In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action

  
By:  Vic Eldred  •  one month ago  •  142 comments


In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action
Vicky Osterweil argues that stealing goods and destroying property are direct, pragmatic strategies of wealth redistribution and improving life for the working class -- not to mention the brazen messages these methods send to the police and the state. All our beliefs about the innate righteousness of property and ownership, Osterweil explains, are built on the history of anti-Black, anti-Indigenous oppression. From slave revolts to labor strikes to the modern-day movements for climate change,...

Leave a comment to auto-join group Books

Books


NPR recently interviewed the author of this book. Here we feature reviews or in this case criticism from both ends of the spectrum.


First there is the critique of Jonah Goldberg:

1200px-Jonah_Goldberg_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg


"Vicky Osterweil, the author of “In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action,” is getting her 15 minutes of fame thanks to a segment on NPR in which she said some really mind-bogglingly dumb, indefensibly evil and fascinatingly reactionary things.

We’ll come back to her in a moment.

One of my weird mental pastimes is to look at the world as if I were a visitor from the past. But rather than think of how a time traveler might marvel at the new technology and tall buildings, I like to wonder: What would someone from 500 or 1,000 years ago recognize as familiar?

Some things are obvious: a mother breastfeeding a baby or an old man tending a garden. “We do that too!” a time traveler might say on first sight.

But if you were a sophisticated and knowledgeable time traveler, you might recognize some deeper similarities.

My favorite example is North Korea, which is often called a “communist” or “Marxist” regime but would be instantly recognizable to a temporal tourist as an absolutist monarchy, even though the regime doesn’t use the word “king.”  Divine power is passed down  to the male heir of the previous ruler. Every de facto monarch is said to be of quasi-supernatural origin and endowed with superhuman abilities and wisdom. North Korea also has a hereditary aristocracy that lives off the hereditary peasant class, which is born into de facto serfdom.

I bring this up because sometimes we get too hung up on words and lose sight of the things underneath. And that brings me back to Osterweil.

“Looting is a highly racialized word from its very inception in the English language,” Osterweil said in the NPR interview. “It’s taken from Hindi,  lút , which means ‘goods’ or ‘spoils.’ ”

How this is relevant, or even evidence that the word is “racialized,” is a mystery, given that maybe two in 10 million people know its etymology. Other words with Hindi origins: pundit, guru, khaki, cashmere and pajamas. The horror.

This is a good example of confusing words and things. Looting —  mobs grabbing stuff that doesn’t belong to them  — is an ancient practice dating back hundreds of thousands of years, before we even had the concept of dates. Pillaging, ransacking, theft — call it what you like — is how tribes acquired stuff before the invention of trade.

In short: Osterweil thinks she’s making some powerful neo-Marxist argument on the bleeding edge of theory, but what she’s discovered is tribal barbarism and put a fresh coat of paint on it.
She is fluent in all the latest buzzwords and campus jargon. The “so-called” United States of America, she writes in her book, was founded in “cisheteropatriarchal racial capitalist” violence. (I’m getting my quotes from Graeme Wood’s excellent review in The Atlantic, as I have no desire to saddle Osterweil with the guilt of profiting from her work.)

Destroying businesses is an “experience of pleasure, joy and freedom,” she writes. Osterweil also insists it’s a form of “queer birth,” and that “riots are violent, extreme and femme as f – – -.” Looting isn’t wrong, she claims, but rather a form of “proletarian shopping.”

“Looting strikes at the heart of property, of whiteness and of the police,” Osterweil explained on NPR. “The very basis of property in the US is derived through whiteness and through Black oppression, through the history of slavery and settler domination of the country.”

Nope. Notions of private property can be found in ancient China, the Islamic world and, well, everywhere.

Even the Korean grocers targeted by looting have it coming, according to Osterweil, because they’re working in the white man’s system of “ownership.” And ownership is “innately, structurally white supremacist.”

What Osterweil is really describing is revenge based on collective guilt. A Viking or Gaul from the past would instantly recognize it. So would countless non-white barbarians of yore, because that’s what humans used to believe. “Your ancestors did something to my ancestors, and so you have this coming.”

Books could be written about how wrong — historically, morally, logically — Osterweil is. But there is one place where she’s right. Rioting and looting are fun, which is why young people do it from time to time. Mobs are thrilling, which is why they’re so dangerous and evil. (Presumably rapists and murderers feel “joy” too, that doesn’t make them good; it illuminates their evilness.) That’s why civilized societies try to prevent them. Barbarians come up with clever word salads to defend them.

https://nypost.com/2020/09/06/the-evil-idiocy-of-in-defense-of-looting/



Then from the left - Bill Maher:

bill-maher.jpg


"Real Time" host  Bill Maher  blasted the media Friday night, claiming they offer various justifications for looting and rioting amid the civil unrest that has taken place in cities across the country.

During the show's panel segment, Maher began with a warning about the "craziness out there," pointing to the controversial book "In Defense of Looting" that was given a spotlight by NPR and "a lot of articles in the press" echoing a similar sentiment.

Maher explained that in "binary times," the "fringe" will always be associated with one party or the other, later insisting that this time around, Democrat  Joe Biden  will have to wear looting "on his back into the election" because it is being done by the left.

His panelists disagreed, arguing that Biden had been handling the issue of the unrest very well and that the issue has actually been hurting  President Trump .

But none of that passed Maher's smell test.

"What about the property destruction issue?" Maher asked. He went on to assert that some defenders of looting justified the destruction because it wasn't assault or murder, and that property was "replaceble."

"I'm not down with this 'property's on the table' as something that we can just take because things are not right. To me, that's not the way to address our problems -- by throwing a brick through the window."
"But where is this massive destruction of property happening right now?" author Jessica Yellin, a former CNN correspondent, asked in an attempt to downplay the violence.

"Do you watch the news?" Maher replied.

"If you look at Portland, it's two square blocks!" Yellin doubled down, calling other examoples, like Kenosha, Wis., "moments of protest which we have throughout our history."

Maher pushed back, telling Yellin, "There is a view in the media -- please, I know you've seen it -- Don't look at me like I'm making this up, that this is somehow a justifiable approach."

"Well isn't it part of protest?" Yellin asked.

"So you're part of this. You believe this," Maher told her. "I saw this guy at a Papa John's franchise who was yelling through his broken glass, 'You're going to elect Trump and I'm just trying to feed my family!' I don't think his view is just like 'C'est la vie! It's just property!'"

Another panelist, Vanity Fair columnist Peter Hamby, acknowledged that "campus thinking" has "drifted into the "national press" and "Democratic politics."

Maher later defended Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who was harassed by protesters outside the White House despite his efforts to pass his police reform bill named after Breonna Taylor, as well as diners who have been accosted by demonstrators.

"You're allowed to eat dinner!" Maher exclaimed. "I can eat dinner and still be down with the cause!"

Yellin later referred to the subject of looting as a "sideshow" in the election, a remark that appeared to strike a nerve with the "Real Time" host.

"It may be a sideshow unless it's your business that got wiped out," Maher shot back. "I mean, if it's your business, then it's not a sideshow."

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/maher-knocks-medias-defense-of-looting-rioting-in-cities







Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Vic Eldred
1  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

In fairness to some of our NT progressives, let me say that many have gone on the record as being against rioting and they have underlined the distinction between protest and riots.

Is there anyone out there who wants to defend this radical book?


Trump and his supporters are off topic

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    one month ago

The Republicans and their re-election campaign NEED to have Americans think that the entire country is going up in smoke from rioting. Whatever success they can manage in November likely hinges on their ability to scare "independents" or moderates into believing the country is under siege from leftist anarchists. The truth is the "riots" are a minuscule part of American life and have almost no impact whatsoever on , well, almost everyone. 

