Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

News and events of the day
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by carmenjonze »

Glennfs wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:41 am Now we have 11 people charged with crimes related to insurrection. The justice department is doing their job and doing it quite well.
I believe we will see that number expand with people involved who did not show up. One article I saw seemed to indicate the proud boys had weapons stashed in the area.
Another article had quotes from the leader ( the guy with the eye patch) as saying trump was all talk and it was time for action.
Remember how Dylan Roof believed his actions would start a race war. I believe McVey also had beliefs along those same lines. Evidently the proud boys thought people all over the country would take up arms.
This mass-murderous, antidemocracy extremism is part of a 300 year history of white conservatism. In this century, only the names have changed. The M.O. and ideology is identical.
If we were doing a SPC study we would discover that belief is present in many of our defective citizens
If you're referring to the Jan. 6th people and these others, they're not defective. All of the above white-conservative vigilantes wave the same flag as you do, and vote for the same party as you do. "We" have been talking about these white-backlashers like Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, White Citizens Councils, accellerationists, whatever form they take, since the formation of the Ku Klux Klan.

No SPC study needed. You have the benefit of at a 120-year-old field of study called American history.

You guys are not "defective." You make a conscious choose to live this way. So, you might want to start with that.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by gounion »

Glennfs wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:41 am Now we have 11 people charged with crimes related to insurrection. The justice department is doing their job and doing it quite well.
I believe we will see that number expand with people involved who did not show up. One article I saw seemed to indicate the proud boys had weapons stashed in the area.
Another article had quotes from the leader ( the guy with the eye patch) as saying trump was all talk and it was time for action.
Remember how Dylan Roof believed his actions would start a race war. I believe McVey also had beliefs along those same lines. Evidently the proud boys thought people all over the country would take up arms.
If we were doing a SPC study we would discover that belief is present in many of our defective citizens
Why is it you always immediately defend Trump and say he is innocent?
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Jan 13, 2022 9:28 pm I have some difficulty with standards being set by those folks who would benefit directly from such changes in standards.
Really?

Republican opposition to voting rights bills follows decades of pretend support - Kevin Kruse, opinion
While there is a “bipartisan tradition” of supporting voting rights measures in the modern era, the history isn’t as straightforward as Biden suggested.

To be sure, the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 was created with strong support from both parties. In the House, Democrats voted for the final bill by a margin of 217-54 and Republicans by a margin of 111-20; in the Senate, Democrats backed it 49-17 and Republicans 30-1.

Passage of the law, however, was simply the start. Because some of its special provisions were established as temporary measures, the Voting Rights Act was brought up for reauthorization and expansion over the next half century — in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992 and, most recently, 2006. At every point in this process, Biden noted, the law could count on backing from his Republican predecessors in the White House: “Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush. They all supported the Voting Rights Act.”
When the Voting Rights Act came up for its original reauthorization in 1970, for instance, the Nixon administration was torn on how to handle it. Nixon had rolled back his earlier support for civil rights legislation during his 1968 campaign. As president, he insisted no new measures were needed because, as he put it in his inaugural address, “the laws have caught up with our conscience.”

When Congress proceeded to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act anyway — extending the right to vote to 18-year-olds along the way — many of Nixon’s aides urged him to veto the law because they believed a surge in African American voters would only help Democrats and hurt Republicans. “A veto,” Nixon’s assistant for legislative affairs urged, “would help solidify your support in Dixie.”

This internal debate in Republican circles — between cynical supporters and cynical opponents — stretched on for decades.

Such self-interest from opponents of voting rights might be expected, but nominal supporters could be just as cynical. Kevin Phillips, the Nixon campaign strategist whose 1969 book "The Emerging Republican Majority" presciently predicted a new conservative era, argued that the GOP should embrace the law, precisely because it meant more African Americans would vote Democratic.

“The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans,” he told The New York Times Magazine in 1970. “That’s where the votes are.”
Much more in link.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by carmenjonze »

gounion wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:00 am Why is it you always immediately defend Trump and say he is innocent?
Oh but it's just a political rally that turned into a riot, tho!

