Rubicon MAGA version

ConversesPro and Con

Afegeix-te a LibraryThing per participar.

Rubicon MAGA version

1Earthling1
des. 27, 2020, 10:26pm

"In the closing days of 50 BC, the Roman Senate declared that Julius Caesar’s term as a provincial governor was finished. Roman law afforded its magistrates immunity to prosecution, but this immunity would end with Caesar’s term. As the leader of the populares faction, Caesar had many enemies among the elite optimates, and as soon as he left office, these enemies planned to bury him in litigation. Caesar knew he would lose everything: property, liberty, even his life. Caesar decided it was better to fight for victory than accept certain defeat. In January 49 BC, he crossed the Rubicon River with his army, in violation of sacred Roman law, and begin a civil war. “Alea iacta est,” said Caesar: The die is cast.

In the closing days of 2020 AD, the American media has declared that Donald Trump’s term as president is finished. As the leader of the deplorables faction, Trump has many enemies among the elite irates, and as soon as he leaves office, these enemies plan to bury him in litigation...The same people who warned us that Trump is worse than Hitler will now scoff: “Donald Trump is no Caesar!”

That’s true. Trump is in a much better position than Caesar was. Unlike Caesar, Trump can cross the Rubicon legally. He need violate no sacred law. He has all of the legal power he needs to act and win. Congress has given it to him. All he needs to do is invoke the Insurrection Act."

https://macris.substack.com/p/trump-at-the-rubicon

2John5918
Editat: des. 27, 2020, 11:25pm

>1 Earthling1: the American media has declared that Donald Trump’s term as president is finished

I thought it was the US electorate and the Electoral College which had declared that Trump's term as president is finished. The mainstream media correctly reports this fact.

begin a civil war

People who even toy with the idea of beginning a civil war in a developed 21st century democracy have almost certainly never lived through one.

3Earthling1
des. 27, 2020, 11:25pm

>2 John5918: The Electoral College votes aren't counted until January 6, 2021. Got it now, chief?

4prosfilaes
des. 28, 2020, 12:01am

>1 Earthling1: Un-fucking-believable. Compare Donald Trump to the man who ended the Roman Republic and suggest that Trump should do the same. Then argue that "he need violate no sacred law", because the Constitution of the United States of America, which says that Biden is the president-elect of the United States, is not "sacred law"

> In a functioning democracy, if 70% of the second-largest political party in the country thinks an election has been stolen, the elites come together to cooperate to investigate and restore legitimacy in the eyes of the voters. In the US, that’s not happening.

No. In a functioning democracy, the politicians of that second-largest political party explain to its members what a democracy is, that in a democracy, the person who has the most votes wins, and thus the second-largest political party won't usually win. There are other effects, like the Electoral College, but the more that messes with the election of the majority winner, the less you really have a democracy.

Again with emphasis: if the majority of the second-largest political party in a functioning democracy believes the election has been stolen from them, they're delusional and anti-democracy. The second-largest political party in a functioning democracy is first loser.

5prosfilaes
des. 28, 2020, 12:11am

>3 Earthling1: Are you planning on rigging the election? If no, then what should matter is when they were cast, and that's been done. This continuing pushing of lines, where what matters is now not what the voters said on November 3rd or even what the electors said on December 14th, but when the votes are count, is quite scary for people who believe in democracy.

6lriley
Editat: des. 28, 2020, 12:40am

When the President pro tempore of the United States Senate and someone who Trump seems to be counting on for his coup--one Charles Grassley Senator from Iowa was asked if he thought Biden was President-elect? he said this: 'I don't have to.The constitution does'. When asked to further explain Grassley said: 'I follow the constitution'. Doesn't seem to me that Grassley buys into the Trumpian bullshit.

Yesterday the NYPost (a pro-Trump newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch) came out with an editorial telling Trump to accept his defeat like a man, telling him that Sidney Powell was a nutjob and Michael Flynn's ideas were treasonous, that what Trump seemed bent on was an undemocratic coup, that he lost fair and square and that no evidence has been produced to suggest otherwise and that his narcissism might well lose the Republicans the Senate. Basically it was a 'grow the fuck up' editorial.

Donald's been losing Republican governors and Senators--he's been losing conservative media. What he's been hanging on to is right wingers and also a lot of tea party happy congresspeople and pretty much he's hanging on to nutjobs of every kind like white supremacists and other racists--he's good at hanging on to them.

7John5918
Editat: des. 28, 2020, 1:06am

Dictators and past-their-sell-by-date autocratic presidents throughout Africa are rubbing their hands in glee as they watch the contortions of the president and his supporters in the USA, a nation widely held to be a prime exemplar of democracy and constitutionality, struggling to overturn the will of the electorate and cling to power by any tenuous means possible. Even if Trump fails in his bid to retain power, this is not a good omen for democracy in the rest of the world. It does remind us, though, that democracy cannot be taken for granted, even in long established developed democratic nations, and that citizens and civil society need to be ever-vigilant.

