choose electors, but it doesn't say they can't put restrictions on those electors. I'm not entirely sure that's what the framers were going for - I think they wanted wise people making the choice - but it conforms to the plain language of what they wrote.
Perhaps if you identified the 'many Democrats' I could answer your question.
Why not? You made an GENERAL assertion that electors were duty bound. It is a FALSE assertion.
Again, which 'people'? If you want specifics from me, you'll have to supply some of your own.
Next?
That ruling only controls electors from states that bind them.
What plain language?
Yeah, I was thinking that it basically said the electors had to go by the vote of the people.
It seems to me if that is the case, the people now that are trying to get certain states to have their electors go rogue, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on as legally the electors are bound.
That wouldn't help you. I said many Democrats were urging electors to be faithless. Urging. Not voting. It's not like only Democrats in Michigan were urging only electors in Michigan to be faithless. That came from everywhere and was directed to everywhere.
It's not false. It's the truth. GENERALLY. We were talking about a GENERAL controversy over duty bound - potentially faithless - electors. No one mentioned a specific state. Your interjection has been pointless. You are just making noise.
I thought it came about because of the state of CA and involved a republican.
This:
It's pretty unambiguous. States appoint electors. The state legislatures get to decide how that happens. Nothing that follows says anything about how the states should choose those electors or what restrictions might be placed upon them.
Some states require electors to sign a 'pledge' to vote for the party candidate that wins the popular vote. The SCOTUS ruled that those electors that sign that pledge CAN be penalized for violating that pledge and that the state can replace them.
Ah, thanks.
Since you believe that, it seems that your question is moot.
BTW, the SCOTUS ruling was motivated by faithless electors violating their pledge to vote for Clinton. I doubt that was motivated by pleas from Democrats.
There isn't enough mustard on the planet to cover your pretzel logic.
I note your devolving the MO of posting personal comments.
Or that they be wise people...
Your note is false. I talked about your comments. Not you.
Your interjection has been pointless. You are just making noise.
You seem to be using words you don't understand.
You seem to be trying to ignore the falsehood they illustrate.
'You seem to be trying to ignore the falsehood they illustrate.'
Twist and spin and deflect and deny appear to be all some have
That doesn't make any more sense than your attempt to identify an interjection.
Don't pretend it made sense to you either.
Your inability to make sense of my comment is on you .
No, your inability to grasp the fact that you used a word incorrectly is entirely on you.
I quoted YOU Tacos.
Nope.
Your post @
My post @
Nope.
Here are the true facts:
There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States.
Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories—electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.
So the true facts are-- some states require it. Some don't!
He's already made up his mind...don't confuse him with the truth!
What's the point?
TiG's video , like the a dozen others you can find in just minutes with the simplest searches, shows that either Trump did not know what was going on, or Trump lied to the American people. Or both.
Anyone who watches the video cannot possibly conclude anything else.
And yet... tens of millions of Americans believe Trump has done a good job on Covid!
We have the same thing, right here on NT. Our fascist-fellow-traveler members simply ignore the evidence.
So... what's the point of discussion?
Confirmation bias. Believing only what one wishes were true regardless of evidence to the contrary.
Yes... among other phenomena...
So... what's the point of discussion? It's a serious question. It seems to me that thinking Americans are wasting a lot of time and energy jabbering at people who will not be persuaded under any circumstances.
The point would be to rebut their claims so that reasoning observers can see the flaws in sycophantic 'thinking' and (hopefully) not fall into the same trap.
How many ''not-yet-decided'' readers do you suppose there are on NT?
You are restricting yourself to simply NT?
Bias, or delusion? Or both?
I thought your 4.1.2 indicated that you meant to stick to our little microcosm - which seems fairly representative to me.
In any case, my thesis that discussion is futile most certainly does NOT apply only to NT.
I doubt that ''undecided'' garners two percent nowadays.
(Our ever-stalwart ''refuse to have an opinion'' contingent is of a different nature.)
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Social Media!
Well, for starters-- some people just aren't able to resist the temptation to "Feed the Trolls".
So the trolls are able to keep their arguments prominent...
Where would we be without the trolls?!
This is what progressives choose to charge people with?
Things are only going to get worse.