They very much do not want a Republic, which places limits on what the popular vote can enact. They want to save , or rather create, a pure “Democracy” where the majority vote rules….and one in which they are in charge of counting the votes.
The “progressive” left in the US always loudly accuse conservatives of committing crimes the left is actually guilty of committing and joyously embracing so long as their pets in the media refuse to report on it
You are correct.
Of course, before World War 2, and before the House Committee on Un American Activities (Now THAT is its correct name), the Communists and Socialists proudly called themselves by the correct name. Since then, everyone says “I am not a Communist, I am not a socialist, I am not a Progressive, I am a Liberal — Hijacking the phrase from the Liberals which includes virtually everyone not a Leftist Totalitarian now. In other words, almost all Republicans (I’m sure there are some mercantilists among the Republicans) and the more conservative of Democrats now.
The Electoral college is DEI for conservatives so in the spirit of eliminating all DEI initiatives, it should go as well.
Stack the Supreme Court? Shall we have a discussion of how the Republicans wouldn’t allow a vote on Garland because it was “too close to an election” and then appointed Comey-Barrett even closer to an election?
Free speech is fun: Try and say bad things about Republicans and you’re committing “hate speech.” So making fun of Charlie Kirk’s death = hate speech, but making fun (as Trump did) of Muller’s death is OK.
Meanwhile the republicans try desperately to gerrymander their way into continued control of the government:
When DEI is part of the U.S. Constitution you will have a point there. As it is, you have less than nothing with that first sentence.
While the second sentence, has some merit, to be fair please include the entire rational. Not just the part that supports your grievance.
Trump didn’t make fun of the death. He did express pleasure of it. Which is in exceedingly bad taste. But Mueller was not murdered. Kirk was murdered. This does make a difference. Celebrating a murder is going to increase the likelihood of similar murders. It is not the same as a natural death in the grand scheme of things.
I think Gerrymandering is repugnant. I think all districts should be draw by an algorithm which creates rectangular grids (with the possible exception of using rivers and other significant obstacles for some borders) and changes the size of the grid to get nearly equal populations in each rectangle. It is all done by computer. There will be some unlucky situations, but it will eliminate race and political affiliation from the equation.
The Electoral College is the very definition of DEI: during the founding the slave states were less populated (with white people) than the northern states and wanted a way to be able to use their slaves to increase their representation in the process. Which is another way of saying they wanted some of that “equity” and “inclusion” in the process of picking the president, since they would otherwise be a minority and get run over. And the electoral college *continues* to exist for the same reason: small states don’t want a popular election of the president because then they’d be trampled by the large states and their views wouldn’t get representation. They want equity of representation, even though they’re not the majority. Conservatives claim DEI is an affirmative action program that pushes people to the front of the line without having earned it: The electoral college is a way for conservatives to push their candidate to the front of the line even without having won the popular vote. You can’t get more DEI than the electoral college.
Wrt the SOTUS, the rationale wasn’t really a rationale so much as an excuse: McConnell didn’t want Obama to get another pick on the court, so he invented a new “rule” that let him delay the appointment into the new administration. And then conveniently forgot the rule when Trump was in power. It’s just raw corruption. Saying it has a “rationale” is too generous.
Wrt Trump and being a dick when people die, Mueller was just one example. Rob Reiner, John McCain, Ruth Bader Ginsburg…If you want to stick specifically to murder, Reiner’s right there for you.
“The Electoral College is the very definition of DEI”
Then you have a very strong misunderstanding of the electoral college, a just plain inaccurate definition of DEI, or both.
The Electoral College has almost literally nothing to do with the representation issue – it is downstream from that, AND watered down massively by the inclusion of the House members.
Without the Electoral College, a politician could get 45% of the vote in the entire country except for, say, New York City where they get 100% of the vote, and still win. This is not a recipe for success, or good representation.