8lriley
des. 28, 2020, 1:25am

#7--the election wasn't even that close and yet Donald's got millions convinced he's been robbed and a large % of those thinking they should take power by any means necessary including violence. What's even more amazing Trump hasn't really come up with any evidence--he just bellows out a lie and those millions suck it up unquestioningly and it's the unquestioning part that makes them brainwashed tools. The business about the voting machines for an instance--when push came to shove Trump's enablers in the media changed their tune on that because they knew they were going to get the shit sued out of them.....and actually Dominion plans on doing it anyway. Still it makes no difference if Trump's media enablers are forced to back down--those millions of Trump clowns keep on believing Trump's pablum irregardless......and this thread from the 'think for yourself' guy who jumps whenever Donald snaps his fingers.

The lunacy of the Trumpista's is almost mind blowing.

9John5918
Editat: des. 28, 2020, 1:35am

>8 lriley:

Many dictators have those millions of "convinced" followers, namely those who believe that their identity group (be it tribe, race, religion, political party, economic class or whatever) will benefit from the president being in power. Narrow perceptions of self-interest trump democracy in these cases (excuse the unintentional pun).

10Pedro11
des. 28, 2020, 3:46am

Trump has very little chance to perpetrate a coup at this point - he is effectively a joke among the military and legal classes. The above mentioned scenario would be closer to Lazarus than Caesar. The maga stuff at the moment is a kind of weird end of days death cult, but it makes for good tv.

11lriley
des. 28, 2020, 7:02am

#10--While I agree with you on his chances of staging a coup---his continuing pushing of false narratives is going to end up with people getting hurt or killed while the orange slob walks off denying any responsibility.

12Earthling1
Editat: des. 28, 2020, 9:35am

Of the four provisions, the most recent and the most powerful is 10 USC § 253, which was written in 2006. This is the one that liberal pundits always forget to mention when they blab about Posse Comitatus and governors. It reads:

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it-

so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

Consider:

The authority is vested solely in the President. He does not need the invitation of state governors to intervene, nor does he need the approval of the Supreme Court. Older provisions of the Insurrection Act required either a governor or a judicial proceeding to authorize its use, but these limits were purposefully removed by Congress in § 253.

There is no time limit on the President’s activities. Older versions of the Insurrection Act limited the use of force to brief periods of time and then required legislative approval. Those limits, too, are also gone.

The President is allowed to use any means that he (and again, he needs no one else) considers necessary. This includes using the armed forces (which enables him to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act) and using the militia.

The President’s ability to use force isn’t restricted to actual rebellion or insurgency. He can act against merely unlawful combinations and conspiracies. To be clear: If the President decides that a conspiracy has deprived people of a right and believes that authorities fail or refuse to protect the right, he can send in the troops.

In blunt terms, Congress has given the power to President Trump to proclaim:

“I, President Trump, have determined that a conspiracy has deprived 70 million Americans of their right to vote and that the other authorities are refusing to protect this right. I therefore order the suppression of this conspiracy by any means necessary.”

If you are in the grip of normalcy bias, you are likely to be in denial: “Trump wouldn’t dare! The US Armed Forces would remove him from office! The troops wouldn’t respond to his call!”

Pompey said the same about the Roman legions. He was wrong. He was so wrong, in fact, that his decapitated head ended up in a stylish gift box presented to Caesar as a present when he landed in Egypt. Don’t be Pompey.

Although he is not popular with the Pentagon, Trump remains popular with actual soldiers, especially with white middle-class men who make up a disproportionate number of the infantry, armor, pilots, special forces, and other combat arms. (His support among law enforcement personnel is even higher. The men with guns love Trump.)

...Therefore, when you combine 10 USC § 253 with 10 USC § 246, the President can call on every able-bodied male age 17 to 45 to take any means he deems necessary to suppress the conspiracy to deny Americans their voting rights.

How many men is that? With 328M Americans, 50% of them male, and 40% of them between 18 and 45, that’s 65M militia members.

...If I had told you last November that in the next 12 months the US would endure the worst pandemic since Spanish Flu, AND the worst depression since the Great Depression, AND the worst Constitutional crisis since the Civil War, AND the worst civil unrest since the summer of 1968, AND an unprecedented nation-wide lockdowns that led to the end of sports, bars, restaurants, movies, in-class attendance at school, and commuting to work, AND that it would culminate in the World Economic Forum announcing a Great Reset to the global economy to lock in this new normal, would you have believed me? No, you’d have laughed me off as a tinfoil nutjob. Yet here we are.

...Clear-headed left-wingers — if there are any left — need to step in and deescalate the threats against Trump and his supporters, and listen to 70 million Americans clamoring for fair and fraud-free voting. There is still time

13Earthling1
des. 28, 2020, 9:33am

lol

14John5918
des. 28, 2020, 9:35am

>12 Earthling1:

Yes, declaring a state of emergency (or whatever exact term is used in different jurisdictions) is a common ploy used by autocratic presidents to bypass constitutionality and the rule of law and to subvert the will of the electorate. Even if the constitution allows the president to declare such a state of emergency under certain circumstances, it is a misuse of the power if he does so only to cling to power.

