The Enemy
drummerboy said:
terp said:
So, what is the problem with Tulsi Gabbard's comments again?
And her attempt to diminish the role of the rioters is kind of disconcerting, especially as more and more evidence comes out with each passing day. What was her point in making that distinction?
classic whataboutism
drummerboy said:
terp said:
So, what is the problem with Tulsi Gabbard's comments again?
First of all, why is Adam Schiff in her list?
Secondly, though I know how everyone hates Brennan, in the clip what exactly did he say that is causing a constitutional crisis? Why is that clip even there?
And her attempt to diminish the role of the rioters is kind of disconcerting, especially as more and more evidence comes out with each passing day. What was her point in making that distinction?
My biggest problem with her statement was that it had little point and was unsubstantial.
The Brennan clip is disconcerting because he seems to be going after people for thought crimes. He is saying that you should be fearful of these people.
Gabbard is warning against some kind of patriot act type legislation that would specifically target American citizens. While the patriot act didn't specifically target American citizens, we all know what happened there.
And she did condemn the rioters for all the "whataboutism" criers out there.
If they look at us as the enemy, maybe we should do the same.
=======================================================
The mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol may have been a fringe group of extremists, but politically motivated violence has the support of a significant share of the U.S. public, according to a new survey by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
The survey found that nearly three in 10 Americans, including 39% of Republicans, agreed that, "If elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions."
That result was "a really dramatic finding," says Daniel Cox, director of the AEI Survey Center on American Life. "I think any time you have a significant number of the public saying use of force can be justified in our political system, that's pretty scary."
The survey found stark divisions between Republicans and Democrats on the 2020 presidential election, with two out of three Republicans saying President Biden was not legitimately elected, while 98% of Democrats and 73% of Independents acknowledged Biden's victory.
The level of distrust among Republicans evident in the survey was such that about eight in 10 said the current political system is "stacked against conservatives and people with traditional values." A majority agreed with the statement, "The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it."
The survey found that nearly three in 10 Americans, including 39% of Republicans, agreed that, "If elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions." [17% of Democrats, 31% of independents, +/- 2.7 points.]
The level of distrust among Republicans evident in the survey was such that about eight in 10 said the current political system is "stacked against conservatives and people with traditional values." [27% Democrats, 46% independents.]
A majority agreed with the statement, "The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it." [55% Republicans, 22% Democrats, 35% independents.]
The full results (though no link to the tabular data):
drummerboy said:
If they look at us as the enemy, maybe we should do the same.
=======================================================
The survey found that nearly three in 10 Americans, including 39% of Republicans, agreed that, "If elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions."
What do those responding mean?
If the Country is invaded by a foreign force and the elected Politicians refuse to fight against the invading force would ordinary Americans be justified in resorting to violence? (For reference see "French Resistance).
If the Trump mob had succeeded and Trump had declared himself "President for Life" would violent resistance be justified?
OTOH
drummerboy said:
The level of distrust among Republicans evident in the survey was such that about eight in 10 said the current political system is "stacked against conservatives and people with traditional values." A majority agreed with the statement, "The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it."
What they are saying is that are no longer the majority and therefore must reject democratic elections and use violence against the majority in order to retain power.
Is there a difference between violence in support of Democracy and violence directed against Democracy? As an example to me there is no equivalence between the Republicans and the Falangists in the Spanish Civil War.
What you hope to accomplish by arguing for the label "enemy" still eludes me.
No expert on polling/questionnaires here, and I probably won't look up the survey (if it's even out there), but.... were there other questions where they weren't putting this kind of words into people's mouths? Were these questions the end-point of a series with escalating subject matter?
I can imagine a worried and huffy person coming closer to belligerent and finally saying, "Well, sure, if we have to we will."
Pretty scary stuff.
mjc said:
I can imagine a worried and huffy person coming closer to belligerent and finally saying, "Well, sure, if we have to we will."
This survey was conducted by Ipsos through its KnowledgePanel. The panel is opt-in for participants, so they know what they’re getting into and, I’d think, would be less likely to have those sorts of reactions to questions. It’s worth considering, though.
STANV’s point about the ambiguity of certain questions is also a good one.
PVW said:
What you hope to accomplish by arguing for the label "enemy" still eludes me.
Just trying to emphasize the sad and worrisome state the body politic is in.
drummerboy said:
PVW said:
What you hope to accomplish by arguing for the label "enemy" still eludes me.
Just trying to emphasize the sad and worrisome state the body politic is in.
