|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 09 2022 12:06 BlackJack wrote:On February 09 2022 11:29 NewSunshine wrote:
Gotta say I didn't necessarily expect the sequence of [talking about Trump's insurrection] > [arguing about CRT] > [talking about what it's like being black despite a black poster warning everyone there's some foot-in-mouth going on], but I can't say it entirely surprises me, either.
I feel like there're much better avenues of discussion this thread could be taking. Almost any of them, really. Well the sequence starting with talking about Trump's insurrection isn't that surprising since it's talked about on every page of this thread from the day it happened I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that.
What kind of signal does it send to the people who called for it, to Trump and everyone at the Stop the Steal rally, and to the people who actually stormed the Capitol, threatening, attacking, and harming anyone they could, when the RNC would sooner come after 2 of their own who supported a much needed investigation, than press charges on the people who made this happen?
It is legitimate political discourse to the body of the Republican party right now. It's acceptable to them. Trump held rallies fomenting the sentiments driving the attack, and Republican congressmen were out there cheering them on as they tried to overturn the results of the election they lost. It isn't anything but acceptable to them. That fact is not open to debate.
|
On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 09 2022 12:06 BlackJack wrote:On February 09 2022 11:29 NewSunshine wrote:
Gotta say I didn't necessarily expect the sequence of [talking about Trump's insurrection] > [arguing about CRT] > [talking about what it's like being black despite a black poster warning everyone there's some foot-in-mouth going on], but I can't say it entirely surprises me, either.
I feel like there're much better avenues of discussion this thread could be taking. Almost any of them, really. Well the sequence starting with talking about Trump's insurrection isn't that surprising since it's talked about on every page of this thread from the day it happened I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that.
You keep saying that but you never give proof or any type of explanation of "what they really meant".
For the record this is the statement
"Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes,
they are referring to those representative's involvement in the Jan 6. commission and saying that they are persecuting citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse. what do you think that they meant and why should people not belive what they say?
|
On February 10 2022 05:34 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 09 2022 12:06 BlackJack wrote:On February 09 2022 11:29 NewSunshine wrote:
Gotta say I didn't necessarily expect the sequence of [talking about Trump's insurrection] > [arguing about CRT] > [talking about what it's like being black despite a black poster warning everyone there's some foot-in-mouth going on], but I can't say it entirely surprises me, either.
I feel like there're much better avenues of discussion this thread could be taking. Almost any of them, really. Well the sequence starting with talking about Trump's insurrection isn't that surprising since it's talked about on every page of this thread from the day it happened I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that. You keep saying that but you never give proof or any type of explanation of "what they really meant". For the record this is the statement Show nested quote +"Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes, they are referring to those representative's involvement in the Jan 6. commission and saying that they are persecuting citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse. what do you think that they meant and why should people not belive what they say? The RNC claims the jan 6th commission oversteps its boundaries and investigates people who have nothing to do with the Insurrection. No there is no proof of this, I asked him before. He just believes them at their word because... god knows why.
|
Northern Ireland25458 Posts
On February 10 2022 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 05:34 Sermokala wrote:On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 09 2022 12:06 BlackJack wrote:On February 09 2022 11:29 NewSunshine wrote:
Gotta say I didn't necessarily expect the sequence of [talking about Trump's insurrection] > [arguing about CRT] > [talking about what it's like being black despite a black poster warning everyone there's some foot-in-mouth going on], but I can't say it entirely surprises me, either.
I feel like there're much better avenues of discussion this thread could be taking. Almost any of them, really. Well the sequence starting with talking about Trump's insurrection isn't that surprising since it's talked about on every page of this thread from the day it happened I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that. You keep saying that but you never give proof or any type of explanation of "what they really meant". For the record this is the statement "Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes, they are referring to those representative's involvement in the Jan 6. commission and saying that they are persecuting citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse. what do you think that they meant and why should people not belive what they say? The RNC claims the jan 6th commission oversteps its boundaries and investigates people who have nothing to do with the Insurrection. No there is no proof of this, I asked him before. He just believes them at their word because... god knows why.
It could be a legitimate claim if accompanied by a wider mea culpa. Or if the committee was doing those things. A few hypothetical scenarios.