My position on any social unrest is that if it breaks a serious law, and i would describe looting and arson and physical violence as "serious", the perpetrators should be arrested and tried. Trespassing, jaywalking, unlawful assembly, etc I would call not so serious. 

Arrest the perps and try them in court. 

The country is not going up in flames. It is a minor thing that is going on in the big scheme. The hysteria is peddled by the political right as an election ploy. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.1  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

How many billions in damage has to occur for it to become a serious issue?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago
My position on any social unrest is that if it breaks a serious law, and i would describe looting and arson and physical violence as "serious", the perpetrators should be arrested and tried. Trespassing, jaywalking, unlawful assembly, etc I would call not so serious. 

Let me be the first to give you credit for that. I'm proud to say that Iv'e yet to hear anyone on NT defend the violence.


The country is not going up in flames. It is a minor thing that is going on in the big scheme. The hysteria is peddled by the political right as an election ploy. 

You could have claimed that at one time. Portland's 100 days of rioting plus murder, Seattle's riots plus the seizing/occupation of a chunk of the city, the riots and violence in Chicago, NYC and Minneapolis might not have registered with a lot of people who thought it won't happen here. Then came the Kenosha riots and the riots in Rochester NY. That hit home, John. Everyone now knows - it can happen anywhere!


The families & friends having dinner in Rochester could be you & yours:

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2    one month ago

A minuscule number of anarchists have glommed on to the protests over the police misconduct  and have used the opportunity to cause a very limited number of lawbreaking incidents. It is not a big national issue but the Republicans are trying to make it one. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    one month ago

It was a big issue. Mayors allowed it. Their police departments were ordered to stand down in humiliation. People were even murdered. Most of the media refused to cover it or even admit it was happening.

 It is not a big national issue

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings - but it is!

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    one month ago

Limited?    

Doubtful you would feel that way if it was you and yours getting screwed, injured and killed by these shitbirds.

It’s hardly “limited” in that regard.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @2.2.3    one month ago

I am one person out of 320 million, of course anything that happened to me would be "limited". Saying these riots effect everyone in America would be like saying the fires on the west coast effect everyone in America or that a hurricane that hits Louisiana effects everyone in America. . 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.5  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.4    one month ago
Saying these riots effect everyone in America would be like saying the fires on the west coast effect everyone in America. 

Everyone?    No one thinks or is saying that John and your partisan based rhetoric in that regard is once again not helpful in any way to the discussion at hand.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.2    one month ago
People were even murdered.

All but 1 have been attributed to right wing infiltrators.

I'm proud to say that Iv'e yet to hear anyone on NT defend the violence.

I recall just a week or two ago a number of NT members defending Rittenhouse after he murdered two and injured one.

The killings in Oakland, Santa Cruz, Kenosha, all right wing violence that few conservatives condemned. They were apparently too busy condemning the protesters and using loaded words like "thugs" to describe them even though the vast majority have been peaceful and committed no crimes. Here on NT I've heard nearly everyone on the left condemning all the violence and vandalism calling for anyone who committed these crimes to be held accountable for their crimes regardless of their political affiliation. I have not heard the same from those on the right who seem to turn a blind eye to the Boogaloo bois and other right wing agitators and murderers, not because I think they agree with them, but because admitting the majority of violence has come from right wing agitators would ruin their desired false narrative about the supposedly violent leftists.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.2.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.2    one month ago

Vic,

That is not true in Rochester. The police engaged the rioters. The mayor agreed. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.6    one month ago
All but 1 have been attributed to right wing infiltrators.

That definitely calls for a link...Please give us all the details


I recall just a week or two ago a number of NT members defending Rittenhouse after he murdered two and injured one.

What's going on with the Rittenhouse case?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.2.7    one month ago
I recall just a week or two ago a number of NT members defending Rittenhouse after he murdered two and injured one.

I don't see any cops coming to the defense of those individuals and/or their families in the video I posted. That incident went on for a while. Where do you suppose they were?


Didn't her Police Chief resign?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.10  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    one month ago
number of anarchists have glommed on to the protests over the police misconduct  and have used the opportunity to cause a very limited number of lawbreaking incidents. It is not a big national issue but the Republicans are trying to make it one. 

Did I miss you applying this argument to the BLM movement?  Cows kills more Americans a year than unarmed blacks are killed by police, yet we've had our country consumed by a movement claiming police are hunting down and murdering black Americans. 

The looting and murder associated with the riots are much more prevalent than innocent blacks being murdered by police. Yet you don't attack the Democrats for exploiting those events when they happen.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.6    one month ago
ll but 1 have been attributed to right wing infiltrators

Do you feel bound by realty, at all? 

Who killed eight year old Secoriea Turner in Atlanta?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/atlanta-police-suspect-shooting-death-8-year-old-girl-wendys

Is this another white supremacist from out of town?

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/us/st-louis-man-arrested-shooting-retired-police-officer-david-dorn/index.html

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.12  Greg Jones  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.6    one month ago

All lies!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.12    one month ago

What else can we conclude?  Outrageous claims without a single link.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.8    one month ago
That definitely calls for a link...Please give us all the details

May 29th, Oakland CA. - drive-by shooting  occurred in front of a federal courthouse in  Oakland , resulting in the death of a security officer and wounding another who were contracted with the  Federal Protective Service . The killer was a right wing Boogaloo boi Steven Carrillo.

May 30th - Three Boogaloo bois arrested and charged in a firebombing plot.

June 3rd - Robert Forbes, a black BLM protestor, was run over and killed by right wing neo-Nazi and 'Proud Boys' member Timothy Keith Moore.

June 6th, Santa Cruz - sheriff's deputies were shot at and also attacked with  improvised explosive devices ; one officer died as a result. Killer was the same Boogaloo boi Steven Carrillo who shot and killed the security guard in Oakland.

June 27th - BLM protester Tyler Gerth gunned down by right wing agitator Stephen Lopez who had already previously in the week been arrested twice, June 17th and June 19th, for inciting a riot, disorderly conduct, harassment and possession of drug paraphernalia. His citation noted he was in possession of a handgun “with two full mags of ammo” at the time of the arrest. How was he on the streets on June 27th? The background check report shows that both previous arrests came with a $0 bail amount and Lopez was supposed to appear in court due to both arrests in September 2020.

July 25th - BLM protester Garrett Foster shot and killed by right wing Trump supporter Daniel Perry who had previously tweeted in response to a Trump tweet denigrating the BLM protests "Send Them To Texas We Will Show Them Why We Say Don't Mess With Texas". Daniel Perry drove his car toward protesters and when confronted by Garrett Foster who was legally carrying an AR-15, Perry shot and killed Foster after his car was surrounded by protesters attempting to stop him after he drove over orange cones blocking traffic and towards the crowd of protesters. Perry claims it was self defense but witnesses say he was clearly the aggressor and was using his vehicle to incite a response from the crowd.