:problem:
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
JoeMemphis

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by JoeMemphis »

ProfX wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:21 am Interesting viewpoint. Please explain why that wouldn't be as true for state legislators as for federal. Hmmm?

Seems to me pre-65 grandfather clause, "count the beans in the jar," poll tax, and a lot of that crap was set by state legislators who "wanted to benefit from those standards".

MHO: the people who benefit from clear, consistent, universal standards is .... everybody, everybody ... everybody, everybody ... (talking about voters and the people, don't give a s about politicians).



It doesn't "work" for me because letting them "choose" before 1965 and the VRA resulted in a lot of discriminatory and unfair crap.

Again, I will only note, it's not like some GOP state legislators haven't been caught basically saying, well, yeah, this stuff makes it harder for the people who don't vote for us to vote, and that's to our advantage.
Representatives and Senators represent their states. Allowing a simple majority in Congress to dictate how states choose their representatives or how they conduct those elections may not represent the best interest of the people in that state. This isn’t 1965 or 1865 or 1765. It’s 2022 and we have courts and case law on the books to protect individual voting rights. If people have concerns about their rights they can appeal to the legislators or to the courts.

I get that you don’t trust the GOP. It shouldn’t surprise you that many in the GOP don’t trust Democrats. I believe if we are going to Federalize elections, that should be done in more of a bipartisan manner than a single party ramming it’s agenda thru in a country that is pretty much evenly split. This is especially true when many of the p rocesses such as photo ID’s enjoy support from a majority of voters.

I don’t believe you would support a partisan power grab were it being done by the GOP.

It’s a funny thing to me that the Senators who vigorously defended the filibuster when Trump was elected and had majorities in both houses now hypocritically argue the flip side. I guess that says tons about their principles. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure there are republicans who argued to trash the filibuster in 2016 who are now fighting tooth and nail to protect it.

To me that argues in favor of the filibuster. It does protect the minority party from the tyranny of the majority. I’ve never favored doing away with it. It used to work as a mechanism to force the majority to at least consider minority points of view. Now it is all about the power. So to you I would say to be careful what you wish for. Someday, maybe not to far in the future, you may find yourself in the minority. A minority without the protection of the filibuster. Biden himself made such a statement when Reid began undermining the filibuster when it came to judicial appointments.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by ProfX »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:17 am It’s 2022 and we have courts and case law on the books to protect individual voting rights. If people have concerns about their rights they can appeal to the legislators or to the courts.
It's 2022, and the Voting Rights Act has been scaled back, Joe, and no I don't think it's because it's no longer needed.

It's precisely because of that that we have 2 new voting rights bills in Congress.
I get that you don’t trust the GOP.
No, I don't trust people who say shit like this.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi ... p-n1259305

Not some generalized distrust: what that MF'er Michael Carvin OPENLY SAID. No higher principle; he just openly said "it gives our side an advantage".
I believe if we are going to Federalize elections, that should be done in more of a bipartisan manner than a single party ramming it’s agenda thru in a country that is pretty much evenly split. This is especially true when many of the p rocesses such as photo ID’s enjoy support from a majority of voters.
So, once again, from the top: Freedom to Vote Act does NOT abolish voter ID, it just attempts to set clear and consistent standards for states that request it.

I am fully willing to get as many GOP to vote for it as are willing to do it :D - difference is, I haven't seen any Democrats openly saying the purpose of the bill is to give the Dems an open and unfair competitive advantage, rather they are saying it is to help more people vote AND BTW also ensure the integrity of the vote.

I know it's not bipartisan Joe - what I keep asking, though, is why not? I don't see anything in it, despite glenn CLAIMING so, that it's a) unfair in general or b) unfair to GOP specifically.

Get specific: tell me WHAT in the Freedom to Vote Act you - or a GOPer - opposes - and why. Stop with this fucking vague BULLSHIT.

