Maher: Democrats lost due to ‘anti-common sense agenda’
There is no confusing Bill Maher with a person of the conservative leaning, but he makes a strong case for what went wrong with the Harris campaign strategy.
Other prominent Democrats and democratic party supporters have also suggested that the strategy was wrong and that changes are needed
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
C omedian and television personality Bill Maher blamed the Democratic party’s “aggressively anti-common sense agenda” for losing The White House, both chambers of Congress and the Supreme Court.
“I will conclude by saying: the reason I’m so mad at the Democrats is because, as a voter, the issues that were important to me were democracy and the environment and now, there’s no one to champion or defend either of them because you, with your aggressively anti-common sense agenda and sh– exclusionary attitude, blew it,” Maher said on his show “Real Time with Bill Maher” Friday night.
“You lost everything: House, Senate, White House, Supreme Court and left us completely unprotected and ready to be violated,” he added.
Maher’s comments come as President-elect Trump is set to return to the White House, both the Senate and House are GOP-controlled, and the Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative supermajority. Democrats have been pointing fingers since their stinging losses following Election Day.
For some, the party’s woes revolve around ineffective messaging on kitchen-table economic issues, like inflation, wages and the accelerating trend of wealth inequality. For others, the trouble stems from the explosive debate over the Israel-Hamas war. For still others, the problems relate to culture war battles, including that over transgender rights.
Maher also hit Democrats by suggesting that they failed to relate to voters.
“The basis for Democratic campaigns has become: ‘we’re the smart people, that we know from the get-go, no need to look into that,'” Maher said.
“Maybe take the clothes pins off your noses and actually converse with the other half of the country. Stop screaming at people to get with the program and instead make a program worth getting with,” Maher said.
Discuss the article and the points made by the author and the interviewee
Be civil to each other
The article is not about Trump - it is about the Democratic Party election strategy - discuss that
Opinion by Jeremy Farley (USA Today) offers
8 reasons why Democrats lost the 2024 election
1. Because the Democratic Party has drifted too far left for America
2. Because Democrats waited too long to address Biden’s cognitive decline
3. Because legacy media and celebrities no longer hold sway
4. Because of their vice presidential picks
5. Because Democrats seem more concerned with Ukraine than Carolina
6. Because this isn’t George Bush’s Republican Party anymore
7. Because no one cares about January 6
8. Because Democrats have lost working men
Read her entire article at
8 reasons why Democrats lost the 2024 election
No disrespect to Mr Farley, but he is an evangelical pastor from a Republican area of North Carolina and his 8 reasons have no more weight of truth than any other random American.
He may be right that voters "dont care" about "Jan 6th" but that doesnt say something good about America, it says something terrible about America.
aka the lowest hanging fruit ...
Doesn't change the fact that he's correct.
Why does this have to be an either-or? Why can't it be both? They are both important.
Political agenda..
I look forward to your critiques of Bill Maher's thoughts on the 2024 election strategy as well as the reasons for the loss presented by Mr. Farley
I personally think the factors noted by both likely played a role but that it was more the combination of all the aspects of the strategy mentioned by both (plus other items I am sure) that led to the losses across the board by the Democrats.
[✘]
maybe next election, that hair grows slower ...
I couldnt care less about Mr Farleys analysis of the election.
Same here.
Will they make the effort to converse with us?
I don't care for Bill Maher. He can go fuck himself.
[✘]
The Republicans nominated and voted for the worst person to ever run for president of the United States from a major party. The idea that the Democrats are by default a worse option than Trump is completely absurd, and a conclusion reached through the brainwashing of tens of millions of Americans by right wing media and social media.
epublicans nominated and voted for the worst person to ever run for president of the United States from a major party.
And he won.. because Democrats are out of their minds and can't even say what a women is.
d through the brainwashing of tens of millions of Americans by right wing media and social media
Lol. Let's talk about brainwashing and acting like a cult.
Who is shaving their heads, threatening to withhold sex and refusing to have children over an election?
Realistically, though, it can be said that the Republican Party has been co-opted by lying blowhards who do not even care if they are called on their obviously untrue statements because they just keep coming back and repeating them over and over. But hey, you won, so it looks like someone believes the bullshit.
I can't say I'm even surprised by the copium at this point. The Democrats complete lack of self awareness shows no signs of changing. It's always "messaging" when they lose and they lash out at any Democrats who dare go any deeper than that surface message. Doesn't matter how much they outspend and control the narratives of the MSM, it's just a "messaging problem"
Never mind inflation. Never mind masses immigrants bankrupting cities. Never mind their cultural extremism, rampant lying (Biden's fine!) and racialist obsessions. It's all just messaging and the proper messaging would make voters ignore reality.
Democrats managed to lose to a candidate with negative favorability. That's not a "messaging" problem. That's a "you've become so extreme and screwed things up so badly voters chose someone they don't like" problem.
All Democrats had to do to win was be normal. Not gaslit people about the border (years of it's not a crisis!) and have Biden take the actions he took in 2021 instead of 2024. Admitted inflation was a long term issue, not transient, and not engaged in a spending spree that made it worse. Not gaslit people about Biden's health. Said "men shouldn't be playing in women's sports" and opposed using taxpayer dollars to fund sex change operations for illegal aliens. Easy stuff supported by the vast majority of people.
Not to mention all the talk about dropping family members who supported Trump and/or the Republican party. Isn't that what a cult does? Demand that you have no dealings with family members who are not in the cult?
Who's a Democrat? Certainly I am not.
There is at most times a difference between everybody's perception of reality and reality itself. How large this gap is depends on how much each individual pays attention to the various sources of information that are available and how accurate and truthful each of those sources are. As of last April, the sources where the people got their information was correlated with who they said they would vote for and how they felt about each candidate, according to an NBC poll. What this tells me is that messaging and where one gets their information from plays a very large part in the formation of a persons reality.
Bullshit. Those are the definitions that the Reight place on Democrats with their commentary. Those are the talking points that you hammered day and night. They are not the positions of the Democratic Party or the majority of their candidates. They are a distraction from the point, not the point. Normal was the Democratic Party's candidate. Abnormal is what Trump was, is and will continue to be. Look at the ways he is already planning on getting his cabinet members installed if the Senate doesn't roll over play dead. Why would he do that? And why would you defend it as a matter of course when it means ceding the power of a co-equal branch of government?
It is a messaging problem.
If you have a terrible message and communicate it too well, that's a messaging problem.
Are you trying to demonstrate why normal people turned against Democrats? Because the obsessive "nazi, nazi nazi" hysteria sure played a good part.
They are not the positions of the Democratic Party or the majority of their candidates.
More gaslighting. Biden did not issue an executive order to help control the border until 2024. That's a fact. Democrats repeatedly denied it was a crisis. That's a fact. People aren't goldfish, no matter how many billions democrats spend trying to convince them not to remember what Biden/Harris actually did. Democrats are controlled by insane nutters with fringe ideas who the party panders to and who they are terrified of offending.
Here's an example from today. Democrat, a good progressive who calls Trump Hitler, says h e doesn't want his two daughters "getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete." A completely uncontroversial sentiment. The result: A protest over a "controversial" view that has widespread support.
Ha. That's true.
I kinda like the word, especially since you don't seem to.
Once again, I am not a Democrat. I am a liberal libertarian.
As such,
So all of these people who say, "You cannot do that!" for arbitrary reasons can go sit on it.
Give it time. I hope that I am wrong, but watching what Trump/MAGA have done in the past to remain in power extra-constitutionally, and looking at his cabinet picks and how he plans on getting them in, even if the Senate does not agree (also extra-constitutionally), leaves little room for hope. The comparisons to Hitler are in governmental style. I don't think that he is bloodthirsty and I don't recall ever calling him a Nazi, but he has the backing of his MAGA party, both houses of congress, several billionaires, seems to desire unchecked authority and demand absolute allegiance... He is a Fascist or hopefully just Fascist wanna-be.
Like I said, I hope that I am wrong.
As far as that kerfuffle today regarding trans-athletes? I would say that we have no say in the matter, on the condition that the athlete in question has had the appropriate puberty blockers given before puberty. If the athlete has gone through puberty as a male then I do not think that it would be a good idea. However, when I played soccer in highschool, because we were such a small school there were girls on the Varsity team, and they could play rings around me. Talent is talent.
Don't blame Dems for repubs voting for trump.
Emphatically. Some conservatives come here (the evidence affirms) to criticize, mock, and make attempts to demoralize liberals. And never, ever, never mention their own flawed personages and/or plans for the country. It's all slanted bullsh-t with them from the first 'drop' of digitized 'ink' placed on the board that becomes a comment.
Some networks seem to be having second thoughts. It seems the #1 Trump and conservative hating talk show on the air is getting the axe by no less than the CEO of ABC himself. "The View" cast and crew have been notified that the show has been canceled at the end of this season after 25 years on the air. Seems Whoopie, Joy, and the rest have just gone too far. My view is the cancelation is about 20 years too late.
I think that's just a rumor.
I think the vile Sunny Hostin having to read a disclaimer correcting her allegations about Gaetz shows ABS is done with their nonsense. All they do is generate headlines of them embarrass themselves.
Yeah, I found that out after I posted. Well, there's always hope.
You might be thinking about Amway...
Well Snuffy that is a loaded question, the party of (D) took a stab at controlling the masses and it has bitten them in the ass .. no cult status necessary, they just wanted mob rule, as that is what democracy is, mob rule. Our founder fathers created the United States of America as a Republic in order to protect the rights of the 'individual'. It is not a democratic republic (that is a made-up term). Once again, the definitions of words were changed to suit an agenda.