August 25th - Rittenhouse, shot three protesters, killing two, in Kenosha, Wisconsin, with an AR-15-type rifle on the last Tuesday of August. He was reportedly   patrolling the city streets  with members of the radical Boogaloo Bois militia. Rittenhouse claims he is part of a militia group and called himself a "minuteman" referring to the patriot forces that fought the British at Lexington and Concord in 1775.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/17/boogaloo-steven-carrillo/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/boogaloo-movement-recent-violent-attacks/story?id=71295536

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/kyle-rittenhouse-his-militia-defense-ignores-private-paramilitaries-are-illegal-ncna1239397

https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/06/07/bakersfield-man-who-killed-black-protestor-with-his-car-didnt-fa.html

https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/lexington/news/2020/06/29/jefferson-square-park-louisville-steven-lopez-suspect

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/31/daniel-perry-austin-protest-garrett-foster/

There have been other deaths that occurred around the protests but nearly all were either from store owners claiming self defense protecting their stores from vandals and looters or were robberies or attempted robberies committed by opportunistic criminals, not actual protesters. The one murder by a left wing extremist protester who said he was "100% anti-fascist" occurred in Portland August 29th and took the life of right wing counter-protester and 'Patriot Prayer' member Aaron J. Danielson. The left wing extremist was killed by police when attempting to arrest him and got what he deserved.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.14    one month ago

I guess the moral of that story is let the police do the policing.

Thanks for the time and effort.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.14    one month ago

Wow.  Stephen Lopez a right wing agitator?  Using incidents that had nothing to do with the riots, Trying to sneak In events that happened in March and tie them to riots that started in may..an accident where the driver accidentally hit protesters in the street and wasn’t charged.  why waste your time with these dishonest deflections?

Try and at least make your propaganda plausible while you try and Pin all of the other riot related murders on “right wing agitators.” 

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.17  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    one month ago

The reason why it looks minuscule to you is because the press will not cover it. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @2.2.17    one month ago

You say the press doesnt cover it, yet you know its not minuscule. How can that be? 

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.2.19  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.18    one month ago

There are plenty of videos out there.  Smartphones can be a blessing and a curse. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.16    one month ago
an accident where the driver accidentally hit protesters in the street and wasn’t charged

Why lie about something I clearly didn't claim? I'm not actually sure which right wing killer you're trying to defend. Is it Timothy Keith Moore or Daniel Perry? If it's Daniel Perry then you're totally off base since he SHOT Garrett Foster, not as you claim "accidentally hit protesters" with his vehicle. If it's Timothy Keith Moore, are you really defending a known neo-Nazi who supposedly "accidentally" hit a black BLM protester.

“When we got to Oak and California, everybody was marching. (Forbes) went to the sidewalk and got on his knees,” recalled Jay G, a witness to the collision. “Next thing you know, we all hear a car, and we all look, it’s a car with its lights off that hits him.”

However, Bakersfield Police sergeant   Nathan McCauley, disputes the eyewitness's account, saying, “(Forbes) was in the roadway at the time he was struck… To address for the rumors, the driver’s headlights are clearly on.”

According to   KGET, Moore was not handcuffed, and was allowed to smoke a cigarette while police officers shielding him from protesters.

“It shouldn’t take that long to get a man who just admitted in front of everybody, even to the cops, ‘I did it. I hit this man. I didn’t see him. Accident or not, I hit him .’ So why wasn’t he detained? Why was he able to smoke a cigarette?” the eyewitness said.

According to some, Moore has visible tattoos that indicate his affiliation with white supremacist movements."

Moore claims that he was swerving to avoid a DUI checkpoint, and didn't know there was a protest going on. "I WILL TAKE THIS TIME TO WHOKE HEARTEDLY [sic] TELL THE FAMILY OF ROBERT FORBES THAT I DID NOT OR WOULD NOT EVER RUN INTO OR HIT ANYONE WITH MY CAR," he wrote, in all caps."

https://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/06/07/bakersfield-man-who-killed-black-protestor-with-his-car-didnt-fa.html

So Moore denied doing it intentionally. So maybe he was just a 'non-violent' neo-Nazi who ran down a black man at a protest to get away from a DUI checkpoint and was really some true "American hero" to those on the right. Well I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for that piece of shit white supremacist who "accidentally" ran over and killed a black man who was out protesting and trying to get the message across that black lives should matter. Apparently the message hasn't gotten through to those defending this piece of shit neo-Nazi.

"So why wasn’t he detained?"

Good question. Perhaps it's due to the long history of systemic racism. If he were black with a bunch of gang tattoos on his face and neck and had run down a white right wing conservative protester I have no doubt he would have been detained at least until witnesses had been interviewed and all the facts had been ascertained. Of course if those were the facts there would be numerous right wing conservatives even here screaming to the high heavens about how we should all be afraid of the 'angry black man' coming to kill white Americans.

Oh, and I notice how you provided no facts backing up your deflections and defense of these right wing agitators, nothing in response to the KNOWN right wing pieces of shit like Steven Carrillo. How telling.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.21  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.20    one month ago
lie about something I clearly didn't claim?

I guess you don't even know what you are claiming. 

You claimed, preposterously, "All but 1 (murders) have been attributed to right wing infiltrators."  When VIc asked you to justify such a blatant assault on the truth, you responded with links to events that didn't support your claim.  And  you still haven't even come close to proving that. 

So yes, calling a left wing protester, Daniel Lopez who murdered another protester, a right wing agitator, is dishonest.  Using events that preceded the riots or had nothing to do with the riots as evidence that murderers during the riots were committed by "right wing infiltrators" is dishonest. Claiming an arrest of a suspect for an incident where no one died  as evidence of right wing agitators killing people at protests is dishonest. Using an accident where a protester in the  road was killed by a driver without charges being filed as evidence of a "murder" is dishonest. 

And while deflecting with events that had nothing to do with the riots,  you ignored  the actual murders of Secoriea Turner and David Dorn that took place during the protests that were pointed out to you. Why don't you explain how those actual murderers were "right wing agitators".  For your point to be accurate, they both have to be. 

Your claim that all but one of the murders was committed by "right wing agitators" is simply bullshit of the highest order.  It's just left wing propaganda that can't withstand the slightest scrutiny. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.22  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2.21    one month ago
you responded with links to events that didn't support your claim

Only to right wing agitators and defenders of right wing extremists. If you hadn't half-assed your research you likely would have found them to all be accurate.

Daniel Lopez who murdered another protester, a right wing agitator, is dishonest.

First, it was Steven Lopez, so your ignorant uninformed deflection is noted. Second, the guy he murdered wasn't a "right wing agitator" but a BLM supporter. If I were you I'd be feeling pretty stupid by now, thankfully I'm not.

"Gerth had become a vocal supporter of ongoing protests against racism and police brutality and, his family said, a strong supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement."

"We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated," - DJT

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.22    one month ago
you hadn't half-assed your research you likely would have found them to all be accurate.

A smart, if dishonest, move to keep deflecting and address how your links don't even support your original falsehood. 

 was Steven Lopez, so your ignorant uninformed deflection is noted. S

That's they best you can do? I used the wrong first name and somehow that makes up for your blatantly  false characterization that Lopez is a right wing agitator?  I guess you know you've gotten caught spreading falsehoods and now have to avoid making an actual substantive argument altogether.  What's next? Are you going to claim your lies are true because I split an infinitive? 

econd, the guy he murdered wasn't a "right wing agitator" but a BLM supporter. 

Your attempts at deflection are really getting desperate. Just admit you can't support your obviously fictional wish casting rather than resorting to this pathetic display..  You understand, I hope, that the issue is the identity of the killer, not the victim.  Lopez was a known BLM protester, too.  Remember, you claimed the murderers  (except one) were all right wing agitators. So focus on the killers and try and defend the indefensible. Prove Lopez, and the killers of . 

We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated,

Given your  total inability to defend your post, I'm surprised you'd mock anyone for lacking education. Glass houses and all. 

But how do you feel about the poorly educated minorities who give Democrats huge margins? DO you hate them too? Or just white people who are poorly educated? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

This display of leftist anarchy, supposedly and mistakenly in support of racial justice, will hang like a millstone around the necks of the Democrat party, which collectively refuses to recognize and condemn the ongoing violence. The optics for the dumb Dems is awful.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3  Sparty On    one month ago
Is there anyone out there who wants to defend this radical book?