15Earthling1
des. 28, 2020, 9:36am

"bypass constitutionality

You can't read.

16Earthling1
des. 28, 2020, 9:39am

"The essay was intended as a descriptive account of what could happen, not a normative account of what should happen. The only normative paragraph is the final portion where I urge the Left to de-escalate and allow rule of law to proceed. That's the only "should" in the essay. If you've read my prior essay on Herbert Marcuse, you'll know that I consider the Left's censor-and-suppress tactics to be a danger to our republic. I think they are creating the conditions for civil war, in the same way that Pompey's and Cato's machinations created the conditions for civil war with Caesar."

17John5918
des. 28, 2020, 9:53am

>15 Earthling1: "bypass constitutionality - You can't read.

I think you might have overlooked the second sentence in my post.

Incidentally, I think that's a politer way of putting it than, "You can't read".

18aspirit
Editat: des. 28, 2020, 11:11am

Where does Earthling1 live? (As in, which country.)

I have a feeling people who haven't been working to prevent or reduce the impact in their neighborhood are more apt to fond daydreams of civil war.

19Earthling1
des. 28, 2020, 10:11am

You can't read

20John5918
des. 28, 2020, 10:11am

>18 aspirit:

I've lived through two civil wars and I can't say I have fond daydreams of either!

21lriley
des. 28, 2020, 11:14am

It's interesting that E. has to go all the way back and outside of the history of his own country to Julius Caesar to find justification for his Trump coup. You have to wonder if this character is actually going to put his own balls on the line when this great coup of his comes along or if he's going to be in the background cheerleading. My guess is he'll be a cheerleader.

22aspirit
des. 28, 2020, 11:25am

>20 John5918: an old acquaintance of mine lives with shrapnel in his body from one in his home country. He was still getting night terrors from the war the last I'd heard from him.

Another acquaintance is not allowed to ever enter his former home country again because his side lost their civil war.

I have to live around people who don't believe the US Civil War actually ended. Predictably, they're also Trump supporters. So are many of the rioters in the streets, running people over, stockpiling weapons, and making deals with corrupt cops. And we have politicians who want to bring back dragging civilians to the woods for murder and public lynchings.

>1 Earthling1: It's obscene to imply this a good time for more violence, like what that author and too many others do.

23prosfilaes
des. 28, 2020, 3:10pm

>12 Earthling1: The President’s ability to use force isn’t restricted to actual rebellion or insurgency. He can act against merely unlawful combinations and conspiracies. To be clear: If the President decides that a conspiracy has deprived people of a right and believes that authorities fail or refuse to protect the right, he can send in the troops.

This is false. The President is bound by the constitution, which demands due process of law, and he's bound by the basic principles of law, which means that the courts can say a reasonable person would not have seen a conspiracy, therefore his acts were unlawful, and that there is not a conspiracy, so his continuing acts would be unlawful. A court can also declare the whole section of law unconstitutional, like they did for the Voting Rights Act (infringing on states' rights) and line item veto (unlawfully transferring power from Congress to the Executive Branch.)

Clear-headed left-wingers — if there are any left — need to step in and deescalate the threats against Trump and his supporters, and listen to 70 million Americans clamoring for fair and fraud-free voting. There is still time

It's not the right's responsibility at all to act clear-headed and deescalate anything, apparently. Congress could remove this threat by impeaching Trump; but somehow, like an abuser, the only person who is responsible for Trump declaring martial law is the people he's going to use it against.

Oh, and when we won, fair and square, you tried to get the votes of four states that all voted Biden thrown out, and in dozens of lawsuits, only one did a court agree that you had any validity to your requests. You don't want free elections; you want elections you win in at any cost.

24bohemima
des. 28, 2020, 3:36pm

And now they’re going to sue Mike Pence.

For something he hasn't, and can’t, do until January 6.

25Earthling1
des. 28, 2020, 4:28pm

January 6 is the Epiphany.

26Limelite
des. 28, 2020, 4:30pm

Correct me if I'm wrong, but certain chronics around here sound increasingly like an intervention is warranted in their case. When people get as desperate to alter reality as particular posts sound in this thread, it's nominal to expect an ugly result when their desired outcome isn't achieved.

Look how Trump is deteriorating as he feels his power being drained away from him. Crazier and crazier. Loonier and loonier. Ever turning to bigger nonsensical fantasies. I notice the most strident of his supporters are imitating and reflecting identical irrational behavior and rhetoric.

As yet, we don't know what motivated the Nashville RV bomber but I'd bet a goodly sum that it's related to his last delusional bubble being burst. Despite the rats still clinging to the Trumptanic, their rafts and lifelines are nearly completely destroyed, there's no last minute rescue going to happen, and the rate of sinking is accelerating. And no one in the Reality Based Community gives a rat's a$$ about them.