It makes it harder to gerrymander. OK, fine, if you're in favor of gerrymandering, argue that - please. :D
It makes it harder to cheat in elections. OK, fine, if you don't want it to be made harder to cheat in elections, come out and say so. :D
It makes it harder for people to receive dark money in campaign finance. Look, if you're pro dark money, please make that argument. :D
It enables more people to vote. If you want to make it harder for people to vote, please explain why. :D

I could keep going, but I think my point's been made. If the GOP is against this bill because they prefer having fewer people vote, at least have them say so.

Oh yeah. Paul Weyrich DID in 1980. :roll:
I don’t believe you would support a partisan power grab were it being done by the GOP.
I wouldn't, but it isn't. :roll:
To me that argues in favor of the filibuster.
When you're done punching your straw man, please note I've never said it should be abolished.

BTW, Biden and Schumer are not arguing that, either.

The real question is is it being abused, and how to stop the abuse of it. (IMHO).

At least glenn acknowledges the problem, even if he's just pulling from his ass as to solutions. :roll:
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by gounion »

Joe Memphis will NEVER argue specifics. He always pleads ignorance. And he makes a believable case, that's for sure.
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:17 amThis isn’t 1965 or 1865 or 1765. It’s 2022
Nice try, but the only reason we keep having this national conversation year after year after year is precisely because of this country's history of disenfranchisement.

"This country's history" is a euphemism. Fact is, we have this continual conversation because white conservatives like you really are this dishonest with yourselves about what you've done regarding the voting rights of everyone else.
and we have courts and case law on the books to protect individual voting rights.
:roll: QED.

Name them.

(Pro tip: we have watched the severe deterioration of "individual voting rights" since Shelby County v. Holder [2013], which overturned the most important statutes within the VRA65.

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013)

We have also watched conservative whites -- be they rank-and-file dullards like you, or your leaders -- fight tooth and nail to whittle down the VRA65 in the ensuing years between 1965 and 2022.)
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
JoeMemphis

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by JoeMemphis »

ProfX wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 12:00 pm It's 2022, and the Voting Rights Act has been scaled back, Joe, and no I don't think it's because it's no longer needed.

It's precisely because of that that we have 2 new voting rights bills in Congress.



No, I don't trust people who say shit like this.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/electi ... p-n1259305

Not some generalized distrust: what that MF'er Michael Carvin OPENLY SAID. No higher principle; he just openly said "it gives our side an advantage".



So, once again, from the top: Freedom to Vote Act does NOT abolish voter ID, it just attempts to set clear and consistent standards for states that request it.

I am fully willing to get as many GOP to vote for it as are willing to do it :D - difference is, I haven't seen any Democrats openly saying the purpose of the bill is to give the Dems an open and unfair competitive advantage, rather they are saying it is to help more people vote AND BTW also ensure the integrity of the vote.

I know it's not bipartisan Joe - what I keep asking, though, is why not? I don't see anything in it, despite glenn CLAIMING so, that it's a) unfair in general or b) unfair to GOP specifically.

Get specific: tell me WHAT in the Freedom to Vote Act you - or a GOPer - opposes - and why. Stop with this fucking vague BULLSHIT.

It makes it harder to gerrymander. OK, fine, if you're in favor of gerrymandering, argue that - please. :D
It makes it harder to cheat in elections. OK, fine, if you don't want it to be made harder to cheat in elections, come out and say so. :D
It makes it harder for people to receive dark money in campaign finance. Look, if you're pro dark money, please make that argument. :D
It enables more people to vote. If you want to make it harder for people to vote, please explain why. :D

I could keep going, but I think my point's been made. If the GOP is against this bill because they prefer having fewer people vote, at least have them say so.

Oh yeah. Paul Weyrich DID in 1980. :roll:



I wouldn't, but it isn't. :roll:



When you're done punching your straw man, please note I've never said it should be abolished.

BTW, Biden and Schumer are not arguing that, either.