As it stands we’re at the ‘can’t even collectively admit that falsely claiming there was a fraudulent election was bad and fuelled the insurrection’ stage, so taking them at their word is beyond preposterously naive.
|
On February 10 2022 04:36 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 09 2022 12:06 BlackJack wrote:On February 09 2022 11:29 NewSunshine wrote:
Gotta say I didn't necessarily expect the sequence of [talking about Trump's insurrection] > [arguing about CRT] > [talking about what it's like being black despite a black poster warning everyone there's some foot-in-mouth going on], but I can't say it entirely surprises me, either.
I feel like there're much better avenues of discussion this thread could be taking. Almost any of them, really. Well the sequence starting with talking about Trump's insurrection isn't that surprising since it's talked about on every page of this thread from the day it happened I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that. What kind of signal does it send to the people who called for it, to Trump and everyone at the Stop the Steal rally, and to the people who actually stormed the Capitol, threatening, attacking, and harming anyone they could, when the RNC would sooner come after 2 of their own who supported a much needed investigation, than press charges on the people who made this happen? It is legitimate political discourse to the body of the Republican party right now. It's acceptable to them. Trump held rallies fomenting the sentiments driving the attack, and Republican congressmen were out there cheering them on as they tried to overturn the results of the election they lost. It isn't anything but acceptable to them. That fact is not open to debate.
Your first paragraph, I will grant, asks a good question. Though there is the point that the investigatiors shouldnt continue to insinuate that the riot was centrally coordinated or planned when they already know that nit to be the case (in other words, an investigation can overstep its proper bounds). The second paragraph consists entirely of exaggerations.
On February 10 2022 06:18 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 10 2022 05:34 Sermokala wrote:On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 09 2022 12:06 BlackJack wrote:On February 09 2022 11:29 NewSunshine wrote:
Gotta say I didn't necessarily expect the sequence of [talking about Trump's insurrection] > [arguing about CRT] > [talking about what it's like being black despite a black poster warning everyone there's some foot-in-mouth going on], but I can't say it entirely surprises me, either.
I feel like there're much better avenues of discussion this thread could be taking. Almost any of them, really. Well the sequence starting with talking about Trump's insurrection isn't that surprising since it's talked about on every page of this thread from the day it happened I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that. You keep saying that but you never give proof or any type of explanation of "what they really meant". For the record this is the statement "Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes, they are referring to those representative's involvement in the Jan 6. commission and saying that they are persecuting citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse. what do you think that they meant and why should people not belive what they say? The RNC claims the jan 6th commission oversteps its boundaries and investigates people who have nothing to do with the Insurrection. No there is no proof of this, I asked him before. He just believes them at their word because... god knows why. It could be a legitimate claim if accompanied by a wider mea culpa. Or if the committee was doing those things. A few hypothetical scenarios. As it stands we’re at the ‘can’t even collectively admit that falsely claiming there was a fraudulent election was bad and fuelled the insurrection’ stage, so taking them at their word is beyond preposterously naive.
The question of whether the RNC's claim is correct is not relevant to the question of what the RNC's claim is. And the question here is what the RNC's claim is.
To put it another way. The RNC claim is that the committee is persecuting people other than those who participated in the riot, and those other people engaged in legitimate political discourse. Your saying "that claim is wrong" does not establish that the RNC claimed the riot itself to be legitimate political discourse.
|
|
|
On February 10 2022 07:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 06:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 10 2022 04:36 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 09 2022 12:06 BlackJack wrote:On February 09 2022 11:29 NewSunshine wrote:
Gotta say I didn't necessarily expect the sequence of [talking about Trump's insurrection] > [arguing about CRT] > [talking about what it's like being black despite a black poster warning everyone there's some foot-in-mouth going on], but I can't say it entirely surprises me, either.
I feel like there're much better avenues of discussion this thread could be taking. Almost any of them, really. Well the sequence starting with talking about Trump's insurrection isn't that surprising since it's talked about on every page of this thread from the day it happened I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that. What kind of signal does it send to the people who called for it, to Trump and everyone at the Stop the Steal rally, and to the people who actually stormed the Capitol, threatening, attacking, and harming anyone they could, when the RNC would sooner come after 2 of their own who supported a much needed investigation, than press charges on the people who made this happen? It is legitimate political discourse to the body of the Republican party right now. It's acceptable to them. Trump held rallies fomenting the sentiments driving the attack, and Republican congressmen were out there cheering them on as they tried to overturn the results of the election they lost. It isn't anything but acceptable to them. That fact is not open to debate. Your first paragraph, I will grant, asks a good question. Though there is the point that the investigatiors shouldnt continue to insinuate that the riot was centrally coordinated or planned when they already know that nit to be the case (in other words, an investigation can overstep its proper bounds). The second paragraph consists entirely of exaggerations. On February 10 2022 06:18 WombaT wrote:On February 10 2022 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 10 2022 05:34 Sermokala wrote:On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 09 2022 12:06 BlackJack wrote:On February 09 2022 11:29 NewSunshine wrote:
Gotta say I didn't necessarily expect the sequence of [talking about Trump's insurrection] > [arguing about CRT] > [talking about what it's like being black despite a black poster warning everyone there's some foot-in-mouth going on], but I can't say it entirely surprises me, either.