And like Trump and the Nashville RV bomber, the most soured and distorted minds among them belong to those who will not want to go down alone, unnoticed. After all, their denials, screeching rants, gun displays, threats, and violence are all attention getting behaviors.

I expect we'll see more of that kind of thing in lieu of their achieving their pipe dream of a civil war. Even in the darkest recesses of their warped minds, they know that even attempting such a thing would end swiftly and messily for them. Worse, in the event they survived, it would mean no more guns for them. Ever.

And of course, there's going to be no more Trump, regardless of how they carry on. Ever.

27Earthling1
des. 28, 2020, 6:48pm

"Apparently my analysis was shared (or discovered) by people in authority. Texas Representative Escobar secured passage of House Amendment 833 to H.R.6395, called “Curtailing Insurrection Act Violations of Individuals’ Liberties.” The new law can be found in the newly-issued National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2021....So does House Amendment 833 do what is necessary to constrain a would-be Caesar? Is the President’s invocation of emergency powers better regulated? No, not really."

https://macris.substack.com/p/et-tu-congress

28prosfilaes
Editat: des. 28, 2020, 11:55pm

>27 Earthling1: So does House Amendment 833 do what is necessary to constrain a would-be Caesar?

>1 Earthling1: In January 49 BC, he crossed the Rubicon River with his army, in violation of sacred Roman law, and begin a civil war.

So no. Because no matter how problematic those laws may be, they're not the root of the problem. Trump has done many things that have been ruled unconstitutional, so mere laws can't be trusted to stop him. If the Senate and the states had affirmatively rejected Trump's wild claims, then we wouldn't have this problem. But the right has fed his ego and endorsed bogus claims about the election, and even as the center-right is accepting Biden as President-elect, they're unable to stop the far right from spiraling out of control, and they're all acting like it's all the left's fault.

29kiparsky
Editat: des. 28, 2020, 9:53pm

>18 aspirit: Where does Earthling1 live?

I'm guessing it's hosted at us-east-1, which is in Northern Virginia. But really, it could be anywhere, couldn't it?

30JGL53
Editat: des. 28, 2020, 9:58pm

In August of 1991 Defence Minister Dmitry Yazov, Vice-President Gennadiy Yanayev and the heads of the Interior Ministry and the KGB detained Gorbachev at his holiday villa in Crimea, and would probably gone on to have him shot (also Yeltsin, of course) but when they gave orders to the military to complete the takeover the generals refused and then arrested the coup-plotters.

Same thing will happen to t**** if he tries a coup - the generals will arrest him and he may very well wind up being convicted of treason and shot (ya see, the JCOS are not obliged to follow illegal orders).

THERE'S your fucking historical parallel, Earth1.

31lriley
des. 28, 2020, 11:38pm

#30--that's actually what I think will happen if Trump does try that though I doubt the military will execute Trump on the spot. They'll arrest him but wait for the new govt. to come in and leave Trump's fate up to the Biden administration.

Trump has lost and the top brass in the military know it. Sure you have some rogue actors like Flynn but Flynn does not have a command. Also a lot of our military though is overseas---as for the National Guard--consider that a shitload of republican Governors have already acknowledged Biden's victory....that these units in normal times are under the control of their respective governors. I just don't see Trump able to put together a viable military force and in the middle of Washington DC which is basically enemy territory when it comes to republicans. The easiest thing for everyone--the Supreme Court, the bulk of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Governors of the states, the military, the plutocrats on Wall St. is that Trump leave as quietly as possible. He had his four years and fucked them all up and pretty much has left the country in a shambles.

The only idiots left siding with Trump are a handful of Senators--a significant minority of right wing congresspeople, militia members, white supremacists and some police departments. It's a losing fucking hand.

32prosfilaes
Editat: des. 29, 2020, 9:52pm

Going back >12 Earthling1: listen to 70 million Americans clamoring for fair and fraud-free voting.

Exit polls have issues, this year more than others, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Statistic... is some hard numbers that even taken with salt, seem fair enough. If you boil it down to one number

White evangelical or born-again Christian
--- Biden/Trump/% of voters
Yes 24 76 28
No 62 36 72

Non-white groups have been complaining about fair elections for decades, and have largely gone unheard, but when it's white evangelical Christians, it's important that your clamoring for "fair and fraud-free" voting be heard immediately, and the election be flipped to favor you instead of the majority of Americans.

From other directions:
First time voter Biden/Trump/% of voters
Yes 64 32 14
No 49 49 86

Age Biden/Trump/% of voters
18–24 years old 65 31 9
25–29 years old 54 43 7
30–39 years old 51 46 16
40–49 years old 54 44 16
50–64 years old 47 52 30
65 and older 47 52 22

(I can't get precisely comparable stats, but the breakdown of voters by age comes closer to the population distribution than I expected.)

(Also, all three of these tables are nicely lined up and colored at Wikipedia.)

So what you're telling new and young voters is that older voters don't get their way, they will scream and whine until they do, the vote of young voters be damned. In a functioning democracy, that group questioning democracy is a long-term threat to the functioning of the democracy.