There is a percentage of individuals in this great nation that show distain for those that do not fit into nor support their narrative - and interestingly enough, it is not the evangelicals this go round.
It is an insult to cult leaders to label the party of (D) as a cult .. they are merely intolerant of that which they do not 'deem' as righteous ... Trump is the threat to so called 'democracy' ...? HA! ... yeah whatever!
Thanks for letting me vent - High Horse has not been out of her stall in some time...
Peace!
Well said Lady!
Sounds like pre-compliance to me
One of the key defining characteristics of a Republic is indirect Democracy — the demos electing representatives to vote on our behalf. This is in contrast to direct Democracy where the people vote on every issue. A Republic is inherently a Democracy. Without indirect Democracy (i.e. representatives elected by the people) we could not be a Republic.
Technically, we are a Federal Constitutional Republic.
The Federal adjective refers to federal and state governance. The Constitutional adjective refers to having a rule of law grounded in a Constitution.
"center right'"
... as demonstrated in the last eight years. /s
Leftists shouldn't talk about the last 8 years after what you put this country through.
Seems that enough people finally caught on and kicked the Democrats out.
Don't worry, they will be back. Establishment Republicans (like McConnell) will fuck up and fight Trump all they are worth; and usher Democrats back into control of either the Senate or House. McConnell doesn't give a fuck which party is in charge- so long as Establishment Republicans hold power over true conservatives and Trump Republicans in the Senate under his watchful gaze. He is willing to screw the entire country over; knowing full damn well with the corruption in DC he and his family will be set for life.
[✘]
The cartoon tells why the Democrats lost the election, but not in the way that one might would think, looking at it from afar. All of the choices given are Republican and right-leaning pundits talking points. If you move in and read the caption, one sees the real reason; The Democrats got defined by the Reight and failed to define themselves.
Looking to place blame for this defining is like trying to hold a gallon of air in your hands. The Republicans were louder, more brash, less caring, bigger (by-far) liars, who didn't give a fuck for anybody's feelings. This attitude was presented as "better" than Democratic (take your pick off the wheel of shame). whomever gets to do the defining in an election is usually the winner. It does not matter who is right.
This election was enough to make Helen weep.
gee, protecting the constitution and our representative democracy is an anti-common sense agenda. who knew ...
Except the democrats and their inept leaders have been ignoring and desecrating the Constitution and the rule of law for years now.
Didn't vote for trump.
Trump has said time and time again that the constitution needs to go.... OWN IT.
what an ignorant comment.
The Democrats got defined by the Right and failed to define them.
Thomas
Absolutely correct!
As I said, it doesn't matter who is correct (right).
So democrats need to communicate the truth better. Let us all hope that the methods and means of communication and election remain intact long enough to counteract the incoming scourge of brash mediocrity and profligate anti-regulation that less than a third of the people of voting age wanted. (And a lot of them didn't even know that is what they were voting for.)
Addressing the points made by the authors gathering then simply attacking them personally would be more on point
The Republican Party has essentially maintained its position as the “ center right” over the last twenty five years while the Democratic Party became the extreme left. The cultural extremism of the left alienated so many of its traditional voters that their economic pandering and fear mongering couldn’t overcome it.
Sean
MAGA is not "the Republican party" as it has been before and it is way to the right of "center right"
That's true.
That's obviously false. If anything, it's become much more left wing.
But the point you missed is the Democrats have gone much, much farther to the left than they were. I posted GSS polling data to back that up, but it's not allowed. Feel free to google it if you need the objective evidence.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that.
Why do you think it's more left than it used to be?
The economy: Embrace of protectionism against the traditional free trade values of the republican party. The running off of the Paul Ryan small government types who favor entitlement reform pretty much out of the party, in favor of Trump promoting caps on interest rates.
Social issues: Pro gay marriage, anti any abortion federal regulation bans, the entirety of RFK
Military: Trump sounds more like John Kerry in 1972 than anyone else. Republicans have embraced non-interventionism and rejected of the neo-con doctrine that dominated Republican foreign policy this century. The loudest neo-cons, Liz Cheney, David Frum, William Kristol are now some of the more influential voices of the left.
I ca only laugh at the characterization of Trump and Maga-ites as anything vaguely to the left politically
1) todays dems are not even close to the same party i have voted for in the past, not even close.
2) absolutely, i noticed he wasn’t all there during the ‘20 debates.
3) never did and never will.
4) the last two vp picks were terrible. Harris ran a chaotic campaign in 2020 and received 0, zero, delegates before being the first top tier candidate to drop out. Walz, total clown. Mn is one of the most poorly run states in the nation. Walz is anything but moderate.
5) it seems that way. We must protect ukraines border and sovereignty but screw our own. They also gave me the impression that they care more about illegals than they do about Americans. They also gave me the impression they care more about criminals and sexual freaks than they do about law abiding citizens.
6) absolutely, sometimes i voted for the old republican party sometimes but felt most of their candidates didn't care about the blue collar working class
7) true. The j6 committee was a hardcore ultra partisan group that had been trying to get trump since before he even took office.
8) absolutely. All of my blue collar friends and most of my coworkers voted for trump.
i’d say jeremy farley is pretty spot on.
G
Thanks for your views.
I disagree about Jan 6 - major crimes were committed and those convicted belong in jail in my view.
I don't think it has to be either/ or on Ukraine vs domestic issues but many people see it as such
by Trump
Unless he is charged, tried and convicted his exact participation remains the.view of many, but is only speculation.
The point (which you seem unable to grasp) is that the voters who elected him were not convincec
You are basically clueless about this. The facts are actually fairly well known, and they only partially depend on what happened on Jan 6th itself. I have yet to see a conservative or Trump defender on this site show even a minimal knowledge of what Trump did to try and steal the election.
You are the clueless one, unable to discuss anything you pontificate the same stream of commentary regardless of what the article you are commenting is about.
Did you watch the J6 hearings or read the report? Or read Liz Cheney's book? People either know what they are talking about on this subject or they dont. I have yet to see a Trump supporter on this site who does.
It is not speculation, it is demonstrated facts. The media let the country down so badly on this it is beyond words.
As far as trump goes, fuck him. I will never accept a known traitor as president.
I watch portions, unlike some people I have a life outside of television and newstalkers.
This article was about the failures of the DNC strategy in the election and you discuss everything but, that is a failure of understanding and communication ability.
So the main principle of democracy, the will of the people as demonstrated by their votes means nothing to you.
That makes it hard to accept you as a responsible citizen
I thought Biden was a moron but I never denied that he was my president and the president of every other citizen of the country.
You are suffering from bothesidesism on this matter of "Not My President"
And that is hilarious after some your rants on being on both sides of the fence on an issue
No one HAS to accept Trump. He is the antithesis of what our founding forefathers had envisioned, and has proven he should never be respected, and I'll accept that much about him.
If you are incapable of discussing the facts of the J6 investigation, what is the point of discussing this?
Donald Trump is a known traitor, the fact that everyone doesnt know it is not my problem. If Trump had shot someone on 5th avenue yet still somehow managed to win the election would everyone be compelled to accept him as president?
Beyond that neither he nor many of his fellow far-left democrats are interested in any self-reflection. They are going to keep on doing the same things in hopes that the American people will think like them.
So all the people who decided Obama was "Not my President" or that Biden was "Not my President" - they were right as well because the votes/will of the people do not matter
Sounds a little like a double standard form the left
Trump was elected by the majority of the voting citizens and won in the electoral college - which by the standards and intentions of the founding fathers - he is the President of all the citizens of the U.S. whether they are giddy about that fact or not.
You can't seriously attempt to compare Biden his time in office and no drama Obama with ALL Drama ALL the Time cause I need constant attention Trumpullthinskin, the one who if possible would have democracy end, just to satisfy his twisted beyond repair psyckeee
Americans are more giddy about being in a back room with Diddy, than allowing Trump to claim he is their liter, cause no thing more than a quart protected cheater, a treasonous deceiver who somehow cultivated a following of the misinformed, abbey normed, cause thats his way, andno one need bow to one who should have been put away, if the courts wouldn't have weighed in with heavy Delay
And it hardly needed the help of the American judiciary, right? I guess I was misled from watching the West Wing series.
The facts, the facts, the facts. The facts are against Trump beyond a shadow of a doubt. MAGA doesnt care about facts.
The fact that stands out to me the most is how partisan that committee was. No way in hell he’d get a fair shake from that group.
Almost every witness was a highly-connected GOP official who compromised their political careers by testifying. Ignoring that fact shows that those who claim the J6 committee was nothing but a partisan sideshow reveal that their viewpoint is purely partisan.
Really? That’s awfully surprising. There are republicans that did not like trump?
There are Republicans who care more about the rule of law, the CotUS and their own integrity than staying in the good graces of their party.
Not enough to save the GOP from its Trump infection, but enough to illustrate to anyone with objectivity that Trump is unfit.
And there are republicans that hated trump from the start. Just because there were a few republicans on that sham committee does not mean it was a non-partisan committee.
@9
Interesting... I voted for GHWB and GWB.... Never voting for a repub again.
Deeply flawed misunderstanding. Did Bill Barr hate Trump? Did Rusty Bowers hate Trump? Both voted for Trump in 2020. Hell, Liz Cheney herself voted for Trump in 2020 and supported him legislatively between 92% and 95% of the time.