We’ll find out on November 3rd, or the weeks that follow because of the inevitable universal mail in ballot crisis that is coming.    

Brought you by TDS ridden liberals across the country.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @3    one month ago

You got it!

I don't think a lot of people realize what a crisis we will face on Nov 3rd.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    one month ago
I don't think a lot of people realize what a crisis we will face on Nov 3rd.

Insurance towards a possible win for them.    

I think those in the know have already figured out they are probably going to lose the election and will try anything to change that result.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.1    one month ago

They have plotted the scenarios. The Biden campaign has used a good deal of their $242 Million war chest to hire 650 lawyers to contest the results.

BTW the possible crisis could like this: 

"Indeed, the 20th Amendment says “the terms of the president and vice president shall end at noon” on January 20. Nothing could seem clearer. Yet the end of that paragraph provides that “the terms of their successors shall then begin.” But what if no successors have been elected? Does the president continue to serve as an interim officeholder? The answer is no because his or her term will definitely end at noon on January 20. If not reelected, the president becomes a private citizen on that day. So who then serves as president? The Constitution provides no solid answer."

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/493101-who-takes-control-if-there-is-no-presidential-election-this-year

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    one month ago

A real potential constitutional crisis no doubt ......

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.3    one month ago

And the dems don't care, the nation be damned. They'll do anything to beat Trump.


 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.5  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    one month ago

Thanks for this link, Vic. I belong to a few bipartisan social media groups, and this topic has come up before. All of the scenarios that McCarthy mentioned have been discussed, but as he said, none of them are, by law, in the Constitution.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.5    one month ago

Correct. The discredited Atlantic once had an article many decades ago claiming the decision would/should go to the incoming House should the election be a squeaker. Could anyone imagine how that would go down in this era?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.7  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    one month ago
They'll do anything to beat Trump.

Other than the Biden/Bernie Manifesto, that seems to be the Democrats' only other platform so far.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.7    one month ago

The sad part for them is covering for Biden. Did you hear him in Michigan?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.8    one month ago

Biden read stats about Michigan and interpreted them as Military because his handlers wrote "MI" on his notes (the abbreviation for the state Michigan).    This is particularly bad because Biden was speaking in Warren, MI.

This is exactly the kind of sloppy mistake Biden, in particular, must avoid.   He should have known what those notes meant before presenting them to the public.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.9    one month ago

You think he would have realized it as he was reading them. He reads what is put in front of him and as the Trump campaign loves to point out - he uses a teleprompter at interviews and Q&A sessions.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.11  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.8    one month ago

It's painful to watch Biden try to string numbers and/or words together. This has gone beyond mere gaffes which have been a part of his history for decades. I'm not a physician, but even a layperson like me can see that there's something very wrong with Joe Biden's mental acuity.

By the way ... what does one thousand, one hundred thousand (approx) even mean? How is that numerically written?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.12  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.8    one month ago

Vic,

According to Military Times, as of July 30, here were the stats:

As of Wednesday, more than 26,000 service members have contracted COVID-19, and more than 14,000 of those cases are still active.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/07/30/the-military-is-seeing-a-higher-covid-19-infection-rate-in-young-people-officials-explain-why/

So both Biden and Bill have gotten it wrong.

Also worth noting that the Military is saying that they are getting infected at twice the rate of civillian populations. 

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/07/10/militarys-covid-19-cases-growing-at-twice-the-nationwide-rate/

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.13  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.11    one month ago
By the way ... what does one thousand, one hundred thousand (approx) even mean? How is that numerically written?

It is confusing, but you would have thought that when Biden said those words he might have thought OMG almost the entire military is infected!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.9    one month ago

Get back to me when Biden tells everyone that disinfectants should be used internally to treat coronavirus, or that people should take drugs that medical professionals tell everyone are not suitable for that purpose. [DELETED]

There is no "choice" in this election. [DELETED] the other candidate is Joe Biden. 

There is no "choice", and you should stop suggesting that there is [DELETED]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.15  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.12    one month ago
So both Biden and Bill have gotten it wrong.

That's ok for Bill, he's not running for president.


Also worth noting that the Military is saying that they are getting infected at twice the rate of civillian populations. 

Not surprising. The military is an active concentrated force.


So we can assume then that you can't defend Joe Biden?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    one month ago

20th amendment section 3 :

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified .

I suspect this would provide sufficient guidance for how to proceed if the nation has no president, vice-president, president-elect or vice-president-elect.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.17  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.7    one month ago
Other than the Biden/Bernie Manifesto, that seems to be the Democrats' only other platform so far.

Biden has nada to do with Bernie and nice use of Manifesto. You do realize that disinformation like that is part of the "Manifesto". Joe Biden's platform (not Manifesto), can be found here: https://joebiden.com/

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.15    one month ago

No, it is not OK for Bill. Bill's followers believe what he says and he just did his own disinformation. 

So we can assume then that you can't defend Joe Biden?

I think that Tig explained that. Everyone makes gaffs like that, including me. I did a beauty the other night and I have no mental issues.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.19  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.16    one month ago

The way I read that is that Congress needs to pass a law for the odd circumstances of ballots yet to be counted beyond inauguration day or a contested presidential election. Thus far I don't see the legislation. The Atlantic, as I mentioned interpreted all that to mean the House, which in 2020 is laughable!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.20  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.18    one month ago
Everyone makes gaffs like that

Perrie, I'm going to let that statement stand, unless you would like to amend it?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.21  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.20    one month ago

Huh? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.22  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.21    one month ago

Your claim that everyone makes gaffes like Biden....Are you sure you want to say that?

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
3.1.23  Release The Kraken  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.21    one month ago

Don't make me moderate this seed with my Kraken powers!

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.14    one month ago
Get back to me when ...

Don't deflect from facts John.   Face them and deal with them honestly.   Biden clearly mistook 'MI' to mean military instead of Michigan.   That is a sloppy mistake that plays into the single biggest campaign allegation against Biden — mental acuity.   So if he and his campaign do not do a better job of preparation (avoiding easily avoided errors) this will seriously affect his chance of being elected.   

I could name a thousand other stupid or false things Trump says on a daily basis, which we never see you name, but why waste that time on this seed. 

And you making this personal is mistake number two.   First, this is not my seed;  I merely made a comment.    Second, you present an allegation that reads as though I am never critical of Trump.   It is as though you ignore comments made by me against Trump and only recognize comments disfavorable to Biden.   I suggest you correct this.

... or you will be one of those complicit if he gets re-elected. 

Again, JR, it is pointless to lie and hide from the truth.   If Biden is not elected it will be a result of Biden and his campaign blowing it.   My comments on NT will remain analytical and honest regardless of my personal preferences.    I use NT as a forum for debate and discussion.   I do not have the ridiculous notion that expressing an extremely biased and thus distorted version of reality on a social forum is going to make any difference in the election.

When Biden fucks up, deal with it.

Get a grip.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
3.1.25  Release The Kraken  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.24    one month ago
When Biden fucks up, deal with it.

You are asking the impossible. If it happens ever I will never seed another trolling piece of click bait again.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.26  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.22    one month ago

Yes I do. What do you call what Bill just did? Wait, that was not a gaff. That was done on purpose so let's just call it disinformation. Any further proof I can't provide since I am limited by your rules. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.27  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Release The Kraken @3.1.23    one month ago

I prefer someone other than I moderate this one.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.1.28  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.24    one month ago
That is a sloppy mistake that plays into the single biggest campaign allegation against Biden — mental acuity. 

"sloppy joe

:)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.29  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.27    one month ago
Yes I do.