The real question is is it being abused, and how to stop the abuse of it. (IMHO).

At least glenn acknowledges the problem, even if he's just pulling from his ass as to solutions. :roll:
I don’t have a problem with the filibuster. Never have. I have been consistent in that regard for years. The folks who AREN’T consistent are the people who in one congress argue for it and in the next Congress argue against it. I have heard both sides of this argument from Biden and Schumer on numerous occassions. If you think it’s being abused maybe you should ask the abusers. Start with Schumer and Biden. Republicans are as bad. They get no pass from me on this hypocrisy. Why ignore the hypocrisy?

Again, the fact that the majority pisses and moans about the filibuster and the minority seeks to protect the filibuster, argues for the rule. Nobody likes having their power limited but it doesn’t mean such limitations aren’t needed.

It prevents power grabs. It prevented the back and forth seesaw swings in policy that would result in any single party who controls 50.1 percent of the power from working its will without limitations on the rest of the country. Today we are talking about states being able to run their own elections, tomorrow it could just as easily be something important to the other side.

Compromise and working together doesn’t mean one side must totally surrender to the other. It means meeting somewhere in or towards the middle. It isn’t an extreme concept. Ordinary people do it everyday. Only in government does it mean unconditional surrender. Anyone would be happy for the other side to totally cave in to their will but that isn’t what compromise means. That’s the primary argument for the filibuster. It forces people to negotiate.

Finally if we are going to gauge the point of view of an entire party based upon the point of view of on of their attorneys or other staff members, then both parties are in trouble.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:40 pm I don’t have a problem with the filibuster. Never have. I have been consistent in that regard for years. The folks who AREN’T consistent are the people who in one congress argue for it and in the next Congress argue against it. I have heard both sides of this argument from Biden and Schumer on numerous occassions. If you think it’s being abused maybe you should ask the abusers. Start with Schumer and Biden. Republicans are as bad. They get no pass from me on this hypocrisy. Why ignore the hypocrisy?

Again, the fact that the majority pisses and moans about the filibuster and the minority seeks to protect the filibuster, argues for the rule. Nobody likes having their power limited but it doesn’t mean such limitations aren’t needed.

It prevents power grabs. It prevented the back and forth seesaw swings in policy that would result in any single party who controls 50.1 percent of the power from working its will without limitations on the rest of the country. Today we are talking about states being able to run their own elections, tomorrow it could just as easily be something important to the other side.

Compromise and working together doesn’t mean one side must totally surrender to the other. It means meeting somewhere in or towards the middle. It isn’t an extreme concept. Ordinary people do it everyday. Only in government does it mean unconditional surrender. Anyone would be happy for the other side to totally cave in to their will but that isn’t what compromise means. That’s the primary argument for the filibuster. It forces people to negotiate.

Finally if we are going to gauge the point of view of an entire party based upon the point of view of on of their attorneys or other staff members, then both parties are in trouble.
It prevents power grabs? What about the power grab when McConnell refused to have hearings on Obama's SC nom because "You can't have a nomination within a year of an election" then ramming through a nomination weeks before an election?

If you don't like hypocrisy, look in the mirror.
JoeMemphis

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:47 pm It prevents power grabs? What about the power grab when McConnell refused to have hearings on Obama's SC nom because "You can't have a nomination within a year of an election" then ramming through a nomination weeks before an election?

If you don't like hypocrisy, look in the mirror.
That’s exactly what happens when you DON’T have a filibuster rule. As I recall the Senator who started that ball rolling was the late Harry Reid.

Thanks for making my point.

I also pointed out in my previous posts thatRepublicans are just as guilty of hypocrisy when it comes to the filibuster. I’m not excusing either party of hypocrisy on this point. Are you?
Glennfs
Posts: 10300
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by Glennfs »

gounion wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:00 am Why is it you always immediately defend Trump and say he is innocent?
Because Trump is to stupid to plan an insurrection.
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Glennfs
Posts: 10300
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by Glennfs »

gounion wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:47 pm It prevents power grabs? What about the power grab when McConnell refused to have hearings on Obama's SC nom because "You can't have a nomination within a year of an election" then ramming through a nomination weeks before an election?