Your fantasized claim that these witnesses lied under oath and ruined their political careers because they hated Trump shows a lack of understanding of what actually took place.
First off, insults do nothing for a weak argument. Second, you are stating your opinion, not a fact. Your fantasized claim that trump committed crimes is not backed up by charges and or convictions.
because it was not given a chance to go to court, First do to slow walking by Garland, then due to Trumps lawyers throwing out every delay tactic possible, then the Supreme Court showed it had a dog in the race and further slowed the pace (along with extra immunity not needed for anyone but Trump) and then 'Coke Can" Clarence Thomas adding that little Jack Smith might not be legal, unasked for tid bit, that ole Cannon shot right throught the case.
Trump should be in Prison
Woulda, coulda, shoulda.....
sounds like an admission
Dems slow walked it because they weren’t sure they would win in court. They wanted him to be tried in the months prior to the election to make him look as bad as possible to the public. The dems did everything they could to stop trump from running and they failed because the truth was not on their side. Nearly 4 years and nothing.
One thing i’m not sure of, who is more disappointed in the election results, harris supporters, or the mexican cartels/human smugglers/sex traffickers?
Of what?..
Trump should not be in prison. While Clinton verbally conceded her election loss initially, she spent the following years undermining Trump in every possible way she could. Some would argue that she and quite a few retired IC people belong in prison. And maybe some of them should be. But thus far, there is no law specifically against being wrong or lying to the public at large. We’d have no media or politicians left to point at, were that the case.
How does any of that change what Trump did? Do you know what he did?
We all know that no rational person, who can read, would pretend my comment “changes what Trump did”. I know what many perpetually-online partisan hacks believe he did and didn’t do. I’d say that noone in their right mind believes a group of unarmed people, along with some dude cosplaying as a howling viking, were where they were to “overthrow democracy”. One can throw a million “what abouts” at me regarding that day. I no longer care. Pardon them all, sans those who were violent or abundantly destructive. Protect the building better in the future. It makes us look unserious as a nation to have the FBI still rounding gramma Gertrude up and throwing her behind bars because she followed a group of people into the people’s capitol building and caused some to elevate our political class into levels of sainthood none of them deserve.
You completely misunderstand the meaning of "Jan 6th", but at this point I take that for granted among Trump voters and supporters.
They wanted it consuming the news cycle during elections.
May be one of the best comments on this site in years.
Yes they did, hence the slow start.
I know what your opinion of the “meaning of Jan 6th” is. Your comments in the last few days have made that abundantly clear. If I miss it on one article, I’ll find it on another. And another. And another…. : )
Have a nice evening, JohnRussell.
The door to the House of Representatives was locked and barricaded. The "protesters" tried to bash it in and one of them tried to enter the House chamber and was shot by the police and killed.
Did this mob want to peacefully enter the House and do a sit down protest? Or did they want to intimidate the national legislature on behalf of Donald Trump? Whatever they could do to help him , Trump was good with. All he wanted was for the electoral vote to be stopped. If 20 Ashley Babbitts were killed in process it wouldnt have fazed him at all.
You offer nothing. Just rantings that amount to 'nuh-uh'.
Is there a law against using fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement in an attempt to thwart the peaceful transfer of power, violating the CotUS, and disenfranchising the electorate?
Translation : nothing you agree with or want to hear.
Other than that whole "being a lie" thing.
Seriously ? Is that what you think I am saying Trump should be in prison for? Trump trampled over and upon so many accepted norms to the point of Abbeys Weighing down his propulsion, from calling for Comey's expulsion, as suspended were ethics and norms, as he blatantly broke the LAW, but was somehow given a pass, time after time, pass after pass, and then to culminate with inciting the January 6th debacle, after the hearings gave testimony after testimony of Republicans, who when put under oath with actually consequences for lying, their stories changed into ones that we could buy in, on and around, as they were the actual truthful depiction of what had actually transpired, not more fckn LIES from the one who was FIRED ! As I know you are knew, for I a tempted to help u gain bearings, I'll bite my tongue, but if you want to go at it, at least back up your statements made, cause they do not a real argument make, and there is enough around here fake.
Goodness gracious, I had no intention of dancing on your last nerve to elicit that response. Yah, sorry about the bearings thing, I’m still trying to figure out the mechanics of the site. May be a limitation of the device I’m using, or that I haven’t updated it in eons.
“Go at it”. Lol. Haven’t had enough coffee yet, can we just arm wrestle or something?
Jello
and you've caught me at the near end of about the most difficult week that I must endure for personal reasons. Throw the pos posturing with his attempt to make a joke out of something as serious a s our country's well being, in prison ! With righties playing dumb, and then some, cause I know ignorance is rampant, buy what the fck Jed Clampit....how is it that those of you tjinkin you are on the right side of wrong, make Jefro appear to have just come from the Mensa meeting singin with Granny a Beverly Hillbilly song
Perspective is a good thing, even if it’s easily lost or ignored. You know what they say about pointing fingers.
Sorry about your week, here’s hoping that the new one brings better things.
It was a riot. Nothing more.
It was an attempt to prevent the results of a fair election from being carried out.
And there were people among the insurrectionists who were armed.
Both Ella's posts and yours are blatantly untrue.
how many other 'riots' STOP the peaceful transfer of power that this country had enjoyed since its inception?
Did that one?
Wait... no... actually it didn't.
Did they scale the walls outside the Capitol and break doors and windows down and flood into the building in order to "riot" , or in order to try and prevent the vote? It is either naive or dishonest to suggest they didnt have the intention of trying to prevent the vote.
But people who act like everything hinges on whether or not it was an insurrection miss half the story. Trump did his best to subvert the election results.
Didn't look all that peaceful to me. I watched in horror as an angry mob attacked the Capitol and tried enthusiastically to get into the chambers. It was in no way just a "riot". It was an attempt to subvert the constitutional processes that were occuring on that day.
Read the report.
Trump is a traitor to his Oath of Office, to the Constitution which he pledged to uphold, and most of all to the people of United States of America, whom he has and continues to lie to about the election to this very day.
Fuck Trump. He is not worthy to lick the boots of a sewer cleaner.
Their ineptitude and failure don't negate the fact that they were attempting to do prevent the election results from being certified by means of violence.
What was the intent do you suppose of your categorized only a 'riot' ?
Cause if it wasn't for VP hang em high Pence, our transition might have been derailed, like a chain, gang bangin lady Liberty, cause with Trump the sexual assaulter and his like minded candidates up for confirmation, lookin like lady Liberty better arm herself, cause the beating down of women, along with their rights, to me, just seems wrong. And the interference, cause "it will be wild" invitations, seems very wrong, but to you it's all just fine, nothing to see here, move along, move along, nothing to see here...
Riots aren't.
That is the party line, yes.
Right. Got it. A group of avid gun owners staged this supposed insurrection, but everybody mysteriously accidentally left their AR-15s in the truck. Makes complete sense.
Or... it was a riot that got a little out of hand.
(That's "mostly peaceful protest" for you CNN watchers.)
You do not recognize that Trump supporters broke and entered the Capitol with the intention of disrupting the certification process?
This is not merely a 'party line', it is fact.
What do you think they were trying to do, take a tour? That these actions were not in pursuit of Trump's claim that Pence 'doing the right thing' means he wins the presidency?
Here we are almost 5 years later, Trump has won an election, and some folks on the left are still upset people are not making as big a deal as they would like. I actually believed people would be able to move past Jan 6th after the election. Silly me.
It was a historic event in which a mob incited by the sitting PotUS broke and entered the Capitol with the intention of disrupting the process that would certify Biden as the PotUS and formally deem Trump the loser.
Trump has escaped all consequences for his actions.
This is a horrible precedent for our nation — one that encourages even more lying and cheating by politicians and violence by the electorate. Of course it is a big deal.
On a side note, I watched a Mariah Carey Christmas concert special from MSG on Netflix today. The place was packed.
Who knew so many nazis were Mariah Carey fans. s/
Interesting how that has become a sin, isn't it?
I recognize that they intended to delay the certification process because they believed questions still remained about the vote count.
That is a very, very, very long way from an insurrection.
This....
I think by the next generation, most Americans will have no idea about Jan 6 when a leftist tries to bring it up to them.
Call it what you want, you apparently do agree that this was "attempt to subvert the constitutional processes that were occuring on that day." just as Thomas noted.
It is not up to a violent mob to use force to have any impact on the certification process. To break and enter the Capitol, to fight Capitol police, to threaten to hang Pence, and to have the sitting PotUS send out a tweet in the middle of this (after the Capitol was breached) throwing Pence under the bus and then not act to stop his supporters for 2 hours and 17 minutes after the Capitol was breached is substantially beyond what was once unacceptable behavior in our nation.
This will be taught in American History classes.
She's already shown me who she is
I have. Thank you.
I think I was very clear when I used the word "delay".
Really??? You don't say???
Out of curiosity, what decisions do we delegate to violent mobs?
It still is. It always has been. Riots are illegal, in case anyone has forgotten. But it's not insurrection.
They really seem to struggle with it.
All that will be left is a footnote about some dumb people led by a viking wannabe that were unhappy with an election. It will pale in comparison to the pussy hat protest.
Some of the confusion around this is the summer of love in 2020 where riots seemed legal.
And mostly peaceful
So in your mind you think that all they were trying to do is delay the process. How does that work? They delay the process. We wait for some period of time. Then, when the delay is over, Congress reconvenes and continues with the certification.