The easiest examples (like that one) also point out have much it limits the impact of fraud – you can’t just crank out fraudulent votes in one area and overcome the votes of the entire nation. There’s a strong firebreak to limit the damage. (That’s a good argument whether you think there is any fraud going on right now or not.)
“Wrt the SOTUS, the rationale wasn’t really a rationale so much as an excuse: McConnell didn’t want Obama to get another pick on the court, so he invented a new “rule” that let him delay the appointment into the new administration.”
You can certainly argue that said rule is not right, for any of various reasons, but it was not “new”. It was a continuation of behaviour *FROM BOTH PARTIES* for longer than any of us has been alive.
When it’s the year of a Presidential election and the Senate and Presidency are held by opposing parties, that’s what happens. Excuses vary, publicity varies, but it’s not new, and it wasn’t invented by McConnell.
Somehow, it’s bad when Republicans do it but not Democrats. Funny how that works.
“Wrt Trump and being a dick when people die”
I will **ENTIRELY** grant you that Trump is crass and says crass, rude things. Often. As usual, all I ask is that you hold everyone to the same standard.
If you tried to hold the left to the standard that you are trying to hold Trump to (and the right more generally), you wouldn’t have any time left to complain about Trump of the right because of the ****OVERWHELMING**** amount of time you’d have to spend criticizing the Left over that one issue. It’s not close.
“So making fun of Charlie Kirk’s death = hate speech”
That’s dishonest. It’s not “making fun” of Charlie Kirk’s death – people on the left do that sort of thing all the time, have my whole life. There’s some from the right, too – people are always tempted, when it’s someone they don’t like.
No, they ***APPROVED*** of his MURDER. Explicitly! ****CELEBRATED**** it!!!! Made suggestions for who to kill next!
Comparing Trump’s crass, self-centered commentary, even on Reiner’s murder, to what the left did EN MASSE in regard to Kirk’s murder is obscene and completely, utterly dishonest. Even by the standards I’ve gotten used to from you around here, that is ridiculous and offensive.
“Meanwhile the republicans try desperately to gerrymander their way into continued control of the government:”
How dare the Republicans fight back? No shooting BACK! That’s rude.
Check every attempt at measuring gerrymandering in this country – you’ll see that, even AFTER this season of open redistricting, the Democrats are still significantly ahead. If it’s that you don’t like gerrymandering, you are complaining about the wrong party.
Until something else can be done about it, “tit for tat” is the best option available.
I have to say it so often, to so many people: ONE set of standards.
There are plenty of things I dislike in politics and the world in general, but only policing one side of the aisle for them is BS, and I won’t support it anymore.
“Without the Electoral College, a politician could get 45% of the vote in the entire country except for, say, New York City where they get 100% of the vote, and still win.”
You think that’s a realistic scenario? I think any election that yielded significant anomalies would result in the whole thing getting turned over. We’re currently arguing over 1 or 2%…a 100% result wouldn’t even get argued about.
“You can certainly argue that said rule is not right, for any of various reasons, but it was not “new””
Your right, not “new,” but also not a “rule:” https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/mar/22/mitch-mcconnell/mitch-mcconnell-exaggerates-tradition-not-confirmi/. And not even something that can be attributed to the president being a democrat: “Fortas’ failed confirmation primarily resulted from ethical questions over fees he received, his prior decisions and his closeness with Johnson. In any case, the Senate’s decision not to confirm didn’t actually leave a vacant seat on the court because Warren chose to stay on the bench.”
“they ***APPROVED*** of his MURDER”
Care to define “they?” Because I have $100 says for every liberal example you can provide of somebody celebrating Kirk’s murder I can provide a liberal condemning it. “what the left did EN MASSE” Again, no. Was there a large volume of social media commentary? Yes. Do posts on social media constitute the “mass” of liberals in the U.S.? No. You’re reacting to the noise created by the loudest speakers online, not by actual support for such behavior by liberals “en masse.”