33lriley
des. 29, 2020, 9:28pm

#32--it's a very good point. White republicans for sure aren't worried about voter suppression in whatever form it comes if it's targeting black or hispanic voters.

34Earthling1
des. 30, 2020, 4:09pm

Clueless

352wonderY
des. 30, 2020, 4:13pm

Good you can admit it.

36JGL53
Editat: des. 30, 2020, 4:17pm

> 34

Your self-evaluation comports with most if not all other forum posters's views of you here.

First time for you to get consensus agreement with your opinion so......

congratulations.

37kiparsky
des. 30, 2020, 6:02pm

>33 lriley: I feel like this tends to miss an important point, and one that the mainstream democrats are mostly missing as well. Treating Black and Hispanic voters as monolithic voting blocs is not a winning strategy for either party. We saw this strongly in Florida, obviously, with the unexpectedly strong (to Democrats) Hispanic turnout for Trump, but we'll be seeing it more nationwide as things go on. Black voters that I've talked to are ambivalent at best about the Democrats, and many of them see the Democrats as taking them for granted, and Hispanic voters have never been as solidly Democratic as the Democrats' paternalistic assumptions would lead them to believe they ought to be.

Republicans have recognized this and are picking up votes in both communities. The idea that they are interested in suppressing Black and Hispanic voters because they don't like Black or Hispanic people is a disastrously bad misconception for Democrats and left-oriented folks to fall into. They suppress communities of voters based on their expected voting patterns, not based on their race or ethnicity. Sometimes race can serve as a proxy - for example, when Kemp suppressed the Black vote in Georgia or when Florida reinstated the poll tax on the formerly-incarcerated (who, due to racial bias in policing and in poverty, skew heavily Black).

However, the Republicans will suppress votes in any community that they think will vote against them, because they are scum and they think it is more important to win office than to represent America. For example, most of their gerrymandering bullshit over the last few decades have focused on reducing representation of left-leaning communities, for example by concentrating left-leaning votes into the smallest possible number of congressional districts while spreading the Republican vote out to cover as many districts as possible. They don't care who's casting those votes, they only care that they're reducing the effectiveness of votes that they project to be Democratic-leaning, and maximizing the effectiveness of the votes cast by the people who they think will vote for Republicans.

38lriley
Editat: des. 30, 2020, 7:34pm

#37--I agree. The democrats take Blacks and Hispanics for granted which is a major reason why they lost ground in this election and couldn't close the deal in either Florida or Texas. Those states are there for the taking in my eyes and the failed (as in for the population but not failed as in for the super wealthy) neo-liberal economic theories of so many democratic party elites and major donors are not helping at all. There is a lot of austerity happiness in the republican party--not nearly the same but still too much in the democratic party and it's another reason why democrats need to look to younger members of their caucuses and encourage them to take leadership positions even if they aren't 100% in line with those establishment figures who control everything now. It's ageist but the future of this country is not Biden, Pelosi, Hoyer, Clyburn, Schumer, Feinstein or Sanders (even if Sanders is still fighting a good fight)---the future is always the next generation coming into adulthood and what they are going to need if this is going to become a better place to live in.

Final point democrats also take the working class for granted and contrary to some notions--the real working class in this country is more brown and black and female than it ever has been before and that is where the trendlines are going more and more. It's not the 70's, 80's or 90's anymore---these dynamics have been changing even if the fight over working class rights is still in some respects pretty much the same.

39LolaWalser
des. 30, 2020, 7:57pm

Why does this rank bullshit keep coming up? And is it not enough that Repugs are peddling garbage screeds about "identity politics", and why would a so-called "leftist", that is "liberal", join them?

Nothing can obscure the fact that Black and Hispanic vote IS strongly pro-Democrat--much more so than the White vote. Only an idiot would think this means 100%. Have there ever been such idiots? Who promised the Democrats Florida and Texas? The election was only weeks ago and the history is already being rewritten.

So now Biden was both anointed as the Chosen One by black people in the primaries, AND the Democratic Party was let down by the black people. The Repugs aren't really racist, they just appear that way because--oh such a small detail--their policies and election tactics systematically discriminate against black people. So much for larnin' about racism and anti-racism and all that--we're back to ideology and "intentions" as racism, it seems.

Bullshit.

40LolaWalser
des. 30, 2020, 8:05pm

Fucking Florida Hispanics was no surprise, contrary to bullshit claims otherwise:

Most Cuban American voters identify as Republican in 2020

That's from October 2, 2020--and that's useful if you've lived under a rock since, oh, the fifties.

This is an interesting poll from December 9 I thought about putting in the "cold take" thread, but it's sort of oblique to that thread's topic and would take a lot of narrative.

But here the point is clear: Black and Hispanic groups went for--"LIKE"--Biden much more than they did for Trump:

After the election, fewer Latino and Black adults feel angry and more are hopeful about the state of the U.S.