That is all they wanted to accomplish? Just a mere delay, a pause? What does this pause accomplish?
They wanted to circumvent the constitutional process to give Trump a chance to play his fake electors game.
Hard to forget that cnn video with the fires in the background
Yes. That's what Ted Cruz and several other Republicans were calling for at the time.
I'm not endorsing the delay idea, BTW, but I do understand the thought process.
The rioters probably believed that if the votes were counted correctly, Trump would have won. Cruz's point was that we needed to take more time to demonstrate that all the votes had indeed been counted... in some cases several times, and that people could be assured that the results were correct.
As I say, I was never personally a supporter of such a delay. I'm not sure there was anything you were ever going to be able to do to convince these people they hadn't been cheated, as erroneous as that belief may have been.
The fact remains, demanding that we make sure the votes are all counted correctly is the exact opposite of a threat to democracy. The repeated assertion of "insurrection" is just ongoing transparent propaganda designed to drive hysteria. There are a lot of votes in fear, rational or not.
Cruz, et. al. do not really matter here since they were not in communication with the crowd. Trump, et. al. were the ones who fed this crowd months before and up to the very day with lies of election rigging, disenfranchisement, and claiming that if they do not fight they are not going to have a country anymore. And to top it off, Trump himself stated that it is all up to Pence to do the right thing. And in Trump's twisted mind, the 'right thing' was for Pence to send certified votes back to the states so that he could execute his ridiculous scheme of trying to substitute his fake electors to 'win'.
Trump supporters who broke and entered the Capitol were doing so based on Trump's rhetoric and that rhetoric (propaganda) never suggested a mere delay. They were there to disrupt the proceedings. And even it their intent were as mild as merely trying to delay the proceedings (it was not), it is absolutely NOT right to use force and violence to interfere with a constitutional process. This is a historical first (and hopefully last) for our nation to have citizens violently breach the Capitol to disrupt a congressional proceeding. Worse, to have the root cause of this mob be the sitting PotUS. It should not be dismissed with a 'meh'.
The demand that all the votes are correctly counted took place in excess as soon as Trump realized he lost. The proper channel is to appeal to the states through legal means. And on Jan 6th, the proper channel is for members of Congress to object (with at least one Senator supporting them) to certified votes.
That is the constitutional process. Violence from an mob incited by the sitting PotUS is NOT. Anyone who supports our Constitution and the rule of law should recognize that.
Public statements made by a prominent conservative senator in the days immediately prior to the riot don't matter? No, I think they probably do.
Correct. We've discussed this. Riots are wrong. And illegal. It's still not an insurrection.
Meh. Still no insurrection in sight.
Yes.
Strange how he was never charged with incitement, especially given the constant legal campaign against him. I wonder...
Again, what decisions do we delegate to violent mobs?
You continue to argue that the riot was wrong. I don't know anyone who contests that, so I'm not sure who you're still trying to convince.
Riots are wrong. I think we all agree on that. That doesn't make them insurrections.
These were Trump supporters, not Cruz supporters. These people listened to Trump. It is quite a stretch to argue that since other talking heads said things that those who broke and entered the Capitol were operating based on what others said rather than what Trump and his cronies stated. Indeed, the argument is ridiculous.
Further, if these folks were listening to other prominent Republicans rather than Trump (which, again, is a silly argument) then why did they not listen to the prominent Republicans who urged Trump to concede and who accepted that Biden won?
Note that on Dec 15, 2020, the Senate Majority Leader McConnell notably chimed in:
A plausible explanation is that Smith determined that the four charges in his indictment were strong and sufficient and much more easily proved than the charge that Trump incited the insurrection. That is not unusual at all.
I am responding to your comments. Directly quoting you and giving a direct response.
Incredibly dumb comment.
BINGO !
Why did the rioters think the votes had been counted incorrectly? Could it be because Trump had been putting that in their minds since BEFORE the election ? The officials in every single one of the 50 states certified that their states votes had been counted correctly. The "rioters" listened to Trump and other loons like Giuliani and Sidney Powell.
The events inside the Capitol were only part of the evidence against Trump, and arguably the least important part, but the people who entered the building were not there to protest, they were there to try an affect the outcome.
Could it be because Trump had been putting that in their minds since BEFORE the election ?
Could it be that voters had spent the last 20 years listening to Democrats claims elections were stolen, that voting machine were hacked etc.etc...
It's amazing to the collective amnesia so many democrats have developed about their own actions before Jan 6th 2021.
Your argument is pathetic. Trump's claims that the election was stolen from him were a strategy not a reaction. He has never been in a contest like an election that he did not claim was rigged against him.
Trump's claims that the election was stolen from him were a strategy not a reaction.
Who cares? The democrats spent 20 years playing the role of John the Baptist telling the people that elections were being stolen. No wonder so many people were ready to believe trump,
Bullshit.
[deleted][✘]
If you want to pretend that Donald Trump is normal you will find some compatriots here.
[deleted][✘]
Your comment shows willful ignorance of the facts.
Read the report. There is not a cogent argument that can be made for the totality of evidence and testimony against Trump. Read the report.
I assure you many of them were both.
You don't consider Cruz as one of Trump's cronies? I think that would have been a minority opinion at the time.
What's ridiculous is pretending these people had no other sources of information.
Why would it be "rather" instead of "in addition to"? Seems a bit myopic.
Because people have their own opinions, and Trump supporters famously rejected traditional Republicans in favor of more acrimonious, Tea Party style candidates.
Maybe.
Still not anywhere close to insurrection.
People who love America care
The cronies I had in mind were those who were spreading Trump's message after his loss. Like Giuliani, Eastman, McEnany, Powell, his sons, ...
I did not argue that or pretend it. I pointed out that Trump supporters are naturally going to follow Trump and those directly spreading Trump's message, not people like Cruz.
The point I made is that if your hypothesis is true that they might have been following Cruz, then why were they not following Republicans (like the Senate Majority Leader) who were stating that Biden was legitimate president-elect and that Trump should resign?
I am making the obvious point that, yet again, Trump supporters were following Trump's lead based on his rhetoric.
So then why would you hypothesize that those who broke and entered the Capitol were following Cruz rather than the obvious hypothesis that they were acting on the words of Trump and his cronies who were spreading Trump's message?
Why would they need to be "following" anyone? Is it so difficult to imagine that they think for themselves?
The Trump supporters arrived that day in prepared support of Trump. They were not there for Cruz, they were there because Trump asked them to be there.
Are you really trying to suggest that these individuals extemporaneously came up with the idea to march to the Capitol to "stop the steal" and that they were not reacting to Trump's rhetoric and following his lead?
Clearly and obviously completely unprepared for an insurrection.
Are you really trying to suggest that these individuals planned an insurrection, yet went unarmed, had no pre-defined plan upon entry, and wandered off without their "mission" being completed?
I am suggesting that these are Trump supporters who were there because they bought into Trump's propaganda that the election was stolen and they believed (because of what he said) that the sitting PotUS told them they had a role to play in "stop the steal".
Those who broke and entered the Capitol building obviously had no plan ... but plenty of emotion. They were doing what they believed Trump wanted — to disrupt the proceedings so that Biden would not be formally named president-elect.
In short, they were following Trump; not Cruz.
Those people did not go there to "protest", they went there to "stop the steal" by whatever means they could.
The fact that we have to keep "debating" the obvious is sad. Its also obvious that Trump totally approved.
Actually, the debate is over. Trump is the President-elect.
It is obvious that most didn't buy into the Trump hysteria. Trump will be president and won't be able to be president after the next four years. When do you think people will get past it?
When the term is up. On the otherhand, we may never get past the next four years, and we may choose an option to take Trump to task all over again. It depends on the next four years, yeah.
They went there to do exactly the same thing all the morons who "protest" at the Supreme Court do: scream at the building until the people in it change their minds.
So we have found our point of agreement. Excellent.
This was a bunch of angry, emotional people doing something stupid without a plan.
Just like BLM or OWS.
Riots. Not insurrections.
Look, Jack let's get real. We all just have to know the difference in holding protests in or out of a federal building in some city or state versus taking a deliberate plane flight to Washington, D.C. to expressly create a destructive ruckus inside the 'hallowed' halls of the Capital building during a live session of congress. . . sending representative to flee in fear of their survival. Degrees matter.
You're suggesting that their plan was to break into the Capitol all along?
Let me understand here.... your assertion is... that this group of gun toting 2nd Amendment supporting right wing conservatives who believed that the very principles of democracy were being overridden..... planned in advance to break into the Capitol... yet failed to bring their guns, failed to have any plan about what to do once inside the building, and left of their own accord without accomplishing their supposed "mission"?
Is that what you want us all to believe?
not sure, if you actually watched TiG's videos, how one can remain so lost and in denial of that which was presented, because distortion of perception does not make the mis-perceived any more likely to be believed. Trump called his supporters to stop the results of a free and clear election, from seating the next, actual rightful, POTUS. Trumps LIES have caused more upheaval than should be believable, and the denial of what should have eliminated Trump from contention, is a serious failure of basic comprehension, but I believe you are aware of all this, just attempting to off and piss, as is a pattern some may of observed, but keep on touting what you probably know without doubting, what so many people did observe and comprehend was a result of Trump denying the voice of the peoples that had spoken via their votes, cause just as you won't see Biden contesting some fiction filled idea of an election steal, neither will you find the alleged author of the art of the deal, cause If Trump won, it sorta flies against everything the blatant LIAR did and done said. There could only be election cheating if Trump lost, and because he didn't, it would only be an entire country...