If you don't like hypocrisy, look in the mirror.
What about the 320+ times the democratic party filibustered in I believe 2019-2020 if needed I will look it up for those who don't have the ability to look it up for themselves. Wrre you also opposed to those filibusters
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
Glennfs
Posts: 10300
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by Glennfs »

Glennfs wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:11 pm What about the 320+ times the democratic party filibustered in I believe 2019-2020 if needed I will look it up for those who don't have the ability to look it up for themselves. Wrre you also opposed to those filibusters
Found a link

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/0 ... ump-303811
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by carmenjonze »

Glennfs wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:11 pm What about
:lol: :lol: :lol:
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by ProfX »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:40 pm Compromise and working together doesn’t mean one side must totally surrender to the other. It means meeting somewhere in or towards the middle. It isn’t an extreme concept. Ordinary people do it everyday. Only in government does it mean unconditional surrender.
Sigh. Loads of bullshit, and no answers to my questions, as usual.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
JoeMemphis

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by JoeMemphis »

ProfX wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:22 pm Sigh. Loads of bullshit, and no answers to my questions, as usual.
The answer to you questions are simple. In broad strokes, I would agree to the goals you expressed. However, the devil is in the details. It’s how you get there and who decides. Our constitution provided for a limited federal government. States run the elections. That was not a power given to the Federal government. What you propose is to allow a simple majority in the federal government to determine how elections are to be run in the states. This is a democratic republic. It isn’t a simple democracy. It wasn’t founded or designed as a simple democracy. If you want a simple democracy then amend the constitution.

I await your opinion on the obvious hypocrisy with the Senators who vigorously defended the filibuster in 2016 when they were in the minority and now want to blow it up now that they are in the very narrow, razor thin majority? Major policy changes that could bring about major changes in this country should be done with more than just the narrow majority don’t you think? You say it’s not a power grab and yet that’s what power grabs look like.
User avatar
carmenjonze
Posts: 9614
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:06 am

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by carmenjonze »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:37 pm The answer to you questions are simple. In broad strokes, I would agree to the goals you expressed. However, the devil is in the details. It’s how you get there and who decides. Our constitution provided for a limited federal government. States run the elections. That was not a power given to the Federal government. What you propose is to allow a simple majority in the federal government to determine how elections are to be run in the states. This is a democratic republic. It isn’t a simple democracy. It wasn’t founded or designed as a simple democracy. If you want a simple democracy then amend the constitution.
Simplistic non-answer from a simple mind.

You and Glennfs are so pumped up with confederate propaganda, stringing together this braindead, straw-man rhetoric is the best you can muster.

No one here needs a reminder from either of you that the US is not a "simple" or "direct" democracy. No one thinks it is, nor is anyone claiming it is.

You can't even dodge questions right.
Last edited by carmenjonze on Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
________________________________

The way to right wrongs is to
Shine the light of truth on them.

~ Ida B. Wells
________________________________
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by ProfX »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:37 pm What you propose is to allow a simple majority in the federal government to determine how elections are to be run in the states.
What I propose is what the Voting Rights Act of 1965 proposed -- that the Federal government has a intrinsic role and responsibility to make sure state elections are free, fair, and properly run, and do not disenfranchise the people of those states unfairly. Especially minorities. The federal government can and does have an interest in civil rights, and states are not free to run their elections in ways that violate them. Nope.

Can the Feds dictate the voting process? "YOU MUST USE X TYPE OF VOTING MACHINE". No. The Constitution leaves certain powers to the states, but that doesn't mean the states are allowed to act like 50 distinct dictatorships over their state residents, either.
I await your opinion on the obvious hypocrisy with the Senators who vigorously defended the filibuster in 2016
You can await whatever you like. I have stated my position several times.