64% and 82% votes. Vs. 50-something for Whites. THAT is the fact to remember. THAT--White--group is the one that needs shifting "left".

41prosfilaes
des. 30, 2020, 8:11pm

>37 kiparsky: The idea that they are interested in suppressing Black and Hispanic voters because they don't like Black or Hispanic people is a disastrously bad misconception for Democrats and left-oriented folks to fall into.

Who is having that misconception? They're suppressing Black and Hispanic voters because those voters would vote against them, and the Black and Hispanic voters would tend to vote against them because the Republicans want the policies that those groups, on average, once. If Black and Hispanic voters would vote the way Republicans want and not demand anything, Republicans wouldn't spend time trying to suppress their vote.

One of the problem is that suppressing the black vote is clearly unconstitutional (ala 15th Amendment, not that the Supreme Court cares about it), but gerrymandering is not. Also, more Republicans are willing to deny suppressing the black vote than show the least bit of guilt about suppressing the votes of Democrats.

42LolaWalser
des. 30, 2020, 8:19pm

If you are pushing policies that result in disproportionate numbers of black people (vs. other people) being disadvantaged, you're pushing racist policies, ergo you're being racist.

Fits the Repugs to a t; no more is needed.

43kiparsky
des. 30, 2020, 11:36pm

>41 prosfilaes: Who is having that misconception?

It seems to be a common assumption - the idea that Republicans suppress Black and Hispanic votes because of their personal racist beliefs is almost a truism in leftist politics today, and in particular it seemed to be implicit in "White republicans for sure aren't worried about voter suppression in whatever form it comes if it's targeting black or hispanic voters." (#33)

It seems that we're in agreement that Republicans, as a party, are motivated by a desire to elect Republican candidates in order to enact their ideological agenda. I'm not sure that that is the general consensus on the left, where I see a certain amount of rhetoric tending towards the assumption that Republicans, as a party, are motivated by a racism which is somehow inherent in Republicans and not in Democrats, and as a corollary (generally implicit), that this inherent Republican racism and the corresponding racism-less-ness of Democrats will naturally allocate votes of color to the Democratic candidates, and that there's therefore no reason for Democrats to concern themselves with issues of interest to Black and Hispanic communities.

I suspect that this doesn't work forever.

44prosfilaes
des. 31, 2020, 1:04am

>43 kiparsky: It seems to be a common assumption - the idea that Republicans suppress Black and Hispanic votes because of their personal racist beliefs is almost a truism in leftist politics today, and in particular it seemed to be implicit in "White republicans for sure aren't worried about voter suppression in whatever form it comes if it's targeting black or hispanic voters." (#33)

Those two aren't contradictory. They suppress votes of Black and Hispanic voters because they vote Democratic. But that doesn't mean they don't see anything wrong with targeting Black and Hispanic voters.

the assumption that Republicans, as a party, are motivated by a racism which is somehow inherent in Republicans and not in Democrats,

You're saying that's not true? The Republicans elected a man who explicitly said that "Mexicans are rapists" and showed no guilt about calling for--paying for an ad demanding--the death penalty for five black and Latino men who turned out to be falsely accused. Nothing is "inherent", but it's pretty clear that not only are the open racists on the Republican side, the Democrats have internal pressure not to be racists that the Republicans don't.

to enact their ideological agenda

No party ever is a monolith, and this particularly applies to the two huge parties that dominate American politics. Steve King spent 15 years as a US House Representative from Iowa until he lost the primary in 2020, despite lines like "This whole 'old white people' business does get a little tired, Charlie. I'd ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you are talking about? Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?" There's a lot more subtlety about much of the racism in the Republican party, but the ideological agenda that's being enacted is, on the whole, a racist one.

there's therefore no reason for Democrats to concern themselves with issues of interest to Black and Hispanic communities. I suspect that this doesn't work forever.

Democrats are Black and Hispanic, represent Black and Hispanic communities, and concern themselves with issues of interest to their communities. Yes, being a smaller voting bloc that's votes strongly Democratic hurts their political power, but so long as they don't get elected as Republicans, they'll still do more supporting Democrats who have a motive to work with their colleagues as representatives from these communities.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL30378 says there's 3 Black senators and 52 Black representatives in Congress. One and one, respectively, are Republican. That's very direct concern with issues of interest to those Black communities.

Nothing lasts forever. But the Republicans aren't in a good situation, given the way the racist side of their party has been openly reinvigorated by Trump and Trumpism. In the short run, searching for Black votes is going to cost them more than it's going to save them.

And whatever happened to not Treating Black and Hispanic voters as monolithic voting blocs?

>38 lriley: couldn't close the deal in either Florida or Texas? As LolaWalser points out, lumping Cubans in with Mexican Hispanics is just going to get you bad results, and everyone knows that. As for Texas, I don't know what was happening at the southern tip, but as I mention above, putting one dropbox per 200 people in White Republican parts of the state, and putting one dropbox per 4.4 million people in more ethnically mixed, more liberal parts of the state might have something to do with it.