I feel like there're much better avenues of discussion this thread could be taking. Almost any of them, really. Well the sequence starting with talking about Trump's insurrection isn't that surprising since it's talked about on every page of this thread from the day it happened I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that. You keep saying that but you never give proof or any type of explanation of "what they really meant". For the record this is the statement "Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes, they are referring to those representative's involvement in the Jan 6. commission and saying that they are persecuting citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse. what do you think that they meant and why should people not belive what they say? The RNC claims the jan 6th commission oversteps its boundaries and investigates people who have nothing to do with the Insurrection. No there is no proof of this, I asked him before. He just believes them at their word because... god knows why. It could be a legitimate claim if accompanied by a wider mea culpa. Or if the committee was doing those things. A few hypothetical scenarios. As it stands we’re at the ‘can’t even collectively admit that falsely claiming there was a fraudulent election was bad and fuelled the insurrection’ stage, so taking them at their word is beyond preposterously naive. The question of whether the RNC's claim is correct is not relevant to the question of what the RNC's claim is. And the question here is what the RNC's claim is. To put it another way. The RNC claim is that the committee is persecuting people other than those who participated in the riot, and those other people engaged in legitimate political discourse. Your saying "that claim is wrong" does not establish that the RNC claimed the riot itself to be legitimate political discourse. Trump would likely agree with you, though even his supporters would have to agree he plays pretty lose with the facts. Mcconnell strongly disagrees with you and with the framing and calls it a violent insurrection. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mcconnell-calls-jan-6-violent-insurrection-breaking-rnc-rcna15404
It does appear that McConnell bought into the media's misinformation about the RNC's claim. He should have at least pushed back on that, even if he wants to make it clear that he views the event as an insurrection as opposed to a riot. He provided ammo for the partisan argument that the republican party called an attack on the capitol legitimate discourse.
|
On February 10 2022 07:20 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 07:08 JimmiC wrote:On February 10 2022 06:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 10 2022 04:36 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 09 2022 12:06 BlackJack wrote:On February 09 2022 11:29 NewSunshine wrote:
Gotta say I didn't necessarily expect the sequence of [talking about Trump's insurrection] > [arguing about CRT] > [talking about what it's like being black despite a black poster warning everyone there's some foot-in-mouth going on], but I can't say it entirely surprises me, either.
I feel like there're much better avenues of discussion this thread could be taking. Almost any of them, really. Well the sequence starting with talking about Trump's insurrection isn't that surprising since it's talked about on every page of this thread from the day it happened I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that. What kind of signal does it send to the people who called for it, to Trump and everyone at the Stop the Steal rally, and to the people who actually stormed the Capitol, threatening, attacking, and harming anyone they could, when the RNC would sooner come after 2 of their own who supported a much needed investigation, than press charges on the people who made this happen? It is legitimate political discourse to the body of the Republican party right now. It's acceptable to them. Trump held rallies fomenting the sentiments driving the attack, and Republican congressmen were out there cheering them on as they tried to overturn the results of the election they lost. It isn't anything but acceptable to them. That fact is not open to debate. Your first paragraph, I will grant, asks a good question. Though there is the point that the investigatiors shouldnt continue to insinuate that the riot was centrally coordinated or planned when they already know that nit to be the case (in other words, an investigation can overstep its proper bounds). The second paragraph consists entirely of exaggerations. On February 10 2022 06:18 WombaT wrote:On February 10 2022 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 10 2022 05:34 Sermokala wrote:On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 09 2022 12:06 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
Well the sequence starting with talking about Trump's insurrection isn't that surprising since it's talked about on every page of this thread from the day it happened
I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that. You keep saying that but you never give proof or any type of explanation of "what they really meant". For the record this is the statement "Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes, they are referring to those representative's involvement in the Jan 6. commission and saying that they are persecuting citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse. what do you think that they meant and why should people not belive what they say? The RNC claims the jan 6th commission oversteps its boundaries and investigates people who have nothing to do with the Insurrection. No there is no proof of this, I asked him before. He just believes them at their word because... god knows why. It could be a legitimate claim if accompanied by a wider mea culpa. Or if the committee was doing those things. A few hypothetical scenarios. As it stands we’re at the ‘can’t even collectively admit that falsely claiming there was a fraudulent election was bad and fuelled the insurrection’ stage, so taking them at their word is beyond preposterously naive. The question of whether the RNC's claim is correct is not relevant to the question of what the RNC's claim is. And the question here is what the RNC's claim is. To put it another way. The RNC claim is that the committee is persecuting people other than those who participated in the riot, and those other people engaged in legitimate political discourse. Your saying "that claim is wrong" does not establish that the RNC claimed the riot itself to be legitimate political discourse. Trump would likely agree with you, though even his supporters would have to agree he plays pretty lose with the facts. Mcconnell strongly disagrees with you and with the framing and calls it a violent insurrection. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mcconnell-calls-jan-6-violent-insurrection-breaking-rnc-rcna15404 It does appear that McConnell bought into the media's misinformation about the RNC's claim. He should have at least pushed back on that, even if he wants to make it clear that he views the event as an insurrection as opposed to a riot. He provided ammo for the partisan argument that the republican party called an attack on the capitol legitimate discourse. No, he just isn't an idiot and realizes that when there is a coordinated effort to push a narrative that the election is being stolen and that a group then attacks Congress to 'stop the steal' there is a connection.
|
On February 10 2022 07:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 07:20 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 10 2022 07:08 JimmiC wrote:On February 10 2022 06:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 10 2022 04:36 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 09 2022 12:06 BlackJack wrote:On February 09 2022 11:29 NewSunshine wrote:
Gotta say I didn't necessarily expect the sequence of [talking about Trump's insurrection] > [arguing about CRT] > [talking about what it's like being black despite a black poster warning everyone there's some foot-in-mouth going on], but I can't say it entirely surprises me, either.
I feel like there're much better avenues of discussion this thread could be taking. Almost any of them, really. Well the sequence starting with talking about Trump's insurrection isn't that surprising since it's talked about on every page of this thread from the day it happened I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that. What kind of signal does it send to the people who called for it, to Trump and everyone at the Stop the Steal rally, and to the people who actually stormed the Capitol, threatening, attacking, and harming anyone they could, when the RNC would sooner come after 2 of their own who supported a much needed investigation, than press charges on the people who made this happen? It is legitimate political discourse to the body of the Republican party right now. It's acceptable to them. Trump held rallies fomenting the sentiments driving the attack, and Republican congressmen were out there cheering them on as they tried to overturn the results of the election they lost. It isn't anything but acceptable to them. That fact is not open to debate. Your first paragraph, I will grant, asks a good question. Though there is the point that the investigatiors shouldnt continue to insinuate that the riot was centrally coordinated or planned when they already know that nit to be the case (in other words, an investigation can overstep its proper bounds). The second paragraph consists entirely of exaggerations. On February 10 2022 06:18 WombaT wrote:On February 10 2022 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 10 2022 05:34 Sermokala wrote:On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that. You keep saying that but you never give proof or any type of explanation of "what they really meant". For the record this is the statement "Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes, they are referring to those representative's involvement in the Jan 6. commission and saying that they are persecuting citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse. what do you think that they meant and why should people not belive what they say? The RNC claims the jan 6th commission oversteps its boundaries and investigates people who have nothing to do with the Insurrection. No there is no proof of this, I asked him before. He just believes them at their word because... god knows why. It could be a legitimate claim if accompanied by a wider mea culpa. Or if the committee was doing those things. A few hypothetical scenarios. As it stands we’re at the ‘can’t even collectively admit that falsely claiming there was a fraudulent election was bad and fuelled the insurrection’ stage, so taking them at their word is beyond preposterously naive. The question of whether the RNC's claim is correct is not relevant to the question of what the RNC's claim is. And the question here is what the RNC's claim is. To put it another way. The RNC claim is that the committee is persecuting people other than those who participated in the riot, and those other people engaged in legitimate political discourse. Your saying "that claim is wrong" does not establish that the RNC claimed the riot itself to be legitimate political discourse. Trump would likely agree with you, though even his supporters would have to agree he plays pretty lose with the facts. Mcconnell strongly disagrees with you and with the framing and calls it a violent insurrection. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mcconnell-calls-jan-6-violent-insurrection-breaking-rnc-rcna15404 It does appear that McConnell bought into the media's misinformation about the RNC's claim. He should have at least pushed back on that, even if he wants to make it clear that he views the event as an insurrection as opposed to a riot. He provided ammo for the partisan argument that the republican party called an attack on the capitol legitimate discourse. No, he just isn't an idiot and realizes that when there is a coordinated effort to push a narrative that the election is being stolen and that a group then attacks Congress to 'stop the steal' there is a connection.