Gerrymandering: “How dare the Republicans fight back? No shooting BACK! That’s rude.”
The Republicans could have fought back by passing anti-gerrymandering legislation. The only reason they don’t is because it benefits them. Here’s a recent example that Mitch McConnell didn’t like and blocked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act
Loading...
“Well I’m not a historian, but it sounds to me like it very much was”
Not relevant – what I’m pointing out is that, de facto, it is not a significant part of the Electoral College. That “equal representation of the states” IS a huge part of the Senate, obviously (which was the point – that states themselves had some level of sovereignty), but in the Electoral College, that is MASSIVELY watered down.
California has 52 + 2 votes. Alaska has 1 + 2 votes. That means Alaska has *3 whole votes*, wow! Ever notice that the tiny states, despite the (accurate) claim that the individual votes of their people could swing more EC votes per person, are almost entirely ignored because of how insignificant 3 votes is? That disparity is not REMOTELY enough to change the actual behaviour of politicians in terms of attention to the states, which was the actual point of the Senate (that states are considered equally sovereign in some ways, regardless of size or population).
Which states get outsized attention (and thus outsized influence) is not a function of that very slight disparity, it is a function of which states are “swing” states of middling or higher size.
“You think that’s a realistic scenario?”
It was OBVIOUSLY a simplistic and instantly easy example, not one carefully constructed to be perfectly realistic.
But at the same time, there are examples of 100% Democrat returns in areas in the last two decades that were not challenged, despite being utterly unbelievable, so your ignoring the issue does not change anything.
There are also examples of districts having higher than 200% turnout which weren’t investigated… the official reasoning is that the number is valid because of same-day registration (the denominator is not changed in the official numbers), but that just pushes the story to “literally 100% of all eligible voters turned out PLUS that many more people who had never bothered to register before”, which is also hilariously unbelievable.
“I think any election that yielded significant anomalies would result in the whole thing getting turned over.”
No, it wouldn’t. 2020 – many of the “anomalies” that were obvious and reported then are being proven right now, and…………. did you support overturning that? Of course not.
“Your right, not “new,” but also not a “rule:””
And yet, factually, it’s what happened. As I explicitly mentioned, “Excuses vary”, but the result was exactly so.
So, yes, in terms of *what actually happened*, that has been the rule.
“Because I have $100 says for every liberal example you can provide of somebody celebrating Kirk’s murder I can provide a liberal condemning it.”
So, your big counter is that ONLY HALF of liberals publicly celebrated the murder? Wow, I feel SOOOOOOooooo much better now. /sarc, just in case you decide to be obtuse about it.
I could give you that argument, utterly give it to you, and it changes NOTHING. “Only” half the Democrats publicly celebrating the murder of a non-violent, “I advocate talking to everyone and never being violent” activist they disagreed with.
For goodness sake, LISTEN to yourself. It’s insane.
“Again, no.”
LA LA LA if you put your fingers in your ears, you can ignore all the people proudly and publicly posting on facebook how wonderful it was that he was dead (and suggesting next targets). MUCH LESS than half complained about that.
So, AGAIN YES, it’s just inconvenient for you, so you pretend otherwise.
“The Republicans could have fought back by passing anti-gerrymandering legislation.”
So, you just agree with me – no argument against the facts, just “how dare they shoot BACK?!?” At least you’re brazen about it, I guess.
Yes, no “shooting” at all would be better but as long as one side never shoots back, why would the one DOING the shooting quit?
ONE set of standards, John. You can’t seem to understand that.
“Tit for tat” is where we are. It sucks, but the other methods have been failing for literally decades, so this is what’s left.
And complaining about the side fighting BACK but not other one is dishonest BS.
Loading...
The Democrats are all about preserving Their Democratcy.
For us it’s just a truthful meme. (And funny).
The real truth is that we never have had or has anyone in power ever wanted a “democracy”.
The communists know that or just don’t care. (30 second examination of mail-in voting would tell you that.)