Final point democrats also take the working class for granted

That's sort of a liberal fantasy. The White working class in this nation votes Republican; the Democrats don't take them for granted. If Democrats think of the working class as a whole, they don't take them for granted.

45Earthling1
des. 31, 2020, 1:49am

Don't hijack the thread.

46kiparsky
des. 31, 2020, 2:52am

>44 prosfilaes: the Democrats have internal pressure not to be racists that the Republicans don't.

Okay, if you say so. I'm sure that you're absolutely right and taking the Black and Hispanic vote for granted will continue to work just fine forever.

47prosfilaes
Editat: des. 31, 2020, 4:38am

>46 kiparsky: I'm sure that you're absolutely right and taking the Black and Hispanic vote for granted will continue to work just fine forever.

So what you're saying is that you couldn't be arsed to read what I wrote and would rather strawman me? There are 51 Black Democratic Representatives in the House. How is voting them into office taking them for granted? I don't believe anything will stand unchanged forever, but right now, the Republicans are growing more racist, not less. In large parts of the South, as long as the Republicans have 51% of the vote, and their White base is concerned about that "urban violence", "welfare queens", etc., the Republicans have every reason to avoid working with Black communities and Black communities will in turn have little choice but to turn to the Democrats, and Black communities will elect Black Democrats.

On the other hand, as long as only 13.4% of the population is considered Black, outside those Black communities, it behooves the Democrats to worry about its White majority over its Black minority, and all the snide comments about that won't change the basic mathematics.

As for Hispanics, what do you want? Unlike Black communities, I understand Hispanic communities are increasingly following the historical path of many other communities as just being White. In that case, spending a lot of work worrying about the Hispanic vote will be pointless as that vote won't exist as a separate component of the US electoral vote. In fact, the arguments I've read about why the very Hispanic boot of Texas shift towards Trump explain it as the rural/urban divide being stronger than the Hispanic/non-Hispanic White divide. Which means that worrying more about the Hispanic vote would just have mislead the Democrats.

I can't tell you what will happen, but I can tell you that changes will happen slowly and probably be understood only in retrospect.

48Earthling1
des. 31, 2020, 9:15am

Put your racism in a different thread.

49kiparsky
des. 31, 2020, 1:16pm

>47 prosfilaes: So what you're saying is that you couldn't be arsed to read what I wrote and would rather strawman me?

No, I just think you're running off on a tangent that I'm not interested in following, so I'm going to let you go with it. Enjoy!

50Limelite
gen. 1, 11:45pm

MAGA Rubicon Has Result Opposite Caesar's

When the MAGAts tried to cross the river, they all drowned. IT'S OVER !!!!

51prosfilaes
Editat: gen. 2, 12:10am

>43 kiparsky: there's therefore no reason for Democrats to concern themselves with issues of interest to Black and Hispanic communities. I suspect that this doesn't work forever.

What are you saying doesn't work forever? Nothing works forever. But Democrats do concern themselves with issues of interest to Black and Hispanic communities, and if you're actually concerned about what works, putting too much emphasis on the issues of interests to a minority group instead of broader issues, or issues of interests to majority groups, is a good way to lose elections.

Twenty years ago, when the Republicans were apologizing for the Southern Strategy and George W. Bush was president, Democrats had to worry about losing the Black vote. Today, after eight years of claiming Obama was a Kenyan Muslim socialist and four years of Trump giving thumbs up to white supremacists and the Republicans demonstrating they won't even be subtle about demanding the votes of Black people be thrown out? I'm much less worried.

>49 kiparsky: I just think you're running off on a tangent that I'm not interested in following,

I think you don't want to follow not because it's a tangent, but because it drags your statement into the realm of concrete reality and makes it disprovable.

52Earthling1
Editat: gen. 2, 12:36pm

Aquest missatge ha estat marcat com abús per més d'un usuari i ja no es pot veure (mostra)
>51 prosfilaes: What the fuck are you talking about? Where do you get these vicious little derangements and impulses? Didn't your parents raise you with any manners or morality at all? You come to an American website every day to spit in our faces. We saved your asses over and over and we're doing it again by giving the world a vaccine that was miraculously and generously created in less than a year. You ought to kiss the ground every day and thank God that America exists. We fucking ended slavery. We almost didn't have a country because of slavery, and it never went anyway until we ended it.

What the fuck are you talking about? The American president is obviously not a white supremacist or racist. Where in the world do you get these mean, ugly, twisted, obsessive thoughts? The biggest racist president we had was probably Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat and globalist progressive in the European quasi-socialist, quasi-fascist model. An Ivy college professor, all things. All the racism in the old south was created and sustained by Democrats. The Klan was created and run by Democrats. There's no white supremacist movement in America today. America is the least racist country on Earth, the least racist country in history. NO ONE has a melting pot like we do.