I told you upfront that you can label this however you wish. That is not the point I made and you know it. My point is that those who broke and entered the Capitol did so because of the incitement from Trump and his cronies.
If you want to debate the friggin word 'insurrection' then I will tell you that an insurrection does not need to be carefully planned out. It need only be an organization resulting in revolt against the government. Trump calling his people there "its gonna be wild" and filling their minds with propaganda and telling them that they are the ones who have to fight to save our democracy certainly qualifies as organization.
They had no clear plan of attack, Trump only told them to march to the Capitol but did not explicitly tell them to break in, but it was a group called by a leader and given instructions, motivation and were emotionally agitated (falsely) by Trump.
And keep in mind that this was a violent attack on our Capitol (not just in the streets) with the intention of disrupting Congress.
It's not a coincidence that the same people who scream "insurrection" all the time also scream every time Trump does anything else.
"Insurrection" is no different than dozens of other wild-eyed assertions angry liberals want to demand we all believe. To any observer with any level of impartiality, it is obviously nonsense.
I wouldn't call it nonsense, but others who've read your posts might...
Non-sequitur
Let's put it this way. the bear 'piss' stray or whatever it effing was, the clubs, the bats, the paraphernalia they picked up along the way or took out of visible pack packs . . . did not come from the Capital 'costume' office. I will leave it up to you to discern how flag poles ended up in the hands of 'protestors' who tried to club police with them and raise a makeshift lynching platform. . . with wood that just happened to be cut into 'ready' boards fitted for a riser.
That comment is nonsense. It is par and parcel why liberals and some conservatives can not or will not be able to function together: calling the truth a lie can't work. . . long. 'Everybody' that matters knows lies can only last so long, before people 'repent' of the ridiculousness of attempting to make lies -into something they can never be.
I just read a current article about the sentencing of a cooperative Oath Keeper who most certainly stated they had a van FULL of knives, guns, ammo, and other tacticals' required to make for peacful protesting joy. '
Senator Mitch McConnell :
Insurrection Definition ( Websters) :
Exactly. But of course, we have hardliners here who insist/demand that we disregard news narratives by trusted news people, just because they have counternarratives to push.
We know what is reported. We know what 'aired.' We were (all) glued to our television sets while police were tazed with their own tasers, . . .and 'crushed' between closing doors. . . and sh-t was smeared in clean spaces for show and to leave a scent. It was literally a 'shitty-deal' unworthy of us. . . or was it really unworthy of some of us?
well i'll choose to disregard their counternarratives as the guy was just sentenced and he was a cooperating witness who only got probation while some who he helped prosecutors prosecute, got under and over the decade number.
They all should cooperate when/where/if appropriately offered. Why should they rest in jail/prison while Donald Trump (aka: the ringleader) continues his reign of 'terror' anew in his old job at that!
Hence the qualifier "with any level of impartiality".
Call them what they are... rioters. They started as protesters, then the riot broke out, now they are rioters. They committed a series of illegal acts, none of which was an insurrection.
I realize the reintroduction of the word "riot" into the common lexicon presents problems. It's very difficult to defend looting and arson as "peaceful protests" if everyone is used to the word "riot".
If you need me to discern how flag poles ended up in the hands of people carrying American flags, I'm not sure what to tell you.
I'm not sure you want to pretend liberals have the moral high ground on this topic.
So putting knives and guns in a van constitutes insurrection? Are we sure about that?
I "need" somebody to explain how a flag pole meant to be carried ended up in the hands of people SCALING the edifices of the capital building (dangerous in itself) and trying to break them (even hockey sticks were used) over the heads of capital police. . . especially by "patriots" who 'say' they support police to the ng degrees.
In the last case above, it would seem that police officers can face similar loss of trust when it suits the protestors/rioters.
As to what to call them. I don't care if they are called or charged as insurrectionists. It is not my concern. Just like it is not my concern to call those liberals who acted out in the case of George Floyd and a host of other treated unjustly by state systems. The terms courts use are sufficient enough for me. And, in court, is where any one or all of them will be held accountable/charged/let go.
So 'terrorism'. Not 'insurrection'.
Interesting...so if a protest to stop a specific piece of business they don't like counts as "insurrection", then why weren't Justin Jones, Gloria Johnson and Justin Pearson accused?
Again, CB, if you need for me to explain these obvious things you've seen happen dozens if not hundreds of times, I don't know what to tell you.
That is how riots work. People do violent and illegal things. We all watched in 2020 as dozens of riots broke out, and people began doing terrible and illegal things with everyday objects they had on hand. What exactly is confusing about this?
That's the sum total of my point. Insurrection is an incorrect term.
What is the point of arguing that the Jan 6 insurrection was not an actual insurrection?
It certainly meets the defining characteristics. And the then Senate Majority leader called it a "violent insurrection".
Seems to me you are bending over backwards to downplay the historical and realistic significance of this violent breaking & entering of the Capitol by US citizens to disrupt a session of Congress and prevent Biden from being formally declared the president-elect.
Why? You do not recognize the significance of this? History will.
What I am not sure of is who thinks some conservatives have the moral high ground when it is clear that they are lying, cheating, and going back on their words as they watch our version of civilized society take a nose-dive. That is, there is no way in hell that it occurred in the past or will occur in the future that this GREAT NATION should or could capitulate to everybody here just becoming ONE PARTY or holding ONE WORLDVIEW. Be it conservative, trumpist, or liberal.
Better to allow for freedoms (which do no harm to others) and stop with the damn fake culture wars. Because unless people plan to 'exterminate' their fellow citizens. . . in the end. . . people are going to want to be themselves as long as it causes no harm to 'non-participants' in their life affairs.
Liberals and democrats do not appear to care what cultural positions some conservatives take unto themselves. . . but some conservatives are 'all-in' on trying to make problems/issues/defeats/revenge/hatreds/divisions for liberals up and down the board.
See 9.1.99 ". . .As to what to call them. I don't care if they are called or charged as insurrectionists. It is not my concern. Just like it is not my concern to call those liberals who acted out in the case of George Floyd and a host of others treated unjustly by state systems. The terms courts use are sufficient enough for me. And, in court is where any one or all of them will be held accountable/charged/let go."
The reverse of the question is more pertinent. Why is it so important to specific people that the incorrect label "insurrection" be applied?
Answer: it benefits them politically.
There is no moral high ground left, CB.
We're watching two families of feral hogs who have been wallowing in their own filth for decades try to convince us that their group is clean.
So let them call it an insurrection. Big deal. It is not as if they are exaggerating.
No matter what it is called, Trump incited his supporters and they violently broke & entered the Capitol to disrupt Congress from formally declaring Biden president-elect.
That is serious. History will treat it seriously and will emphasize how unique it was in the USA for something like that to happen.
I am concerned, Jack. One shouldn't pretend to be so obtuse. People might begin to think of one as actually being obtuse, and the loss of credibility could be devastating. I am quite sure that you can complete the lines for yourself.
Not the same thing at all. Don't twist meanings.
I think we agree on that. Here are the terms , according to the DOJ:
I think we can both agree (correct me if I'm wrong about this) that these people engaged in an unlawful riot, committed various crimes in the process, and deserve punishment for those crimes.
On a side note, I'm astonished more of them weren't shot in the process.
So I find it interesting that people get really wound up by the obvious statement that this wasn't an "insurrection".
Oh... well in that case....
But to bible Trumpers it's only an insurrection if it was successful or if more people had died and the attackers were using assault rifles instead of blunt weapons to attack the capital police officers. I think what they are really saying is "Oh, you'll know it when conservatives actually rise up to violently overthrow what they have decided is a corrupt government because the roots of our 'tree of liberty ' will be drowning in blood!". Of course, their 'tree of liberty' only seeks to protect rightwing conservative fascists "liberty" to be racist misogynists.
You just told me I could label it whatever I wanted. So I'm going to keep calling it a riot. Because that's what it was.
TiG, I know this is difficult to accept, but the majority of Americans already don't give a shit. That's what the popular vote said. I know it's something that you and John and several other people are really focused on, but most Americans understand it was a riot only made unusual by the location. They announced pretty clearly at the ballot box that it wasn't that serious and they have moved on. The history of 2020-2021 will be all about the pandemic, the vaccine, and George Floyd.
I know that some of the participants were prepared for battle and had plans to disrupt, however possible, the lawful counting of the Electors ballots. This is established fact. A great number of the people were caught up in the emotion after having been lied to for the prior two months that their votes had been stolen, that they were victims in a great unAmerican scheme. "Stop the steal!" they chanted and,"USA" as they went to the Capitol to attempt to wrest back their country. Unfortunately, true to character, it was Trump who was doing the stealing.
So for some, those who were fooled into being there, we can still respect their motives if not their means because they thought that they were defending democracy. For those who came out of malicious intent because they wished to recreate the country in some alternate image closer their idea of what it should be, they really are unworthy.
Irrelevant. Truth is not determined by a vote.
Jan 6th and what preceded it will obviously be treated as a serious matter by historians.
What goes into history books is determined by what people think is significant.
After months of emotive rhetoric from the sitting PotUS, Trump’s supporters violently broke & entered the Capitol to disrupt Congress from formally declaring Biden president-elect.
That is significant by any meaning of the word.
Who knows maybe a president that stated "time to put Trump in a bullseye" only to have someone take a shot at Trump a few days later will be a significant event by historians. They sure did gloss over it real time.