Ok, your'e on record. I was just thinking of you.


What do you call what Bill just did? Wait, that was not a gaff. That was done on purpose. 

You know Perrie, I kind of let you off easy there. Your link was from mid July, Bill most likely had the current numbers. I favored you over a bully, albeit a necessary bully. You should have at least given me a wink.


Any further proof I can't provide since I am limited by your rules. 

A recent (September) total of the military infection rate would be much appreciated.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.30  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.19    one month ago
The way I read that is that Congress needs to pass a law for the odd circumstances of ballots yet to be counted beyond inauguration day or a contested presidential election. Thus far I don't see the legislation. The Atlantic , as I mentioned interpreted all that to mean the House, which in 2020 is laughable!

Not sure what you are reading, but if we do not have a president-elect or vice-president-elect by inauguration day, then Trump and Pence are out of office and, per the 20 th section 3, the Congress will have to decide who will temporarily act as PotUS:

... and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified , declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Given the CotUS is often vague when applied to situations, this case is relatively clear.   I doubt there would be much difficulty in citing this as justification for the Congress to appoint a temporary PotUS.

Another possibility is to cite the order of succession which would then make the Speaker of the House acting PotUS.   Acting President Pelosi  jrSmiley_85_smiley_image.gif   (assuming the House remains D and continues to vote her in as Speaker).  

They would figure it out and in a manner that will be in-line with the CotUS.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.31  Jasper2529  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.17    one month ago
Biden has nada to do with Bernie  

Au contraire, Perrie.

From left-wing NPR:

A joint effort by former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders to unify Democrats around Biden's candidacy has produced a 110-page policy wish list to recommend to the party's presumptive presidential nominee.

Throughout the Democratic primary, Biden stuck to a more moderate platform, while Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and much of the rest of the crowded field courted progressives and advocated for broader structural changes. But as the United States faces a growing pandemic and unemployment rates at the highest levels in generations, Biden has been talking more and more about a presidency that approaches Franklin Delano Roosevelt's, with bold progressive ambitions.

The policy document — the work of six joint task forces  appointed  by Biden and Sanders in May — would give the former vice president a road map to that goal.

"The goals of the task force were to move the Biden campaign into as progressive a direction as possible, and I think we did that," Sanders told NPR. 

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/889189235/democratic-task-forces-deliver-biden-a-blueprint-for-a-progressive-presidency

and nice use of Manifesto.

It's a very simple word, Perrie.

Definition of   manifesto

 (Entry 1 of 2)
:   a written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its issuer
Have a great weekend!
 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.32  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.29    one month ago
You know Perrie, I kind of let you off easy there. Your link was from mid July, Bill most likely had the current numbers. I favored you over a bully, albeit a necessary bully. You should have at least given me a wink.

Yes, I know my link was from July, since that was the last issue I could find. It still has far more infected than Bill said. I'll still give you a wink.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.33  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.30    one month ago

TiG, I have heard something similar. Iv'e even heard that the current president would temporarily become Speaker (supposedly, there is a statute out there somewhere), however I don't see any of that happening. The current politics would force the SCOTUS to clarify the law (which is the most important part of it's function) in what would clearly lead to a kind of civil war if any of what you described were to play.

Please note the one item I ruled as off topic in Post # 1. I'm sure we can navigate all this without the need to go there.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.34  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.32    one month ago

Far more?  I thought he said approx 40,000 infections?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.35  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.24    one month ago

You don't get it. You are enabling people that would destroy this country in their idolatry of the worst president in US history. This is an emergency, not the time to make sure you are "fair" in your analysis of Biden's gaffes. 

I seeded a video where people recite 113 reasons Trump needs to be defeated. There is hardly an exaggeration in there, and the weight of the evidence is overwhelming that Trump must be removed. Its overwhelming. Your efforts on this forum are usually to latch on to Bidens gaffes and thus set it up as a "choice" the voters need to make. As I just said in a comment on another seed, there is no "choice" in this election unless there is something wrong with you the voter. 

The election is in a few weeks. There is no choice, Biden is perfectly fit for office and Trump is not remotely fit. I dont care if Biden mangles some numbers he is reading . It is insignificant. There is more than enough evidence from other interviews that his mind is fine. Trumps mind is completely corrupt. Completely , and he is mentally ill.  There is no reasonable "choice" in this election and you should stop acting as if there is. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.33    one month ago
Please note the one item I ruled as off topic in Post # 1.

You mean this?:

Vic @1Trump and his supporters are off topic

Where do you see me talking about Trump?   Because I named him and Pence as no longer being in office??:

TiG @3.1.30Not sure what you are reading, but if we do not have a president-elect or vice-president-elect by inauguration day, then Trump and Pence are out of office and, per the 20 th section 3, the Congress will have to decide who will temporarily act as PotUS:

You do not recognize that as part of the factual basis for the point I was making about who would be acting PotUS??   Are we to interpret your rule as 'do not type the word Trump in your comments'?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.37  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.36    one month ago
Where do you see me talking about Trump?   Because I named him and Pence as no longer being in office??:

No, no, no....I just want to make sure you understood. After all I already had to correct someone. I didn't want to inadvertently stray in that direction.


You do not recognize that as part of the factual basis for the point I was making about who would be acting PotUS?? 

I do recognize it. Do you understand what would happen in this country if such a thing were to actually happen?  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.38  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.31    one month ago

Kind of missed this part:

Biden's campaign has yet to publicly commit to doing anything other than "reviewing" the recommendations.

As for the word "Manifesto", everyone knows that the term is tied to communism. 

Language matters. 

Have a good day.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.39  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.35    one month ago
You don't get it. You are enabling people that would destroy this country in their idolatry of the worst president in US history.

You are the one illustrating a bizarrely warped sense of reality.   I am not enabling anybody by honestly recognizing that Biden should have read and understood that note before publicly reading it.   I am not enabling anybody by noting that the biggest attack on Biden is on mental acuity so avoidable mistakes like this should be avoided.

Your irrational, emotional response to me honestly accepting a fact and commenting on the importance of Biden not making avoidable mistakes like this is what would 'enable' people to stick with Trump as they categorically dismiss everything offered (including the valid criticisms) of those who refuse to objectively deal with the facts and argue a skewed version of reality as fact.

This is an emergency, not the time to make sure you are "fair" in your analysis of Biden's gaffes. 

Again, John, no matter what you or I write, the election will proceed unaffected.

I seeded a video where people recite 113 reasons Trump needs to be defeated.

Did you see me defend Trump on any of those points?   Note that many were repeats and some of them were unsubstantiated.   I could have taken the time to do that since I did watch most of the video before getting bored.  

I dont care if Biden mangles some numbers he is reading . It is insignificant. There is more than enough evidence from other interviews that his mind is fine. Trumps mind is completely corrupt. Completely , and he is mentally ill. 

You do not get it.   My comment was a criticism of how Biden and his campaign are operating.   Real simple:  my concern was not that Biden is mentally ill but rather that he could have easily avoided yet another mistake by spending 60 seconds reviewing the note before reading it.   Just 60 seconds to know those stats for 'MI' were for Michigan and not the military and to understand the ultimate point he was trying to express to the public.

If your biggest liability as a candidate for PotUS is an allegation of cognitive decline, the most important thing for you to do is to not make mental mistakes.   Take special precautions to minimize such mistakes.   Here, in this case, it would have been easy.   It is a procedural failure on the part of Biden and his campaign.

See?   Get it?

There is no reasonable "choice" in this election and you should stop acting as if there is. 

Good grief man, could you be more offensive and presumptive?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.40  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.34    one month ago

I believe 40,000 is still more than 26,000, which might just mean O'Reilly has the most recent totals..