But here’s the scary part. Those same communist will actually do all that crap listed in the meme. Smile, and dance in the blood of your children while they do it.
Were at war.
And so far, all our side has done is write memes.
“The midterms may provide a reckoning, but it won’t be the one the U.S. needs. Our divisions run too deep. One example: Prosecuting the rampant corruption of Trump’s family and associates will deliver justice, but if we fail to also address congressional corruption (insider trading, Citizens United spending) we’re putting a Band-Aid over a wound that needs to be cauterized. Does our society have the courage to go deeper and the attention span to see it through? My Yoda on American history is historian Heather Cox Richardson. Last time we spoke, I was struck by her optimism. “We’ve renewed our democracy in the past,” she told me, “and we have the tools to do it again.” Her advice: Channel Lincoln, who navigated a period of political instability and violence and renewed our democracy by appealing to the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Although Lincoln didn’t just appeal to values — he presided over 600,000 deaths first.
The question isn’t whether the U.S. can renew itself. History says yes. Americans yearn for better leadership. But this misses the point — the people running the country aren’t stupid, they’ve been incentivized to continue to engage in corruption, demonization, and the trampling of institutions and norms. We don’t have a leadership crisis but a consequence deficit.”
” One example: Prosecuting the rampant corruption of Trump’s family and associates will deliver justice, but if we fail to also address congressional corruption (insider trading, Citizens United spending) we’re putting a Band-Aid over a wound that needs to be cauterized.”
Just like they have failed to do too almost any politician.
Especially the communist ones.
Biden, Harris, Omar, Schumer. Double at Seattle city hall.
How come you never point them out?
How ’bout yourself for violating 8USC, 1324?
Trump needs to be tried for treason, for sure. But he’s at the back of a long ass line of you people.
“the rampant corruption of Trump’s family and associates ”
If people just ASSERT that often enough, many people will believe it. Like John.
Personally, I would like EVIDENCE over ASSERTION.
But the larger point in that article is one I’ve been trying to get through to people for literally years at this point: **one standard of judgement**.
People’s complaints about Trump, even the accurate ones (and there are accurate ones), are utterly impossible to take seriously when he doesn’t stand out from the other politicians.
“I’m shocked SHOCKED to discover GAMBLING going on here!” “Your winnings, sir.”
Utter hypocrisy. 99% of the people complaining about Trump DO NOT CARE AT ALL about the things they are making complaints about, as evidenced by their lack of complaint of the same thing (but much worse, in most cases) going on for DECADES from people they support.
Trump is the tallest Munchkin in Munchkinland, and they complain loudly and bitterly about how short he is.
(In that analogy, I would LOVE a non-Munchkin to vote for, but that’s obviously not the point.)
Reminds me that “82% of statistics are made up on the spot.”
There are pages and pages of search results showing organizations documenting Trump’s corruption, both in monetary terms for him self and his family, and favors like pardons or cabinet appointments. If he were a democrat, all the conservatives would be going batshit. But it’s your guy, so it’s all good. Feel free to Google for more, here’s a selection:
Yes, other politicians are corrupt, as has been the case for pretty much ever. But not at this *scale*. This is orders of magnitude over what any other politician has managed to plunder.
My assumption, though, is this will be a “lead a horse to water” scenario….
Democracy: I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Of course, the fact that the US is supposed to be a constitutional republic escapes them, too.
They very much do not want a Republic, which places limits on what the popular vote can enact. They want to save , or rather create, a pure “Democracy” where the majority vote rules….and one in which they are in charge of counting the votes.
The “progressive” left in the US always loudly accuse conservatives of committing crimes the left is actually guilty of committing and joyously embracing so long as their pets in the media refuse to report on it
Leftists or communists, not liberals. . I recognize you got the meme from elsewhere but people need to get their language right.
You are correct.