The growing willingness by Republicans to view those who disagree with them as "enemies", and act accordingly, is very sad and worrisome. If Democrats and independents increasingly follow suit, that's even more depressing.
PVW said:
drummerboy said:
PVW said:
What you hope to accomplish by arguing for the label "enemy" still eludes me.
Just trying to emphasize the sad and worrisome state the body politic is in.
The growing willingness by Republicans to view those who disagree with them as "enemies", and act accordingly, is very sad and worrisome. If Democrats and independents increasingly follow suit, that's even more depressing.
Well, that depends on what "act accordingly" and "follow suit" actually mean.
I think the great outpouring of support for Limbaugh after his death is an indication of how far apart we are.
To view someone as the (political) enemy is just another way of saying that normal compromise is impossible with them. It's not that they don't share your worldview. It's that their worldview is diametrically opposed to ours. Consequently, attempting to have a dialog with them about policy is a waste of time and self-defeating. If you have the power to do so, as we barely have in Washington now, the best thing to do is just bowl them over whenever you can.
A corollary to all this is getting rid of the filibuster. But people like Manchin and Sinema don't see the opposition as the enemy, apparently, so they're unwilling to pull the trigger on that.
drummerboy said:
PVW said:
drummerboy said:
PVW said:
What you hope to accomplish by arguing for the label "enemy" still eludes me.
Just trying to emphasize the sad and worrisome state the body politic is in.
The growing willingness by Republicans to view those who disagree with them as "enemies", and act accordingly, is very sad and worrisome. If Democrats and independents increasingly follow suit, that's even more depressing.
Well, that depends on what "act accordingly" and "follow suit" actually mean.
I think the great outpouring of support for Limbaugh after his death is an indication of how far apart we are.
To view someone as the (political) enemy is just another way of saying that normal compromise is impossible with them. It's not that they don't share your worldview. It's that their worldview is diametrically opposed to ours. Consequently, attempting to have a dialog with them about policy is a waste of time and self-defeating. If you have the power to do so, as we barely have in Washington now, the best thing to do is just bowl them over whenever you can.
A corollary to all this is getting rid of the filibuster. But people like Manchin and Sinema don't see the opposition as the enemy, apparently, so they're unwilling to pull the trigger on that.
I guess when one side takes a phrase like "pull the trigger" literally, I'm hesitant to start using the same language they do. "Enemy", to my ears, implies something far more extreme than getting rid of the filibuster.
Republicans are engaged in efforts to reduce the number of voters in future elections.
You can call them the "enemy" or some other words, but that's beside the point. They are trying to make elections in their states less "democratic", and there should be nonpartisan disapproval of those attempts.
After record turnout in 2020, Republican-controlled states appear to be in a race to the bottom to see who can pass the most egregious new barriers to voting.
According to a new analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice, 253 bills to restrict voting access have been introduced in 43 states already this year. Georgia is ground zero for the GOP’s escalating war on voting, targeting the voting methods that were used most by Democratic voters in 2020 and which contributed to flipping the state blue and electing two Democratic senators.
Republicans Are Taking Their Voter Suppression Efforts to New Extremes – Mother Jones
One thing you have to say for the Republicans, when it comes to gaslighting they are shameless and fearless. On the campaign trial, Biden promised to reopen schools within his first 100 days in office. But that is just another promise that President Biden hasn’t kept.
Not 100 days yet.
But since when did the GOP believe the Federal Government should control the Schools?
STANV said:
Not 100 days yet.
But since when did the GOP believe the Federal Government should control the Schools?
Irrelevant as to whether we should be outraged.
If "the former guy" had ordered everything closed a year ago tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who have died would still be with us.
OTOH he might not be "former".
STANV said:
If "the former guy" had ordered everything closed a year ago tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who have died would still be with us.
OTOH he might not be "former".
if he was the kind of person capable of even that small bit of empathy, he wouldn't have been elected in the first place. His sociopathy was a feature not a bug for his core supporters. The cruelty was the point all along.
STANV said:
If "the former guy" had ordered everything closed a year ago tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who have died would still be with us.
OTOH he might not be "former".
How many would have died if Hilary was president? What measures would she have taken to save those lives and exactly how would those measures have achieved that?
ml1 said:
STANV said:
If "the former guy" had ordered everything closed a year ago tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who have died would still be with us.
OTOH he might not be "former".
if he was the kind of person capable of even that small bit of empathy, he wouldn't have been elected in the first place. His sociopathy was a feature not a bug for his core supporters. The cruelty was the point all along.