This post addresses whether the event was an insurrection, which to be clear is separate from the issue of whether the RNC called the event legitimate political discourse.
|
Northern Ireland25458 Posts
On February 10 2022 06:56 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 04:36 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 09 2022 12:06 BlackJack wrote:On February 09 2022 11:29 NewSunshine wrote:
Gotta say I didn't necessarily expect the sequence of [talking about Trump's insurrection] > [arguing about CRT] > [talking about what it's like being black despite a black poster warning everyone there's some foot-in-mouth going on], but I can't say it entirely surprises me, either.
I feel like there're much better avenues of discussion this thread could be taking. Almost any of them, really. Well the sequence starting with talking about Trump's insurrection isn't that surprising since it's talked about on every page of this thread from the day it happened I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that. What kind of signal does it send to the people who called for it, to Trump and everyone at the Stop the Steal rally, and to the people who actually stormed the Capitol, threatening, attacking, and harming anyone they could, when the RNC would sooner come after 2 of their own who supported a much needed investigation, than press charges on the people who made this happen? It is legitimate political discourse to the body of the Republican party right now. It's acceptable to them. Trump held rallies fomenting the sentiments driving the attack, and Republican congressmen were out there cheering them on as they tried to overturn the results of the election they lost. It isn't anything but acceptable to them. That fact is not open to debate. Your first paragraph, I will grant, asks a good question. Though there is the point that the investigatiors shouldnt continue to insinuate that the riot was centrally coordinated or planned when they already know that nit to be the case (in other words, an investigation can overstep its proper bounds). The second paragraph consists entirely of exaggerations. Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 06:18 WombaT wrote:On February 10 2022 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:On February 10 2022 05:34 Sermokala wrote:On February 09 2022 12:43 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 09 2022 12:22 NewSunshine wrote:On February 09 2022 12:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 09 2022 12:06 BlackJack wrote:On February 09 2022 11:29 NewSunshine wrote:
Gotta say I didn't necessarily expect the sequence of [talking about Trump's insurrection] > [arguing about CRT] > [talking about what it's like being black despite a black poster warning everyone there's some foot-in-mouth going on], but I can't say it entirely surprises me, either.
I feel like there're much better avenues of discussion this thread could be taking. Almost any of them, really. Well the sequence starting with talking about Trump's insurrection isn't that surprising since it's talked about on every page of this thread from the day it happened I thought it was primarily brought up again because of how the RNC recently trivialized it, no? Yup. The RNC tried to normalize a violent coup on democracy as "legitimate political discourse", and apparently they were onto something, because people are still carrying that torch here. And then it transitioned, about as elegantly as possible, to some folks trying to speak for black people. I should've made a fucking bingo card. Not to rehash the argument but just for the record it's not true that the RNC called the attack legitimate discourse, nor is it true that anyone here is saying that. You keep saying that but you never give proof or any type of explanation of "what they really meant". For the record this is the statement "Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse, and they are both utilizing their past professed political affiliation to mask Democrat abuse of prosecutorial power for partisan purposes, they are referring to those representative's involvement in the Jan 6. commission and saying that they are persecuting citizens engaged in legitimate public discourse. what do you think that they meant and why should people not belive what they say? The RNC claims the jan 6th commission oversteps its boundaries and investigates people who have nothing to do with the Insurrection. No there is no proof of this, I asked him before. He just believes them at their word because... god knows why. It could be a legitimate claim if accompanied by a wider mea culpa. Or if the committee was doing those things. A few hypothetical scenarios. As it stands we’re at the ‘can’t even collectively admit that falsely claiming there was a fraudulent election was bad and fuelled the insurrection’ stage, so taking them at their word is beyond preposterously naive. The question of whether the RNC's claim is correct is not relevant to the question of what the RNC's claim is. And the question here is what the RNC's claim is. To put it another way. The RNC claim is that the committee is persecuting people other than those who participated in the riot, and those other people engaged in legitimate political discourse. Your saying "that claim is wrong" does not establish that the RNC claimed the riot itself to be legitimate political discourse.