After months of emotive rhetoric from the sitting PotUS, Trump’s supporters violently broke & entered the Capitol to disrupt Congress from formally declaring Biden president-elect.
This has never happened in our history ... and a sitting PotUS has never engaged in such behavior.
Sure, Jack.
Again, significance is subjective. I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me.
Time will tell what they're teaching in sophomore US history 50 years from now. I doubt I'll be here to see it.
But, they are the only "hogs" in the game. Since all they both desire to do or are compelled to do at this stage of their developments, plural. . . there is a solid opening for a new party to enter. I suggest that the 'smartest' group get an early start: Democrats are you 'listening'? Fix your 'sorry' state of affairs or face the consequences of falling into failures on top of failure.
Both parties, should look up from their fixations on each other; see the coming 'avalanche' that is set to drop on their parties' heads and defeat them both. This has gone on long enough. Some of us, plenty, many are old, battle-weary, and feel betrayed by all the sub-basement political battles which do not solve the debt crisis and/or set-back personal liberties.
Yes, there is plenty moral high ground left. And no, republicans are not seeking it. Indeed, they have abandoned the moral high ground when they seek to disenfranchise the citizenry of its rights to fairness, equality, and insist on political dominance without counting the cost and instead rather ignore all the callous abuse of the masses they have to put out to win.
Democrats are not harming republicans by helping marginalized people in this country get a seat at the table.
Since I have repeated explained that I don't care about the terms used, I won't belabor the point. That said, it does seem that if courts are not charging any with insurrection. . . it does leave the public to UNOFFICIALLY label what they see at the capital as such. In other words, it is the opinion of many that an insurrection of some kind happened on January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capital in Washington, D.C. and had any other weapons been produced it could have gone so very horrible wrong involving representatives, staff, employees, the "guests" on the grounds, and finally the 'unit' (building) itself.
I think it is unlawful to riot inside the U.S. Capitol. I think it is unlawful to various degrees to scale the ramparts of the capitol. I think it is unlawful to break into the capitol. I think it is unlawful for non-members of congress to 'hold' in hand capitol documents depending on severity and depth of information contained as items or line items within them.
Also this has to be considered:
The operative words above or 'by force.'
What goes on outside on the grounds of the capital is one level of conduct under law. What occurs within the confines of the walls (with congressional representatives in session), with substantial and viable threats to the members of congress themselves (in their own professional 'home') can be considered 'forced entry.' The operative word being 'force.'
The bold above signifies 'areas in the January 6, 2021 incident where delay was hoped for and articles of the United States were taken (including the official proceeding which was hindered, delayed, and the Speaker's station was subjected to hostile possession.
If the law is actual. . . then, the 'thing' speaks for itself.
Maybe. Probably not. There is one big difference between George Floyd's incidents which took place in multiple places in the country and that is a man was 'officially' determined by a court to have been murdered by an authority figure of the state. In the case of January 6, 2021, it had been determined by courts that P/president Trump had no basis for amassing people at the capitol - as his own V.P. had explained to Trump that there as no argument/role which could win against the passive passing of the presidential certification 'routine' gone through for eons. Yet, Trump persisted: an individual was killed trying to cross a barricade, others were disfigured, others traumatized, the national psyche was assaulted, and finally some of our citizenry disgraced their nation before the onlooking world.
Those were not patriotic duties performed by citizens on January 6, 2021. Thus, many of them are having their activities (which were filmed) played in a court of law to see what sort of. . .presentation they gave.
If they were actually helping marginalized people, we might be able to discuss the impact of that.
Interesting, isn't it?
And leave Democrats to propagandize.
It is.
But's unlawful to riot anywhere, actually.
The big difference would be the 20 people killed, the $2 billion in property damage and the months it lasted.
Whereas widespread looting, vandalism and arson are patriotic duties?
So when I see an act of social injustice, it's my patriotic duty to break into my local Target to steal televisions and then find somebody 1000 miles away who had nothing to do with it and burn their business to the ground?
Are we sure?
Assume that marginalized people exist and then assume that everybody knows who they are—including marginalized people. And let's discuss when ready. Here or 'there.'
In any case, let's not pretend that words don't have official and unofficial uses in this country. Because words do.
Okay, now do commit to the discussion. Straddling the fence is not acceptable, in my opinion.
Sure. Let's discuss how one political party has claimed to be "helping" marginalized people for decades... yet those people are still as marginalized as they were 40 years ago. Is there any point at which we start to think they're just not very good at helping?
What fence do you believe I'm straddling?
That skipped over the injustice of an authority figure killing a man in plain sight of the public filming it. It's a bigger deal than a simple glossing over of it. I have no intention of defending any rioting, but to state the obvious: Degrees matter. Not all riots are equal and so we must make reasonable distinctions.
In the case of the rioting that involved deaths and dying . . . tell me (if you know) what the courts determined to do about those.
In the case of the riot in the capitol. We all can see charges were filed and again, I won't waste time trying to persuade anybody to accept that the capitol and its officers deserve special pleading because of the nature of the place and the work (for the nation) done there.
Moreover, as "we" all are reasonably aware, states hold to different rationales - good or bad - for bringing cases to trial. So it would be helpful to this discussion if "we" do not try to make a one-size fit all of this because it won't work. And we see that in stark relief because well some conservatives 'heart' their states' rights in their home states.
Well, it does not help that the GOP pretends to help but wants to keep wages 'beneath the floor' or diminished and as a part of its segregation of voters pertends that marginalized people 'only' want to cheat to win. . .so republican have to establish and reestablish a 'host' of guardrails which limit how/when/where/how the rank and file vote (oddly enough all is fine with elections when the GOP is successful but when the fall short: look out for a flotilla of gripes, complains, and court filings - rightly or wrongly.
Setbacks are a common refrain with the GOP (don't try to ignore that). Hell, we, as a nation, are about to face more of these sorts of setbacks in the incoming administration. We all know it. Albeit, some conservatives will try their damnedest to dismiss or ignore their antics, tactics, and strategies altogether.
Mix in more facts than opinions and it won't be important. We all should be able to agree that a federal building is a secured space and that those whom have control and authority over those spaces can decide how to proceed. It is not the purview of individual citizens to argue that 'authorities" should act the same in all places with the same outcomes. It simply is not going to happen in this country where states have rights to make laws within their lawful jurisdictions.
Tik-tok
Or less than 30% of the people of voting age, really.
Is there anything the Republicans won't resist until their dying breath if a Democrat thought it? Or vice versa?
Years ago I saw a bumper sticker on a van driving in the Seattle University District, right on 45th Street where it crosses I-5 and you get this panoramic view of downtown with Capitol Hill... I digress. Anyway, the bumper sticker said:
You tell only one side of the story as if it is the only side that matters.
How does a riot, a riot, mind you, manage to get "a little out of hand"?
8 months, 20 dead, $2billion are all measures of degree.
How do they pretend?
A statistically valid sample.
I like that.
I do too
Along with the rest of the data that say there is a difference of only 1.7ish percent between the people who supported Trump vs those who supported Harris.
If this were a football or basket ball game and the score was 48 to 50, that would be close, right? Less than one 3 pointer, one field goal and the whole complexion of the game is changed.
Fox, et al, want us to believe that it was an epic victory of massive societal import. The facts show differently.
The GOP pretends to be colorblind, but are they really when they argue for school-choice which is a great soundbite, but in practice would segregate schools. It is clear that the GOP resents being made/told/compelled to share classrooms with 'others' and so they lodge culture war scenarios over 'every' conceivable issue creating neverending controversies (book bans, shared bathrooms, girls locker rooms and transfemales, guns free-spaces, etceteras) all in efforts to not CONFORM or moderate their ideas but to SET THEMSELVES APART from "others" which happen to largely be representative of marginalized groups going 'back to the future' manner of living rather than agreeing and accepting that our society ought to advance and care for all its citizens advancing together.
Of course, the 'new' normal means that lies will take flight and live 'forever' somewhere on the planet. . .and in this nation.
Good point there, Thomas!
You're absolutely right, but let's don't confuse two different points
My point is simply that Trump winning the popular vote indicates that a majority of Americans no longer care about the Jan 6 riots.
I agree completely that the small margin of victory over a frankly pretty terrible opponent should not be construed as any sort of mandate. A very small majority thought he was the least shitty option. Hardly a Reagan Revolution.
I love this as an example. It proves the point wonderfully.
You're concerned about maintaining our current school structure, but don't seem to care that American schools have spent decades failing/refusing to educate black kids as well as white ones.
It's the most clear cut empirically undeniable example of systemic racism in this country. So naturally it must be preserved at all costs .... because Democrats say so.
Jack, the point is some conservatives have NEVER wanted a department of education in the first place! Which is why the Heritage Foundation has a 'plan' (Project 25) with a plank in it to abolish the Department of Education in 2025 (just as soon as Trump gives the directive of some kind). Why abolish that department. . . so that some conservative children will be able to get public funding for homeschooling and/or private schooling. . . away from the marginalized and liberal students. Somehow, some conservatives think their values are better (and more moral) that the 'hedons' and underprivileged being glommed together in public schools. And don't get us started on this renewed 'drive' to read bibles in public schools (if they are ran "the conservative way."
I thought the point was about the GOP claiming to be colorblind.
I'm pretty sure that's not how that works.
So do liberals.
I think they care a lot more about their own kids than other people's.