Of course, before World War 2, and before the House Committee on Un American Activities (Now THAT is its correct name), the Communists and Socialists proudly called themselves by the correct name. Since then, everyone says “I am not a Communist, I am not a socialist, I am not a Progressive, I am a Liberal — Hijacking the phrase from the Liberals which includes virtually everyone not a Leftist Totalitarian now. In other words, almost all Republicans (I’m sure there are some mercantilists among the Republicans) and the more conservative of Democrats now.
The Electoral college is DEI for conservatives so in the spirit of eliminating all DEI initiatives, it should go as well.
Stack the Supreme Court? Shall we have a discussion of how the Republicans wouldn’t allow a vote on Garland because it was “too close to an election” and then appointed Comey-Barrett even closer to an election?
Free speech is fun: Try and say bad things about Republicans and you’re committing “hate speech.” So making fun of Charlie Kirk’s death = hate speech, but making fun (as Trump did) of Muller’s death is OK.
Meanwhile the republicans try desperately to gerrymander their way into continued control of the government:
https://newrepublic.com/article/209627/desantis-gerrymander-virginia-democrats-wisdom
That Supreme Court case yesterday is gonna cut both ways, and it’s gonna cut deep.
When DEI is part of the U.S. Constitution you will have a point there. As it is, you have less than nothing with that first sentence.
While the second sentence, has some merit, to be fair please include the entire rational. Not just the part that supports your grievance.
Trump didn’t make fun of the death. He did express pleasure of it. Which is in exceedingly bad taste. But Mueller was not murdered. Kirk was murdered. This does make a difference. Celebrating a murder is going to increase the likelihood of similar murders. It is not the same as a natural death in the grand scheme of things.
I think Gerrymandering is repugnant. I think all districts should be draw by an algorithm which creates rectangular grids (with the possible exception of using rivers and other significant obstacles for some borders) and changes the size of the grid to get nearly equal populations in each rectangle. It is all done by computer. There will be some unlucky situations, but it will eliminate race and political affiliation from the equation.
The Electoral College is the very definition of DEI: during the founding the slave states were less populated (with white people) than the northern states and wanted a way to be able to use their slaves to increase their representation in the process. Which is another way of saying they wanted some of that “equity” and “inclusion” in the process of picking the president, since they would otherwise be a minority and get run over. And the electoral college *continues* to exist for the same reason: small states don’t want a popular election of the president because then they’d be trampled by the large states and their views wouldn’t get representation. They want equity of representation, even though they’re not the majority. Conservatives claim DEI is an affirmative action program that pushes people to the front of the line without having earned it: The electoral college is a way for conservatives to push their candidate to the front of the line even without having won the popular vote. You can’t get more DEI than the electoral college.
Wrt the SOTUS, the rationale wasn’t really a rationale so much as an excuse: McConnell didn’t want Obama to get another pick on the court, so he invented a new “rule” that let him delay the appointment into the new administration. And then conveniently forgot the rule when Trump was in power. It’s just raw corruption. Saying it has a “rationale” is too generous.
Wrt Trump and being a dick when people die, Mueller was just one example. Rob Reiner, John McCain, Ruth Bader Ginsburg…If you want to stick specifically to murder, Reiner’s right there for you.
“The Electoral College is the very definition of DEI”
Then you have a very strong misunderstanding of the electoral college, a just plain inaccurate definition of DEI, or both.
The Electoral College has almost literally nothing to do with the representation issue – it is downstream from that, AND watered down massively by the inclusion of the House members.
Without the Electoral College, a politician could get 45% of the vote in the entire country except for, say, New York City where they get 100% of the vote, and still win. This is not a recipe for success, or good representation.
The easiest examples (like that one) also point out have much it limits the impact of fraud – you can’t just crank out fraudulent votes in one area and overcome the votes of the entire nation. There’s a strong firebreak to limit the damage. (That’s a good argument whether you think there is any fraud going on right now or not.)