No I’m saying the claim doesn’t carry much weight, if at the same time you are trying to neuter an investigation into the parts you claim are illegitimate discourse.
Ultimately I think it’s largely pointless to investigate the riot without looking into what fuelled it in the first place.
The RNC want to narrowly restrict such an investigation that it’s essential pointless to have. I.e. people who were actually storming the Capitol.
So they want to investigate a storming of the Capitol, by people who felt the election was stolen, without looking at why those people felt the election was stolen.
It’s a completely pointless exercise if those are the terms. Which is why the RNC wants it to be on those terms
Honestly if you don’t like the framing, tough. If the glove fits and all that. If you want to argue on the specific minutiae you’re not actually wrong just people don’t actually buy it, at all.
‘Oh I think this thing is wrong but we shouldn’t investigate it thoroughly’ I mean come on, what else can be inferred?
|
It would be a lot more credible of an argument if the people they were investigating for the most part are refusing to cooperate unlike what these congressional investigations did before trumpian ideas infected the GOP.
They knew what the words meant and what the implication was. the backlash within the GOP confirms what they said and what they meant.
|
|
|
On February 10 2022 09:41 Sermokala wrote:
It would be a lot more credible of an argument if the people they were investigating for the most part are refusing to cooperate unlike what these congressional investigations did before trumpian ideas infected the GOP.
They knew what the words meant and what the implication was. the backlash within the GOP confirms what they said and what they meant.
I'm not sure that McConnell's statement constitutes "backlash within the GOP," even if it generated a lot of headlines. The RNC immediately clarified what they actually meant after the NYT story, which really should settle things, because if they actually made the claim they would stick to it. Of course these days you have to word things very carefully because otherwise the partisan media will pounce and misrepresent it.
|
They really have a cold stare that cuts right into your soul, and pries out your deepest secrets. Colder, even, than the coldest tomato soup. Always watch your back, because nobody is ever truly ready for... The Gazpacho.
Now on HBO Max.
|
On February 10 2022 10:07 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2022 09:41 Sermokala wrote:
It would be a lot more credible of an argument if the people they were investigating for the most part are refusing to cooperate unlike what these congressional investigations did before trumpian ideas infected the GOP.
They knew what the words meant and what the implication was. the backlash within the GOP confirms what they said and what they meant. I'm not sure that McConnell's statement constitutes "backlash within the GOP," even if it generated a lot of headlines. The RNC immediately clarified what they actually meant after the NYT story, which really should settle things, because if they actually made the claim they would stick to it. Of course these days you have to word things very carefully because otherwise the partisan media will pounce and misrepresent it.
You should be careful when crafting any statement so that people understand what you mean regardless of the audience that it is going out to.
This isn't small town council shit this is major leagues. There's no excuse for making mistakes like that when you have people arguing about it and voting on it.
They knew what the words meant. They kept the words. They decided to change their words after the fact when they realized how poorly they were being taken by everyone. Trying to rewrite history after you've been caught endorseing a coup doesn't change that history.
|
On February 10 2022 13:49 NewSunshine wrote:They really have a cold stare that cuts right into your soul, and pries out your deepest secrets. Colder, even, than the coldest tomato soup. Always watch your back, because nobody is ever truly ready for... The Gazpacho. Now on HBO Max.
I am not a fan of cold soup either. I think the idea is utterly absurd.
And i didn't even realize that it was meant to mean Gestapo. The words are not even that similar.
|
Gazpacho was a good character on Chowder, real role model material for the protagonist
|
I wish people would stop comparing minor inconvincies to things done by Nazi/SS/gestapo. FFS noone is rounding up random citizens, putting them against wall and then executing. Those people have no idea what real persecution looks like.
|
Northern Ireland25458 Posts
On February 10 2022 13:49 NewSunshine wrote:They really have a cold stare that cuts right into your soul, and pries out your deepest secrets. Colder, even, than the coldest tomato soup. Always watch your back, because nobody is ever truly ready for... The Gazpacho. Now on HBO Max.
Even better served cold than revenge.
Obvious clownishness aside, I do find the rhetoric and those that respond to said rhetoric a tad concerning.
|
Northern Ireland25458 Posts
On February 10 2022 16:54 Zambrah wrote:
Gazpacho was a good character on Chowder, real role model material for the protagonist
If he’d stuck with his (admittedly narrow) cookery show ‘Chowder with Crowder’ society would be a better place
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