No, the GOP is pretending to be colorblind. It's a cover for abuse of the Others.
But the point is if there is no education department who will teach uniformity in education to the country's children. States creating book ban laws out of whole cloth - running 'wild and loose' certainly won't unify the knowledge in the nation. Heck, some conservatives are 'stuck' on culture wars (they win elections- don' cha know!
) See a liberal: declare a 'thing' wrong!
Some liberals can place value in some conservatives. The opposite is not exactly as it should be.
We should care that 'all' children get a decent/proper education—not just those children who follow 'strict father parenting guidelines.' It's called: respect and equality.
There is no uniformity, so if that has been the responsibility of the DoE, it's all the more reason to abolish them.
The actual question is "who will assume the responsibilities of the Dept of Education". Easy, the people who were doing it before it was formed.
We can't even agree on what a "decent/proper education" contains, much less begin to deliver it.
"Uniformity" means teaching the same/similar things to all children in the system; not a hodge-podge of states planning and scheming to control children with bible themed lessons (and some conservatives tell a fib when they 'say' the "three Rs" are all that ought to be taught in schools) and other states are not.
That said, because we are a mixed country. . .perhaps a COMPROMISE could work. Allow bible-themed lessons in public school and keep the Department of Education.
BTW, 9.1.153 does not mention what came before the DoE or why it was needed in the first place: Centralization, student civil rights enforcement, oversight. Setting standards across the country.
And get this: The GOP opposed President Carter's creation of the new Department of Education right from the start. Looking at the policy position established (above) we can see why. The GOP is not interested in education. It is interested in reestablishing long gone decentralization, religious schools, freedom to segregate and allow a country full of future adults to be aliens and alienated in the same country (by growing up in 'silo' learning places - as if a nation should compete against itself), and finally varying standards because well - there are bible-themed lessons to be read/taught/trained/indoctrinated.
Which has never happened in the history of the Dept of Education. The math on that is abundantly clear.
Or get rid of both.
Serious question... how do you think they've performed at these duties? If you were to give them a letter grade A-F, what would it be and why?
Or, more accurately, the GOP of that day believed in small government, less bureaucracy, and reducing government spending that had driven inflation to 16%.
It appears the Democrats have a blind loyalty to an antiquated and ineffective system that fails to serve students properly and is the number 1 driver of racial and economic inequality in America. They seem determined not to view or acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that this system is terrible.
Our educational system of trained professionals is so poor that it can't compete with complete amateurs. When compared to public school kids, homeschooled kids do better on almost every single metric. They score higher on standardized tests, college entrance exams, they're almost twice as likely to get into college, they have better social skills and they're more engaged in extracurricular activities.
The people teaching homeschoolers usually have no professional training, and are sometimes not even college educated. Yet they produce better results than our shitty public system.
They 'do' fine when I was in school. Did 'right' by me. But then I am not inclined to want unsophisticated gut-thinkers governing the world's leading country, or one of them anyway.
I can't address your data right now, because 'full-on' debate over education is not my hill to die. However, this nation has many billionaires and I think that bodes well for kindergarten through higher education schemes. The thing speaks for itself!
Gutting it through on hard-work alone does not work for the struggling masses, so it is hard to see how it works totally and completely for some conservatives. . .unless we take account of people who will do anything and say 'anything' (no matter if it is right or wrong) to stay employed and their needs met.
I actually think we need more truth in the land, then just people who lie, cheat, steal, to get by and to get ahead.
Not what I asked, but OK.
I seem to remember a saying about glass houses.
So what ideas do you have for ensuring that black children in this country get a similar education to the one my children received? How do we make sure those kids get a fair shot?
And if you look too closely, you might change your mind.....
That's not how math works.
It is not clear that 'anybody' wants simple 'gut-thinkers' running a nation. . . after-all, there are trained professional and disciplined thinkers in foreign countries pervasive on the planet. Some will label them mockingly: elites.
I have no knowledge of the education some conservative children receive! Moreover, getting a 'fair shot' for all the kids goes down when some conservatives over-stamp their imprimatur on schools through voting away uniform standards in what to teach, and wishing to do the same by closing the Department of Education.
I was'nt speaking of math; think a proper education.
A proper education includes a great deal of math.
What standards are those, specifically?
Still, this is not about the three Rs either.
Acceptance of all the kids in the classrooms and on the playgrounds. Letting them grow up together in order to be familiar with each other. Let them bond together. It's good for this country- perfect even and it builds character. It has not been that long since the DoE (which the GOP has never stopped attempting to obstruct and do away) began. And mostly, some conservatives have been angling, opining, and throwing up roadblocks of non-support for public education when and where they can find 'purchase.'
One has to wonder, why? But we know. To get rid of the elites. And, let freedom 'range' out and raw. (Won't help us as a nation in a world full of intellectuals, deep-thinkers, critical thinkers, and tech of the future.)
It is time to end this. You can have the last word if you wish.
No, it's also about calculus, chemistry and computer science.
After we've taught kids how to read, write and do math.
It's been 45 years. I think we've had enough time to measure success or failure.
I'm curious as to why this particular method of organizing a group of bureaucrats is so important.
I don't think you do. You've been wrong on every projection so far.
You seem very committed to convincing yourself that these people you've obviously never met have wholly nefarious motives. People just want their kids to get a good education. That means establishing and enforcing high academic standards. They're not interested in distractions.
People are not this stupid. If he isn't just pulling your chain, we are in deeper shit than I thought. I was just telling others that are telling me, Putin wanted Hillary and Harris to win....Yep, cause they wouldn't wish to leave Ukraine hanging, unlike the "Alpha" puppy Bitch Trump, who as a candidate stopped crucial military aid from reaching Ukraine.
And then these people who I doubt even watched the Jan 6th hearings, chiming in like experts, totally wrong in their depiction, as they are so far into the fiction, as we watched the Republican duty dereliction directing good little Repubs , as they were nt allowed to watch, mostly Republican witnesses testify under oath about what truly happened, I'm about sick of these B S 'n commentators who I don't believe can be this damn dumb !,
Fuck Ukraine. They were, are, and always will be a European problem. If Europe wants Ukraine that damn badly- then they should be the ones paying for it completely.
There is nothing Ukraine can supply that we can't supply ourselves.
Putin waited until Biden was in office to move on Ukraine. After his disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan proved he was a weak leader.
We don't even have enough hardware and munitions to fight a war if we needed to thanks to Biden/Democrats/Neocons dumping billions of aid and weapons into Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. Think Xi isn't watching- just waiting for the US to over extend itself between Ukraine and the ME to take Taiwan? Now Taiwan has something we really need that ,thanks to eco nut leftists, we don't have the capability of producing- semi and super conductor chips. Xi knows that as well.
As for the Jan 6th made for prime time viewing bullshit hearings- only TDS driven idiots think they were impartial. With the evidence that the committee hid and ignored coming out; it is looking like the committee was formed to cover up government intentional mishandling, provoking, and allowing it to occur.
We are all sick of people trying to pretend the committee was anything other than a Pelosi hand picked, partisan, TDS driven, group that had only one agenda- to get Trump no matter how much they had to lie and distort the truth.
Democrats lost this election because they were too stupid to run on anything other than "Not being Trump". After fucking this country up for the last 8 years and counting- the majority of voters didn't by their BS. Yet they keep on pumping it like it will change anyone's minds now.
:I suppose that the result and the dems can beat it to death, in reality there is no mandate, it was a close race but IMO, there were some huge errors by the dems.
In AZ Ruben Gallegos won the vacant senate seat from Keri Lake by a couple of points I believe it was around 80k votes. Trump won AZ now I watched that race and Gallegos has been preparing for it for a couple of years and here is what he did, in a highly Hispanic area he met with the workers, not door knocking but sponsoring boxing match, dinners, carne asada, picnics with family and at some they did not talk politics, he listened to the them especially the men who were telling him that the harder they work the further behind they get with no relief in sight. This is especially important in the Hispanic society and other cultures that ‘’macho’’ is highly regarded. He did not do the door knocking since as he put it, knocking on their door when they just got home from work and are trying to have dinner isn’t a time to start talking policies and politics. It worked, big time he won the Hispanic men by a large margin. He also courted the NA vote and has always been strong supporter of natives and he talked to them about one of the most import issues to us which is the same as, work, food, and the fricking border.
There is another ‘’problem’’ is education, the gap is getting larger and larger, between the elites (Ivy League) and the working man/woman. If you go back to the 1950s and meritocracy and Conan’s, of Harvard dreamed of highly education people running the country, and we ended up with Trump. He had a much different view and education changed. IMO, we are seeing the results of it today, the gap is getting bigger in education soon the ‘’educational class war’’ will be the defining issue in elections.
There are other problem but IMO, these are the biggies.
The DNC needs to look at Gallegos tactics and incorporate them into the campaigns for the mid-terms
The DNC needs to get off its collective butts and ineffectiveness and fix some of their tactics. I will share another one that I have been thinking about. . . democrats are shooting themselves in the 'head' trying to keep up with some conservatives' culture war attacks. "Many" voters can not process all the nuances in these culture wars and so they take a default position. That is, their 'go to' is "No!"
So what am I saying? Stop feeding some conservatives new attack 'positions.' Tell some of the progressives that if you don't win elections because of 'issues of the day' - the party won't have control of 'tomorrow's issues' (see SCOTUS 'gone' for a generation already).