“Wrt the SOTUS, the rationale wasn’t really a rationale so much as an excuse: McConnell didn’t want Obama to get another pick on the court, so he invented a new “rule” that let him delay the appointment into the new administration.”
You can certainly argue that said rule is not right, for any of various reasons, but it was not “new”. It was a continuation of behaviour *FROM BOTH PARTIES* for longer than any of us has been alive.
When it’s the year of a Presidential election and the Senate and Presidency are held by opposing parties, that’s what happens. Excuses vary, publicity varies, but it’s not new, and it wasn’t invented by McConnell.
Somehow, it’s bad when Republicans do it but not Democrats. Funny how that works.
“Wrt Trump and being a dick when people die”
I will **ENTIRELY** grant you that Trump is crass and says crass, rude things. Often. As usual, all I ask is that you hold everyone to the same standard.
If you tried to hold the left to the standard that you are trying to hold Trump to (and the right more generally), you wouldn’t have any time left to complain about Trump of the right because of the ****OVERWHELMING**** amount of time you’d have to spend criticizing the Left over that one issue. It’s not close.
“So making fun of Charlie Kirk’s death = hate speech”
That’s dishonest. It’s not “making fun” of Charlie Kirk’s death – people on the left do that sort of thing all the time, have my whole life. There’s some from the right, too – people are always tempted, when it’s someone they don’t like.
No, they ***APPROVED*** of his MURDER. Explicitly! ****CELEBRATED**** it!!!! Made suggestions for who to kill next!
Comparing Trump’s crass, self-centered commentary, even on Reiner’s murder, to what the left did EN MASSE in regard to Kirk’s murder is obscene and completely, utterly dishonest. Even by the standards I’ve gotten used to from you around here, that is ridiculous and offensive.
“Meanwhile the republicans try desperately to gerrymander their way into continued control of the government:”
How dare the Republicans fight back? No shooting BACK! That’s rude.
Check every attempt at measuring gerrymandering in this country – you’ll see that, even AFTER this season of open redistricting, the Democrats are still significantly ahead. If it’s that you don’t like gerrymandering, you are complaining about the wrong party.
Until something else can be done about it, “tit for tat” is the best option available.
I have to say it so often, to so many people: ONE set of standards.
There are plenty of things I dislike in politics and the world in general, but only policing one side of the aisle for them is BS, and I won’t support it anymore.
“The Electoral College has almost literally nothing to do with the representation issue”
Well I’m not a historian, but it sounds to me like it very much was: https://www.history.com/articles/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention
“Without the Electoral College, a politician could get 45% of the vote in the entire country except for, say, New York City where they get 100% of the vote, and still win.”
You think that’s a realistic scenario? I think any election that yielded significant anomalies would result in the whole thing getting turned over. We’re currently arguing over 1 or 2%…a 100% result wouldn’t even get argued about.
“You can certainly argue that said rule is not right, for any of various reasons, but it was not “new””
Your right, not “new,” but also not a “rule:” https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/mar/22/mitch-mcconnell/mitch-mcconnell-exaggerates-tradition-not-confirmi/. And not even something that can be attributed to the president being a democrat: “Fortas’ failed confirmation primarily resulted from ethical questions over fees he received, his prior decisions and his closeness with Johnson. In any case, the Senate’s decision not to confirm didn’t actually leave a vacant seat on the court because Warren chose to stay on the bench.”
“they ***APPROVED*** of his MURDER”
Care to define “they?” Because I have $100 says for every liberal example you can provide of somebody celebrating Kirk’s murder I can provide a liberal condemning it. “what the left did EN MASSE” Again, no. Was there a large volume of social media commentary? Yes. Do posts on social media constitute the “mass” of liberals in the U.S.? No. You’re reacting to the noise created by the loudest speakers online, not by actual support for such behavior by liberals “en masse.”
Gerrymandering: “How dare the Republicans fight back? No shooting BACK! That’s rude.”