I am for the talking filibuster, a reform that would constrain filibusters by both parties. Full stop.
I am for ending gerrymandering, whether Democrats OR Republicans do it, voting districts should be drawn by a fair, bipartisan/nonpartisan process.

Anything else you want to take up with politicians, pundits, or party poobahs, take up with them. Those are my positions.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:06 pm That’s exactly what happens when you DON’T have a filibuster rule. As I recall the Senator who started that ball rolling was the late Harry Reid.

Thanks for making my point.

I also pointed out in my previous posts thatRepublicans are just as guilty of hypocrisy when it comes to the filibuster. I’m not excusing either party of hypocrisy on this point. Are you?
Oh, Bullshit. What McConnell did has nothing to do with the fillibuster. And Reid did NOTHING like that. This is what happens when you try to defend the indefensible. That's a conservative - once again blaming others for their actions. But you're good at that, aren't you?

No, Republicans take the hypocrisy FAR farther than Dems. You're the one trucking in false equivalency.
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by gounion »

Glennfs wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:11 pm What about the 320+ times the democratic party filibustered in I believe 2019-2020 if needed I will look it up for those who don't have the ability to look it up for themselves. Wrre you also opposed to those filibusters
This isn't about the filibuster. Did the GOP filibuster the nomination? NOPE. McConnell just made up a bullshit rule about not voting on a nomination within a year of an election, so "the people could have the say".

It was because he figured Obama would be able to put together a fillibuster-proof majority for Garland. So, no vote.

Of course, when Ginsburg dies a few weeks before the election, the GOP rams it through.

And you want to blame the dems for that, too, don't you?
gounion
Posts: 17240
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by gounion »

Glennfs wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:09 pm Because Trump is to stupid to plan an insurrection.
Well, he sure planned ways to have fake electors put in papers in several states and to come up with a plan to have Pence throw actual election results out and declare Donald Trump the President, didn't he?
User avatar
Drak
Posts: 4493
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:02 pm

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by Drak »

Glennfs wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 3:09 pm Because Trump is to stupid to plan an insurrection.
Your point is what’s stupid.
"Some of those that work forces,
Are the same that burn crosses"

- Rage Against the Machine
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by ProfX »

His attempts to shut down the Mueller investigation, get Ukraine to interfere in our elections, and violate election rules on payments to Playmates, were all poorly planned and stupid too, but that doesn't mean law and ethics exempt you from doing stuff just because it's poorly and stupidly executed. :roll:

Yes, like a Scooby-Doo Villain, he was so dumb he got caught every time, and the meddling kids stopped him, but that didn't mean he didn't have a plan, even if that plan was, unsurprisingly, extremely dumb.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
JoeMemphis

Re: Just a "riot?" No planning or coordination?

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 4:44 pm Oh, Bullshit. What McConnell did has nothing to do with the fillibuster. And Reid did NOTHING like that. This is what happens when you try to defend the indefensible. That's a conservative - once again blaming others for their actions. But you're good at that, aren't you?

No, Republicans take the hypocrisy FAR farther than Dems. You're the one trucking in false equivalency.
It had everything to do with the filibuster. McConnell didn’t put thru a vote for Garland because he was in the majority with a Democratic President. He was betting on the possibility that there would be a Republican President the next year and that Republicans would still hold the Senate. Since Harry Reid threw out the filibuster on Federal judges except for SCOTUS and It would be nothing for Republicans to extend that to SCOTUS and it would be nothing to get judges on the SC once nominated by POTUS. All you need was a simple majority in the Senate. If there was a filibuster rule on Federal Judges,, any President regardless of party would have to cooperate with the minority.

Prior to the weakening of the filibuster on federal judges, Justices like Scalia and RBG were routinely confirmed by votes in the Senate in the high 90s. The good ole days I guess. Not any longer. If you win POTUS and have a simple majority in the Senate, you can theoretically put Darth Vader on the bench as long as your Senate caucus can round up 50 votes. Yea no filibuster is better. Careful what you wish for.
Post Reply