Transgender people were used to partially bring down a liberal vice-president, because it matters to people how/when/where transgender individuals 'fit' in the field endeavors of competitive sports. This means if their arguments for being in sports are 'weak' and/or invalid to voters. . .the DNC should let them go it on their own for the time being and let them work on getting the public 'up' on understanding who they are and what they want.
The DNC can not keep running on 'issues' that lend themselves to indecision in the minds of voters. Some conservatives 'kill' them politically every time that way. Why? Because some conservatives tend to only care about their issues (others' issues be damned) and by doing so they just look at the polls of whom they can persuade or steal from the liberal base and proceed to messaging in that direction.
I said before the election that for Harris to win the women of America had to put self-control over their bodies and rights more important than other issues, but IMO I believe they failed to do so, causing the barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen crowd to rule. Added to that the Democrat powers that be, sorry, I mean the Democrat powers that WERE pandered more to maintaining party unity with The Squad and the anti-Israel sector, which lost them the support they needed.
Buzz
Trump made major gains in the demographics of young males, women, Hispanics and center (left or right) individuals throughout the country but especially in the battle ground states.
While the DNC campaign focused on identity politics - bringing in rappers, movie stars and other personalities to make campaign rallies shows rather than having to speak to the issues concerning the people.
Do you think the majority in attendance were there because of Harris/Walz or because of Beyonce?
Well, they certainly misjudged the American people, but then, so did I.
The problem is not celebrities, in my opinion. They brought eyeballs to the campaign events (which is why one has/wants them as speakers/endorsements in the first place). The problem is the DNC screwed itself/got screwed, even if caused by circumstances beyond its control.
The problem is this election was doomed from its beginning. 'Everything' that could go wrong went wrong. . . including people lying about their vote plans it can be surmised. This country does not see a woman as being able to keep the country secure and it will take a woman with figurative balls and sporting an actual pistol on her hip to give a different impression to many. That is, she will have to come off as a 'father figure' while maintaining her impression as a nurturer.
No, they just chose a terrible candidate... by decree, without regard for her ability or the what the voters actually wanted.
Maybe that's one of the reasons why I thought Ann Richards should have been PotUS.
Buzz
I think everyone was surprised by some of the demographic groups where support for Trump increased so significantly.
For instance I thought he might win one of the Blue Curtain states (MI, PA, WI) and he won all three plus NC and GA
I do not think they made a wise choice - my hopes for the election had been Harris wins and the Republicans win the Senate and House and they sort of check each other out for four years while stronger candidates are sought by both parties.
I wanted the Dems to hold the Senate and the White House so we could have more (in quantity) liberal-minded judges appointed. The SCotUS already is extremely reactionery and Trump was emplacing like-minded and Heritage Foundation approved judges throughout the lower courts in his last term. Now the three justices need to hang on for (and to) dear life in the hopes that a more middle-left President is in line. I do not think that people en-mass thought about this aspect of electing Trump and I certainly did not hear much of anything out of the Democrats regarding this.
Well, give us an idea of what the 'right' democratic candidate would be. . . preferably a living woman. Please proceed. . . .
Trump is already running his big fat mouth (this guy is a 'royal' messer) telling the "Senate' (his 'people') to stiff the democratic sitting president by not allowing anymore federal judges to be approved until he comes to office. This is presidential interference and it is offensive. How much more of this sh-t from Trump do we as a nation have to endure. This man is not even in the office and he tries to stifle (interfere) with the running under another's watch. If someone does that to him (we will - we must teach him a lesson if it is possible to be taught) he would be griping like a 'wounded' animal.
I was also surprised that the Democrats did not work that point into their message
I foresee Trump appointing a replacement for Thomas near the end of his term and that will maintain the 5 to 3 (not counting the chief justice) on the conservative side. The only health issue I am aware of is Sotomayor's diabetes and far as I know she will be around for years to come.
A replacement for Thomas will place four conservatives of relatively young age on the court for decades.
I thought if the Rep's had the whole Congress and Harris in the White House they would have to figure out some way to work together.
No to be
I don't know, I see Thomas pulling a Ginsburg, he will go out feet first.
I think he and Alito retire before 2026. They've cemented their legacies at this point and there don't appear to be any generational type issues headed to the Court anytime soon.
I think you're absolutely right on with respect to the judicial appointments - they are going to have an effect on the future of the USA for a long time, and IMO, not an effect the USA will be happy with. Roe v Wade was just a harbinger.
You mentioned something starling and on its face. . . Biden and the democrats are lagging yet again. Sotomayor is 70'ish. She should let the senate swap her out before January 20th! There was even mention of this in the press. . . and then from my side of it. . .that topic has muted. It is moments like this that get the democrats in the most trouble with their 'public' - they are slow to consider or act or express clearly why they are not acting in ways that make (the most) sense. On the other-hand, Trump will ask whomsoever he wishes on the high court to 'leave' and they will go or be 'drummed' out by Trump's chorus of propagandists.
As for John Roberts, he is a hard-core conservative. . .but, he believes in 'patient incrementalism' to removed (liberal) achievements (e.g., citizens' united, affirmative action, voting rights, roe vs wade, etceteras' to come in 2025). He bides his time appearing 'neutral' when he is anything but that.
Hi Buzz,
What is means is this. This is a some conservative attempt to turn back the clock. However, where 'they' are making a crucial (and maybe unavoidable set of errors) is they are compelled to turn the conservative court into an ACTIVIST court for their causes and purposes - in order to deny liberals their causes and purposes. And, I don't care that some conservatives here can read that 'thought.'
Liberals will remind the public and some conservatives that they are no more fair than their 'ancestors' were when they used the levers of power to suppress others. It will matter. . .over time. Sooner or later. Either with the public who live through a return to the ideology of the past or with some conservatives leader whom over time see the error of trying to hold back the 'rushing' future. Also, it will help if other nation's start to consider the United States as out of touch with other civilized nations and dwelling in the past. That will 'sting' to say the least. Even more so, when/not if other nation's start looking for other countries to 'hitch' their 'star' to.
Our nation is the so-called preeminent leader in civil rights up to a point, but that looks to be about to suffer a loss. . . other countries will see it and get on with the business of leaving this country out of their discussions on civil rights. That is, they will let us 'stew' in our own mess that we are about to make of ourselves!
There will be no other to blame but our own damn argumentative and ridiculous butts. For as we all know once people start looking for 'new' relationships it means they no longer trust or depend on past relationships. They become 'faithless.' They can 'turn off.'
Then, this nation will have the fortunate or unfortunate (take the pick) set of circumstances to learn just how much we are NEEDED in the world that has decided to go it without our love or interests.
The majority of Americans are not religious conservatives. Sadly, in this last election there were clearly some non-religious conservatives who jumped on the Trump bandwagon simply out of spite or were gullible enough to believe Trumps lies about how he's going to "fix" everything. I knew there were a lot of stupid people in America and this last election proved that hypothesis was an understatement. We clearly have a plethora of bitter, angry ignorant and/or misinformed folk who voted based on some warped perception of reality manufactured by rightwing fascists that successfully tied any bad thing in their life to Biden/Harris and the Democrats. It was a well-played strategy even though it was built on lies, and regardless of how stupid some people are, we've all been condemned to do what we can, protect our kids and wallets and batten down the hatches as Trump takes the wheel of the US Titanic and aims us straight for a patch of icebergs.
Why would it need to be a woman? I'm sure they have several women who wouldn't have utterly choked, but why not let the voters decide?
Gretchen Whitmer has won twice in a divided, battleground state. Josh Shapiro has won a divided, battleground state.
The best bet was probably Mark Kelly, IMO, who has also shown he can win in a divided, battleground state. Difficult to argue the toughness and leadership ability of an US Navy Captain astronaut with a couple of Distinguished Flying Cross medals.
Or.... in real life... they were just unhappy with things under Biden and uninspired by a candidate who said she couldn't think of a single thing she would do differently.
I think that's already happening.
I don't know about the "love" part of that statement, but I think the world is getting to realize what the "our interests" aspect means for them.
My condolences. By the way, I LOVE movie references. The difference is that the cause of the ship sinking was external unless you say it was sailing too fast for the weather conditions. For America, it's all internal. Nobody is trying to "contain" America or throw roadblocks in its way. It's the other way around.
We were discussing women in context. So let's stick with that: Gretchen Whitmer - maybe. Thank you for the thought. She was on the list, but washed out. To my knowledge why she 'faded' from choosing is not supplied by the candidate or the party. (We, the public, don't get to choose who is put on the list.) And let's not ignore the time-crunch/squandered. It matters. . .the duress matters a lot.
Whitless would be torn apart on the national stage. She mishandled Covid in the extreme (Shut down Michigan's economy, went after barbers and salons- while having her own personal hair dresser and makeup artist. Put people with Covid into retirement and elder care homes- endangering the most susceptible), ignored her own Covid edicts repeatedly, and thought a fresh water mussel was more important than her constituents by actively pursuing water not to be released that was over flood stage levels behind two damns- until they burst.
In Michigan her shit can fly against a piss poor Republican candidate like Tudor Dixon (thanks to Democrats keeping the top three Republican candidates of the primary ballots) who lost on the abortion issue alone.
Democrats won't be able to control who Whitmer faces off against nearly as well on the national stage.
The attack adds against her will write themselves.
*eyeroll*
Regularly.
It's strange to me that you are so readily willing to denigrate and criticize people you don't begin to understand.
.
Well, if I've been wrong before, I sure as hell understand them now. And I sure as hell wish my son would move back to Canada.