That is as false as it is uncharitable. Not everyone who disagrees with ml1 is evil.
terp said:
STANV said:
If "the former guy" had ordered everything closed a year ago tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who have died would still be with us.
OTOH he might not be "former".
How many would have died if Hilary was president? What measures would she have taken to save those lives and exactly how would those measures have achieved that?
You sir, have no imagination. To assume that Trump's actions could not be improved on is laughable. And kind of frightening.
Simply encouraging the wearing of masks would have saved tens of thousands probably. Though the R's would have countered with their idiocy anyway. And maybe not spending the first few months saying that it would just go away. And maybe building a national contact tracing system And maybe not throwing out the Obama pandemic playbook. And not pretending that the real problem we had was too much testing. Or wasting so much energy on hydroxychloroquine.
And....
God, what an embarrassing post.
drummerboy said:
terp said:
STANV said:
If "the former guy" had ordered everything closed a year ago tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who have died would still be with us.
OTOH he might not be "former".
How many would have died if Hilary was president? What measures would she have taken to save those lives and exactly how would those measures have achieved that?
You sir, have no imagination. To assume that Trump's actions could not be improved on is laughable. And kind of frightening.
Simply encouraging the wearing of masks would have saved tens of thousands probably. Though the R's would have countered with their idiocy anyway. And maybe not spending the first few months saying that it would just go away. And maybe building a national contact tracing system And maybe not throwing out the Obama pandemic playbook. And not pretending that the real problem we had was too much testing. Or wasting so much energy on hydroxychloroquine.
And....
God, what an embarrassing post.
I understand you weren't able to answer my question, but you shouldn't be so hard on yourself.
terp said:
drummerboy said:
terp said:
STANV said:
If "the former guy" had ordered everything closed a year ago tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who have died would still be with us.
OTOH he might not be "former".
How many would have died if Hilary was president? What measures would she have taken to save those lives and exactly how would those measures have achieved that?
You sir, have no imagination. To assume that Trump's actions could not be improved on is laughable. And kind of frightening.
Simply encouraging the wearing of masks would have saved tens of thousands probably. Though the R's would have countered with their idiocy anyway. And maybe not spending the first few months saying that it would just go away. And maybe building a national contact tracing system And maybe not throwing out the Obama pandemic playbook. And not pretending that the real problem we had was too much testing. Or wasting so much energy on hydroxychloroquine.
And....
God, what an embarrassing post.
I understand you weren't able to answer my question, but you shouldn't be so hard on yourself.
What, you wanted me to write a 2000 word essay? I answered your question just fine.
The fact is that you think Trump's actions (or lack thereof) were the epitome of what could have been done.
And that is idiocy.
Where did I say that? I simply questioned a counterfactual that was made without any evidence to back it up. I wanted to know if that person really believed that and if so, why.
Perhaps, he has insights on the matter. It seems pretty certain that while you agree with the counterfactual you do not have any insights to offer. I have taken note of that.
terp said:
Where did I say that? I simply questioned a counterfactual that was made without any evidence to back it up. I wanted to know if that person really believed that and if so, why.
Perhaps, he has insights on the matter. It seems pretty certain that while you agree with the counterfactual you do not have any insights to offer. I have taken note of that.
By questioning what Hillary could have done better, you imply she could have done nothing, further implying that what Trump did was all that could be done. If that's not what you think, then you have your own answers as to what could have been done better, but then you wouldn't have asked the question.
See how that works?
I pointed out the obvious things that would have made a difference. You can consider them insights or not, that's up to you, but they are answers to your question.
I don't know who you are arguing with. I asked what could have been done and how many lives it woudl have saved. That's what I did.
You do not make a convincing argument. You rattled off a bunch of measures which have not proven to be effective. If masks work so well explain Florida. Florida should be a mess. Heck they were saying that the superbowl and the celebration afterwards would be a "super spreader event". Explain what happened there?
Compare it to California who had continuous lockdowns and explain to me why Florida is not much much worse? Florida has far more vulnerable(elderly) than California and has been basically open. If you are going to claim mask mandates/lockdowns work, you need to explain this.
The fact is that you don't know. StanV probably doesn't know either. You take it on faith, because it shows you are a good member of your tribe. But you don't know. You are backing what seem like baseless assertions, because the high priests of your tribe tell you to.
terp said:
That is as false as it is uncharitable. Not everyone who disagrees with ml1 is evil.
you missed the word "core.". You remember the people at his rallies in the "F your feelings" shirts?
You really don't get nuance at all do you?
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Her statement has an obvious point - to be reported on Fox "News".