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.41  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.37    one month ago
I just want to make sure you understood.

Then I would have expected you to warn everyone on this seed.    You understand my surprise, right?   Clearly I was not in any way talking about Trump and my comments in no way even hinted that I was about to speak of Trump.

Do you understand what would happen in this country if such a thing were to actually happen?  

Sure, the nation would freak out if we could not determine the elected PotUS by inauguration day.   I thought we were talking about how the acting PotUS would be selected.   Talking about the emotional reaction of the public is a different matter entirely.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.42  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.41    one month ago
Clearly I was not in any way talking about Trump and my comments in no way even hinted that I was about to speak of Trump.

I didn't know where you were going (That's twice!) and as you can see some here are determined to violate & disregard my stated lone off topic item in Post # 1. Did you comprehend what I told you?


Sure, the nation would freak out if we could not determine the elected PotUS by inauguration day. 

Yes that's only crisis # 1


 I thought we were talking about how the acting PotUS would be selected.  

We were and if anyone thinks that much of the country is going to allow Pelosi and the House appoint themselves or select Biden as president - they are completely out of their minds. That would be crisis # 2.

If it comes right down to it, I expect the SCOTUS to intervene.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.43  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.39    one month ago

First of all, let's dispense with the idea that nothing anyone says in public could effect the election.  I understand quite well that the number of people that read this particular article , or any article on NT, is very small.  Just like everyones vote on election day is individually small. You say what difference does what is said on an internet forum make. OK, what difference does your vote make? Since it makes no difference on its own, why vote? 

In 2016 someone on this forum posted numerous fake news articles about Hillary Clinton, often with the suggestion that she was dying or was too ill to serve as president. The person that seeded them did not identify them as satire, they were posted as straight news and thus were "fake news".  He was alone on NT but he was not alone on the internet. Thousands of people seeded such fake news on whatever forums or social media they took part in. Fake news had a huge implication in the election on Facebook. Someone did a study on it after the election. The effect of the one person on NT posting fake news about Clinton was that it became part of a larger whole that did effect the election. Many people voted against Clinton partially on the basis that she was too ill to serve for four years. 

I'm not going to rehash what I said in an earlier comment, I stand by all of it.  We have an emergency in this country. And taking an "above it all " stance is not going to help anything. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.44  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.43    one month ago
Then I would have expected you to warn everyone on this seed.

When did NT begin?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.45  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.42    one month ago
Did you comprehend what I told you?

I comprehend that you are not going to acknowledge my point that the mere mention of the word 'Trump' in the phrase 'then Trump and Pence are out of office' within a single statement of fact in a comment pondering who would determine the acting PotUS is not in any way, shape or form talking about Trump.  

Let's move on.

We were and if anyone thinks that much of the country is going to allow Pelosi and the House appoint themselves or select Biden as president - they are completely out of their minds. That would be crisis # 2.

Okay, so you want to end the constitutional discussion and move to public reaction.   If Congress appoints an acting PotUS by following the CotUS the people will accept that as an interim measure and then continue to be outraged that the election has not been decided.

If Congress goes extra-constitutional and does something like appoint Biden PotUS (or even acting PotUS), the people will and should raise a fit.

If it comes right down to it, I expect the SCOTUS to intervene.

In every case, the SCotUS will be involved to serve as the constitutional guide for how the nation is to proceed.   The SCotUS will, for example, determine if the Speaker simply assumes the duties of acting PotUS or if Congress will on its own determine who is the acting PotUS.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
3.1.46  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.35    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
3.1.47  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.42    one month ago

 Vic, if any mention of Trump is verboten, then you violated your own rule at your comment @3.1.4

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.48  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.44    one month ago

quite a while ago. what is your point? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.49  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.40    one month ago

Vic,

I relistened to the video and he did say 40,000 infected. Bill on the other hand knows exactly how Biden got those numbers (as per Tig's explanation) and as I said, I could provide other gaffs from other people, but I am trying to be respectful here. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.50  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.47    one month ago

If you read my discussion on the matter with TiG, you will notice that I have no problem with the mere mention of his name. The issue comes in with the regular rants we commonly see around here. You can acknowledge that he is the President.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.51  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.48    one month ago

My point is that during the 2016 election, I seem to recall many of us still being on NV.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.52  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.43    one month ago

Well then, everyone who happens to come across my comment will read an observation that Biden likely mistook 'MI' for military.   They will also read that this is , IMO, a result of being sloppy.   This mistake was easily avoided by 60 seconds of review.  

So, given Biden's primary liability is the allegation of cognitive decline, he and his campaign should be extra careful to avoid making easily avoidable mistakes like this.

Now, let's turn to your comments.   Instead of honestly accepting the facts and giving a rational response, you jumped down my throat because I did not deny or try to spin what actually happened.   Seems to me that is fodder for all those unknown readers to conclude 'yeah, you cannot go by what Biden supporters say, they will spin Biden positive no matter what'.    So if you are trying to appeal to these readers I submit that your emotive, irrational reaction to an honest criticism of campaign sloppiness by me would encourage them to dismiss your collective opinions as blindly irrational.    If you want people to listen to what you have to say, you must at least have some grounding in reality.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.53  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.49    one month ago
I relistened to the video and he did say 40,000 infected.

Thank you. And you realize that Bill's 40,000 number is greater than your July 26,000 total. So can we assume that Bill is reading from the most recent totals?

Feel free to apologize to Bill. He doesn't always carry grudge!


I could provide other gaffs from other people, but I am trying to be respectful here. 

I appreciate the respect. The stipulation in Post #  1 benefits you too, though you may not know why.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.54  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.51    one month ago

and?   Newstalkers was started in either 2010 or 2011.  I think 2010. I was asked to join at the end of 2011 and I did.  Just because you werent here in 2016 doesnt mean someone didnt post fake news here. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.55  Jasper2529  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.38    one month ago
Kind of missed this part:

I didn't miss anything, but it seems that you missed the fact that the NPR link was published on July 8, 2020 - over 2 months ago. Anyone paying attention knows that a lot has changed since then and it's forced Biden to move further to the left.

As for the word " Manifesto", everyone knows that the term is tied to communism. 

That is a myopic definition for "everyone" (whoever they are). A manifesto can refer to art, corporations, religion, literature, or politics.

By universal definition, even the Declaration of Independence is considered a manifesto. Is this document tied to communism? NO.

Language matters. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto

https://www.britannica.com/topic/manifesto

Yes. Case closed.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.56  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.54    one month ago

gee, what did you post about pre-Trump?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.57  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.54    one month ago

2011 was my first year on Newsvine. I can remember, in 2016, commenting on the RNC primaries with NV members who seem to be gone. I don't know when NV ended, but that's when I came here. I never knew these two sites co-existed?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.58  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.54    one month ago
Just because you werent here in 2016 doesnt mean someone didnt post fake news here. 

You were here, right?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.59  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.55    one month ago
Anyone paying attention knows that a lot has changed since then and it's forced Biden to move further to the left.

Prove that. HIs site says no.

That is a myopic definition for "everyone" (whoever they are). A manifesto can refer to art, corporations, religion, literature, or politics.

Ummmm.. OK if you say so. So do you use that term for our current administration?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.60  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.58    one month ago

Of course. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.61  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.57    one month ago

I was on Newsvine from 2007 to 2011, when I was asked to leave, lol.  Perrie was looking for members and she asked me to come here, as she asked many other people.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.62  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.60    one month ago

See, I can play the game too.

When I close this I will go over each comment.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.63  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.61    one month ago
I was on Newsvine from 2007 to 2011, when I was asked to leave, lol. 