The Republicans could have fought back by passing anti-gerrymandering legislation. The only reason they don’t is because it benefits them. Here’s a recent example that Mitch McConnell didn’t like and blocked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_People_Act
“Well I’m not a historian, but it sounds to me like it very much was”
Not relevant – what I’m pointing out is that, de facto, it is not a significant part of the Electoral College. That “equal representation of the states” IS a huge part of the Senate, obviously (which was the point – that states themselves had some level of sovereignty), but in the Electoral College, that is MASSIVELY watered down.
California has 52 + 2 votes. Alaska has 1 + 2 votes. That means Alaska has *3 whole votes*, wow! Ever notice that the tiny states, despite the (accurate) claim that the individual votes of their people could swing more EC votes per person, are almost entirely ignored because of how insignificant 3 votes is? That disparity is not REMOTELY enough to change the actual behaviour of politicians in terms of attention to the states, which was the actual point of the Senate (that states are considered equally sovereign in some ways, regardless of size or population).
Which states get outsized attention (and thus outsized influence) is not a function of that very slight disparity, it is a function of which states are “swing” states of middling or higher size.
“You think that’s a realistic scenario?”
It was OBVIOUSLY a simplistic and instantly easy example, not one carefully constructed to be perfectly realistic.
But at the same time, there are examples of 100% Democrat returns in areas in the last two decades that were not challenged, despite being utterly unbelievable, so your ignoring the issue does not change anything.
There are also examples of districts having higher than 200% turnout which weren’t investigated… the official reasoning is that the number is valid because of same-day registration (the denominator is not changed in the official numbers), but that just pushes the story to “literally 100% of all eligible voters turned out PLUS that many more people who had never bothered to register before”, which is also hilariously unbelievable.
“I think any election that yielded significant anomalies would result in the whole thing getting turned over.”
No, it wouldn’t. 2020 – many of the “anomalies” that were obvious and reported then are being proven right now, and…………. did you support overturning that? Of course not.
“Your right, not “new,” but also not a “rule:””
And yet, factually, it’s what happened. As I explicitly mentioned, “Excuses vary”, but the result was exactly so.
So, yes, in terms of *what actually happened*, that has been the rule.
“Because I have $100 says for every liberal example you can provide of somebody celebrating Kirk’s murder I can provide a liberal condemning it.”
So, your big counter is that ONLY HALF of liberals publicly celebrated the murder? Wow, I feel SOOOOOOooooo much better now. /sarc, just in case you decide to be obtuse about it.
I could give you that argument, utterly give it to you, and it changes NOTHING. “Only” half the Democrats publicly celebrating the murder of a non-violent, “I advocate talking to everyone and never being violent” activist they disagreed with.
For goodness sake, LISTEN to yourself. It’s insane.
“Again, no.”
LA LA LA if you put your fingers in your ears, you can ignore all the people proudly and publicly posting on facebook how wonderful it was that he was dead (and suggesting next targets). MUCH LESS than half complained about that.
So, AGAIN YES, it’s just inconvenient for you, so you pretend otherwise.
“The Republicans could have fought back by passing anti-gerrymandering legislation.”
So, you just agree with me – no argument against the facts, just “how dare they shoot BACK?!?” At least you’re brazen about it, I guess.
Yes, no “shooting” at all would be better but as long as one side never shoots back, why would the one DOING the shooting quit?
ONE set of standards, John. You can’t seem to understand that.
“Tit for tat” is where we are. It sucks, but the other methods have been failing for literally decades, so this is what’s left.
And complaining about the side fighting BACK but not other one is dishonest BS.
The Democrats are all about preserving Their Democratcy.
Yes, I’ve made comments to that effect often, for a long time. When they say “Our Democracy”, they mean the country owned by the Democratic Party.
For us it’s just a truthful meme. (And funny).
The real truth is that we never have had or has anyone in power ever wanted a “democracy”.
The communists know that or just don’t care. (30 second examination of mail-in voting would tell you that.)