Why would they do that?  (NV was openly left leaning!)


Perrie was looking for members and she asked me to come here, as she asked many other people.  

She never even gave me a glance!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.64  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.45    one month ago
If Congress appoints an acting PotUS by following the CotUS the people will accept that as an interim measure and then continue to be outraged that the election has not been decided.

You really believe the people will accept that?

Tell me, whom do you think the House will appoint?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.65  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.62    one month ago

I have no idea what you are talking about. Not that I care. 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
3.1.66  Release The Kraken  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.65    one month ago
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Now I am starting to see why you support Biden. He doesn't know what anyone is talking about either.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.67  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.65    one month ago
Just because you werent here in 2016 doesnt mean someone didnt post fake news here. 

I'm talking about this:

Just because you werent here in 2016 doesnt mean someone didnt post fake news here. 

I'm letting it go for now - just to see what happens.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.68  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.67    one month ago

Uh, it doesnt matter what you say one way or the other. Someone posted fake news here during the election in 2016. Why you think that involves your presence here is above my pay grade. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.69  Jasper2529  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.59    one month ago
Ummmm.. OK if you say so.

I've provided definitions of "manifesto" from several reputable sites. You are certainly free to disagree with experts at Merriam-Webster and Britannica if you wish. 

So do you use that term for our current administration?

I won't fall for that off-topic bait. Please see comment 1.

Good-bye.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.70  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.64    one month ago

Yes, the people will accept someone chosen with constitutional justification to serve as an interim PotUS until the election is decided.   As I wrote, they will be pissed that the election is undecided, not that interim measures are taken.

Congress includes the House and the Senate.   If only the House picked then the interim PotUS would likely be their choice for Speaker.   But it is not the House’s choice; it is Congress that must agree.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.1.71  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.70    one month ago

little addendum TG , the house gets to chose the interim President until the election is decided , It is the SENATE that chooses the  Interim Vice President, not many know that .

Me thinks this can get very very interesting to watch. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.72  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.71    one month ago

We are not talking about breaking ties, we are discussing what would happen if the results of the election are undecided by inauguration day.

So, in the case of dealing with an undecided election, we have this:

TiG @3.1.16 ☞ 20th amendment section 3 : If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified .

 
 
 
MonsterMash
3.1.73  MonsterMash  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.61    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.1.74  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.72    one month ago

Thats just it Tg , with the way things are run now ( ticket system  of both president and VP) , if there is no clear winner for president , there also is no clear winner of the VP slot so that provision is shot to hell ,  so it goes back to in an undecided election that the house chooses who will serve as president , and the senate chooses whom will serve as VP until a clear winner is decided .

 so depending on how the house shapes up after the election and whom is chosen as speaker is important , just as it is important for the shape up of the senate , because they will both possably have to make some very interesting choices , 

 One of the interesting things to see if it happens is a temp president of one party , with a temp VP of the opposite party, some thing that hasnt happened in this country in a very long time .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.1.75  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.74    one month ago

Now if we voted for president and vp seperately, and not as a ticket , i would have been voting a split ticket for both those offices just to screw with the parties for the past 40 years , but your vote for prez is also a vote for their running mate as VP.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.1.76  Jasper2529  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.72    one month ago
and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified .

As Vic pointed out in a link, the qualifying "Interim" or "Acting" POTUS could be either the House Speaker OR the Senate's president pro tempore. Nancy Pelosi is up for reelection and Sen. Chuck Grassley is not. If Pelosi loses, Grassley would become "acting" POTUS ... or, as you and others have termed it "interim" POTUS.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/493101-who-takes-control-if-there-is-no-presidential-election-this-year

Although our 18th century Founding Fathers were sometimes devious politicians, there was no way for them to be able to think like 21st century devious politicians, and that's why the US Constitution doesn't address this specific issue - it has never happened.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.77  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.74    one month ago
so it goes back to in an undecided election that the house chooses who will serve as president , and the senate chooses whom will serve as VP until a clear winner is decided .

Did you read the 20th amendment section 3 I quoted?   That language is far more suited to an undecided election (not all the votes counted) versus a tie.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.1.78  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.76    one month ago

Another little tidbit jasper , back in 2018 , in order for pelosi to garner enough votes to become speaker again , a deal had to be struck, and that deal was she would only serve this one term as speaker , interesting to see if that deal holds within the dem party, either way whomever wins the house , a new speaker has to be voted on again before the inaguration . so if the dems win pelosi COULD be speaker again , but she has to face a vote to gain the position again within the house .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.1.79  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.77    one month ago

i read it , and in the case neither candidate gets the clear majority of votes in the EC , the house votes to choose the president , not the ticket , in the case there is no clear majority in the EC for VP , it is the Senate whom votes to choose whom will serve as VP, even in the interim , while all votes are being counted , thats what they will be voting on , so if the vote tally isnt in within 41 days from the election , the house and senate will choose who will take those spots temporarily and that is within their power to do so that early.  they do not have to wait for inaguration day , though they likely will wait until the new congress is seated  which might give congress about a week.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.80  TᵢG  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.76    one month ago
As Vic pointed out in a link, the qualifying "Interim" or "Acting" POTUS could be either the House Speaker OR the Senate's president pro tempore. Nancy Pelosi is up for reelection and Sen. Chuck Grassley is not. If Pelosi loses, Grassley would become "acting" POTUS ... or, as you and others have termed it "interim" POTUS.

As I pointed in with the 20th amendment section 3, there are no imposed restrictions on Congress for whom they could decide to serve as the acting PotUS:

TiG @ 3.1.16 ☞ 20th amendment section 3 : If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified .

Read what is in blue above.   There is no restriction that the acting PotUS be chosed per the order of succession.  The acting PotUS would be an interim president.  

Also note what I wrote upfront:

TiG @ 3.1.30 Another possibility is to cite the order of succession which would then make the Speaker of the House acting PotUS .   Acting President Pelosi  jrSmiley_85_smiley_image.gif   (assuming the House remains D and continues to vote her in as Speaker).  

There are a few constitutional paths that can be taken.   The order of succession was intended to fill the slot of an existing term, not to serve as a temporary placeholder until the PotUS is elected.   In the hypothetical under discussion, there is no existing term; there is no president.   The election is temporarily undecided and not due to a tie .   Thus, I think we would end up following the 20th amendment since that to me is closest to the situation under discussion.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
3.1.81  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @3.1.80    one month ago

so the house could choose mickey mouse , and the senate could choose goofy as VP.

works for me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.82  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.79    one month ago
iread it , and in the case neither candidate gets the clear majority of votes in the EC

Then you are talking about the case of a contingent election.   Given only two candidates are running (in effect), the hypothetical you are addressing (which is different from what we have been discussing) is the case where neither Biden nor Trump achieves a majority of the electoral votes.    The only way this could occur (seems to me) is through a massive defection of electors who refuse to cast their votes for either candidate and thus neither reach 270.   (Note that not all states even allow this to occur.)

I would say that a contingent election is next to impossible for 2020.   Either Biden or Trump will get the majority or there will be a tie.   If there is a tie, (the hypothetical that you seem to want to discuss) then we are indeed talking about the House picking the PotUS and the Senate picking the VP.

However, if we were to discuss the hypothetical in question:   an election whose results have not yet been decided by inauguration day, then we are not talking about breaking a tie but rather picking the individual who will serve as acting PotUS until the election is decided.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.83  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.70    one month ago

I'm glad you cleared up the Constitutional question for us. I am copying this article for the Book Group Archives. We may have to revisit this in a month and a half.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.84  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @3.1.81    one month ago
so the house could choose mickey mouse , and the senate could choose goofy as VP.