But here’s the scary part. Those same communist will actually do all that crap listed in the meme. Smile, and dance in the blood of your children while they do it.
Were at war.
And so far, all our side has done is write memes.
Scott Galloway has a particularly relevant post today on this topic:
https://www.profgmedia.com/p/the-reckoning
“The midterms may provide a reckoning, but it won’t be the one the U.S. needs. Our divisions run too deep. One example: Prosecuting the rampant corruption of Trump’s family and associates will deliver justice, but if we fail to also address congressional corruption (insider trading, Citizens United spending) we’re putting a Band-Aid over a wound that needs to be cauterized. Does our society have the courage to go deeper and the attention span to see it through? My Yoda on American history is historian Heather Cox Richardson. Last time we spoke, I was struck by her optimism. “We’ve renewed our democracy in the past,” she told me, “and we have the tools to do it again.” Her advice: Channel Lincoln, who navigated a period of political instability and violence and renewed our democracy by appealing to the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Although Lincoln didn’t just appeal to values — he presided over 600,000 deaths first.
The question isn’t whether the U.S. can renew itself. History says yes. Americans yearn for better leadership. But this misses the point — the people running the country aren’t stupid, they’ve been incentivized to continue to engage in corruption, demonization, and the trampling of institutions and norms. We don’t have a leadership crisis but a consequence deficit.”
” One example: Prosecuting the rampant corruption of Trump’s family and associates will deliver justice, but if we fail to also address congressional corruption (insider trading, Citizens United spending) we’re putting a Band-Aid over a wound that needs to be cauterized.”
Just like they have failed to do too almost any politician.
Especially the communist ones.
Biden, Harris, Omar, Schumer. Double at Seattle city hall.
How come you never point them out?
How ’bout yourself for violating 8USC, 1324?
Trump needs to be tried for treason, for sure. But he’s at the back of a long ass line of you people.
“the rampant corruption of Trump’s family and associates ”
If people just ASSERT that often enough, many people will believe it. Like John.
Personally, I would like EVIDENCE over ASSERTION.
But the larger point in that article is one I’ve been trying to get through to people for literally years at this point: **one standard of judgement**.
People’s complaints about Trump, even the accurate ones (and there are accurate ones), are utterly impossible to take seriously when he doesn’t stand out from the other politicians.
“I’m shocked SHOCKED to discover GAMBLING going on here!” “Your winnings, sir.”
Utter hypocrisy. 99% of the people complaining about Trump DO NOT CARE AT ALL about the things they are making complaints about, as evidenced by their lack of complaint of the same thing (but much worse, in most cases) going on for DECADES from people they support.
Trump is the tallest Munchkin in Munchkinland, and they complain loudly and bitterly about how short he is.
(In that analogy, I would LOVE a non-Munchkin to vote for, but that’s obviously not the point.)
And yes, John, you are DEFINITELY included.
“99% of the people complaining…”
Reminds me that “82% of statistics are made up on the spot.”
There are pages and pages of search results showing organizations documenting Trump’s corruption, both in monetary terms for him self and his family, and favors like pardons or cabinet appointments. If he were a democrat, all the conservatives would be going batshit. But it’s your guy, so it’s all good. Feel free to Google for more, here’s a selection:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/2026-march/trump-administrations-rampant-pay-to-play-corruption-threatens-our-democracy/
https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/list-trumps-alleged-corrupt-acts-8f62af
https://issueone.org/articles/the-corruption-chronicles/
https://campaignlegal.org/document/tracking-trump-administrations-most-corrupt-transactions
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/trumps-term-2-corruption-by-the-numbers-more-golf-trips-more-foreign-visitors-and-more-profits/
Yes, other politicians are corrupt, as has been the case for pretty much ever. But not at this *scale*. This is orders of magnitude over what any other politician has managed to plunder.
My assumption, though, is this will be a “lead a horse to water” scenario….