That is not even close to what I wrote.   The House could, per the 20th, select any qualified candidate.   So they could, for example, pick Andrew 'Dice' Clay for acting PotUS.   If the Senate agrees, then Andrew 'Dice' Clay would serve as acting PotUS until the election results were finally decided.

Congress = House + Senate.

And in the case of a tie or a contingent election where neither candidate achieves a majority of electoral votes, the House would have to pick a living human being who meets the qualifications for president, same with the Senate in their choice of V.P.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.85  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.83    one month ago
I'm glad you cleared up the Constitutional question for us.

In response to unnecessary sarcasm:  I did not attempt to provide THE definitive answer.   I offered the constitutional options that seem to be available and gave my opinion on why I think this would fall to the 20th.   I think I backed up my opinion with quotes and rationale.

Do you have a problem with me offering an opinion and providing a supporting argument?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.86  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.85    one month ago
In response to unnecessary sarcasm:

Did you see an S after my comments?

I think your'e getting a little paranoid.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.87  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.86    one month ago

A sarc tag is not necessary to make a sarcastic comment.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.88  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.87    one month ago

Around here it is. I wasn't being sarcastic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.89  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.88    one month ago

Okay Vic, then thank you for deeming me enough of a constitutional scholar to be capable of clearing up a constitutional question to your (and apparently others for whom you speak) satisfaction.   I do not accept such high praise given I am not a constitutional scholar but I am pleased that you have found my arguments persuasive.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.90  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.89    one month ago

I found that little discussion useful because, as you know, we could be faced with it.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
4  Release The Kraken    one month ago

Suburban and rural America has a very different opinion of the rioter and looter and a dramatic solution that will permanently disable the movement.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Release The Kraken @4    one month ago

The rioters have nobody controlling them. The dems wish they could apply the brakes now going into the election.

Like Dr Frankenstein they are left trying to reason with the monster.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    one month ago

Interestingly, I saw a report yesterday that many of the rioters/looters are spoiled rich white kids.     Probably programmed to riot in rich kid schools, programmed to hate their own privilege.

Academia is completely out of touch with most of America.    Completely ....

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.1    one month ago

I think that really depends on the school you go to and the program that you chose. My girls didn't come out as radicals, but then again, they are in the sciences.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.1    one month ago

I saw it too. Many of them are affluent progressives.


 Probably programmed to riot in rich kid schools, programmed to hate their own privilege.

Isn't it strange that they take full advantage of the system they hate.  They don't like being caught or punished for these crimes though.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.2    one month ago

I went to a technical school.    It wasn’t as prevalent as today but it was around.   
Some people are just more susceptible to that sort of thing imo.      You probably taught your kids like we did, to think for themselves and not be manipulated by this sort of thing.

Good for you!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Release The Kraken @4    one month ago
Suburban and rural America has a very different opinion of the rioter and looter and a dramatic solution that will permanently disable the movement.

This is true in both Blue and Red states.

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.3  Kathleen  replied to  Release The Kraken @4    one month ago

That’s why I am glad where I live. We have none of that shit. I know many where I live would not stand for it.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
4.3.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kathleen @4.3    one month ago

256

 
 
 
Kathleen
4.3.2  Kathleen  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @4.3.1    one month ago

I happen to live in a nice area with a lot of retirees and a resort community. It is rated high in safety for the state. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.4  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Release The Kraken @4    one month ago

I think the majority of people anywhere don't like it. I know they don't in NYC. 

 
 
 
TrumpFanOne
4.4.1  TrumpFanOne  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.4    one month ago
I know they don't in NYC. 

But they're not doing shit about it now are they?   

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    one month ago

There's some good stuff in The Atlantic review that Goldberg left out:

(Easily my favorite line in the book was written not by the author but by her publisher, right under the copyright notice: “The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book without permission is a theft of the author’s intellectual property,” it says. “Thank you for your support of the author’s rights.”)

So, property rights for me, but not for thee, I guess.

Osterweil euphemizes looting as “proletarian shopping,”

Maybe we should go over to the author's house and start looting. She won't mind, right? We're just going proletarian shopping.

The consensus, especially among Donald Trump supporters, seems to be that NPR must be beyond salvage if it uncritically distributes sophomoric agitprop. (A sample question: “A lot of people who consider themselves radical or progressive criticize looting. Why is this so common?” I might have led with: “What do you think will do more for your community—a store that employs six people, or in that same location, a pile of bricks and broken glass?”)

I would not say not just Trump supporters. How about anyone with common sense? Sometimes NPR has a rep for taking the most lunatic, insane ideas and treating them seriously and with respect, so as to seemingly endorse madness. This interview was a good example of that.

The white guilt is strong with this one I think. She doesn't even like peaceful black people.

The “I Have a Dream” speech was, Osterweil writes, “the product of a series of sellouts and silencings, of nonviolent leaders dampening the militancy of the grass roots” and “sapping the movement’s energy.” More to her taste is Robert F. Williams, who practiced armed resistance, and Assata Shakur, who murdered a New Jersey police officer and remains a fugitive in Cuba. The violence needn’t be in self-defense—Shakur’s certainly was not. Osterweil quotes the “wisdom” of Stokely Carmichael: “Responsibility for the use of violence by black men, whether in self-defense  or initiated by them   [emphasis mine], lies with the white community.”

By the way, The New Yorker also interviewed her and did ask some tougher questions, though they gave her a pass on some of the more absurd answers. Here's one she basically ignored or failed to get:

Should I throw in a link to your book in the intro, or do you want to encourage people to go take it for free from their local bookstore?
You can include a link if you like. No problem. People should support their local bookstores. If they go to   bookshop.org , they’ll support local bookstores that way. I just want people to read it. That’s what I want people to know. I want them to read it, however they get it.

Oh and I'm just going to leave this here. The author:

VickyOsterweil.jpg?fit=1463%2C2194

 
 
 
TrumpFanOne
5.1  TrumpFanOne  replied to  Tacos! @5    one month ago

Not much more needs to be said about her (DAMN she sure looks a lot like Manning) than her own self description:

Osterweil is a self-described writer, editor and agitator who has been writing about and participating in protests for years. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2020/08/27/906642178/one-authors-argument-in-defense-of-looting
 
 
 
Release The Kraken
5.2  Release The Kraken  replied to  Tacos! @5    one month ago

WTF, that is hideous!

 
 
 
MonsterMash
5.3  MonsterMash  replied to  Tacos! @5    one month ago

Looks like a guy in drag,

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @5    one month ago
Probably programmed to riot in rich kid schools, programmed to hate their own privilege.

I'm not sure if that explains her book, but it appears we finally got around to the author.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
6  Release The Kraken    one month ago

512

William decided he wanted to be a fat girl instead of a fat guy. ROFL

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Release The Kraken @6    one month ago

Enough! I think you've driven my lunch back up into my throat!

 
 
 
Sparty On
7  Sparty On    one month ago

Scot with one “t,” his dad I assume, looks tired.    Real tired ....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @7    one month ago

It's hard to tell who's who or what's what.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Two excellent reviews from Jonah Goldberg and Bill Maher. Not much of a defense for the idea of legitimizing violence. Thus, as I close this one down for the night I have to give out a slice of praise to SeanTracy. Well done sir on vigorously vetting the claim of "right wing violence."  It almost got by the best of us! Perrie was very gracious in owning up to a few mistakes. I'll try and relay the apology to Mr O'Reilly. We did go off onto other things, but they were worthy of conversation. The Constitution clearly is an important topic right now. Other than that most held there own on this particular go-round.

The Book Group needs a Group Moderator. Today we were some what lacking.

Good night.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Tessylo


36 visitors