The Irish killed innocent people and divided their country in two—because of a Bible quote? America has never had moronic religious crusades that still go on in places like Serbia and Croatia. European intellectuals gave us Nazism and communism and the slaughter of hundreds of millions of innocent people—including women and children. Italy gave us fascism. They hung Mussolini in a gas station. Let's not forget the French Revolution, which apparently hasn't ended, such a poetic time when you said you were fighting for liberty, equality, and fraternity, but you were actually indiscriminately slaughtering nuns and priests and inventing the guillotine. America never created a vicious little system like apartheid merely so one greedy British company could mine all those diamonds in South Africa. European ideological obsessiveness did further damage throughout Africa and Southeast Asia. I don't need to mention Cambodia or Vietnam, do I? Let's not forget the "medical centers" in Scandinavia and Belgium today which are euthanizing the handicapped and mentally ill like the nurses and doctors of the Third Reich—certain that they are Doing Good. Shall I start on the Middle East? What about South America? Or Central America? Or Mexico? A country so great millions of people have left it—on foot.

Let's not forget the Hungarian socialist billionaire George Soros who told Newsweek in 1979, "I've made it my life's mission to destroy the United States. I hate this country and I hate all of the people in it!" Soros is the number one backer of the Democrats, the Clinton Foundation, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter—terrorist groups active in America as I type this, killing innocent people, smashing our cities, and rigging our elections. Soros rules the Democrats who for decades have ruled big cities in America like Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and San Francisco—Democrats have never been held accountable for the millions of black lives they have crippled and destroyed, and those cities are collapsing.

Let's not forget China trying to wipe out the human race with a weaponized virus while getting rich off every country in the world, especially America, while stealing its secrets, seducing its politicians, and enslaving its own people. They even cheat at the Olympics, like the Russians—but Americans still kick their asses.

Cut the bullshit. Your vicious little anti-Americanism, disguised as anti-Trump, is not welcome here. Your jealousy and resentment aren't welcome here. You ought to kiss the ground and thank God every day that America exists.

53KAzevedo
gen. 2, 1:27pm

Personal attacks in an insane, ignorant rant should be flagged.

54Limelite
gen. 2, 2:10pm

Whoa. Giving Lin Wood a run for his money.

55Earthling1
Editat: gen. 2, 8:12pm

Should not have been flagged. Flagging incorrectly is against the rules. Will you people ever learn the rules? Do I have to go over it again? Again and again and again...

56kiparsky
gen. 2, 4:55pm

>51 prosfilaes: I think you don't want to follow not because it's a tangent, but because it drags your statement into the realm of concrete reality and makes it disprovable.

If you like to think so. But if you review the thread, I'm talking about the fact - not exactly a secret, if you read a newspaper from time to time - that Republicans are making real inroads into Black and Hispanic communities which the Democrats have for decades treated mostly as sources of ready votes, and not as constituencies with concerns that needed to be satisfied, and you're talking about the number of non-white representatives and senators. That, to me, is a tangent.

57Earthling1
gen. 2, 8:13pm

Don't hijack the thread.

58John5918
Editat: gen. 2, 10:50pm

>52 Earthling1: America is the least racist country on Earth, the least racist country in history. NO ONE has a melting pot like we do...

Funnily enough I just came across a similar sentiment expressed about Australia by the centre-right Prime Minister Scott Morrison, that Australia is the "most successful multicultural nation on Earth." Probably as arguable a claim as yours is about the USA.

Australia changes one word in its national anthem to honor Indigenous people (CBS)

59mikevail
gen. 3, 1:14am

>57 Earthling1:
Damn barn, do you get royalties for that phrase? Or maybe it's like a song you can't get out of your head. The sax riff from Baker Street does it to me. Already regret thinking of it.

60John5918
gen. 3, 1:37am

>59 mikevail:

The little tune that keeps coming to my mind is Tommy Cooper singing Don't Jump Off The Roof, Dad. The words scan nicely.

61prosfilaes
Editat: gen. 3, 2:21am

>56 kiparsky: not exactly a secret, if you read a newspaper from time to time

Newspapers are good for facts, especially loud scandalous ones. They're not great sources of historical trends. What's worse is that you're not even pointing at a source or making claims clear enough to be disproved.

which the Democrats have for decades treated mostly as sources of ready votes, and not as constituencies with concerns that needed to be satisfied, and you're talking about the number of non-white representatives and senators. That, to me, is a tangent.

How do you satisfy concerns of constituencies? You elect people of that constituency to represent themselves. Roughly one third of Democrats in the House are people of color; do they not worry about the concerns of people of their race? That seems to me like prima facie evidence against the claim that "the Democrats have for decades treated mostly as sources of ready votes, and not as constituencies with concerns that needed to be satisfied". Do you want to provide some evidence for your claim, make some factual claim that could be disproven?

As for Republicans are making real inroads into Black and Hispanic communities:

Black votes in US presidential elections
2020 87% D, 12% R
2016 88% D, 8% R
2012 93% D, 6% R
2008 95% D, 4% R
2004 88% D, 11% R
2000 90% D, 9% R
1996 84% D, 11% R
1992 83% D, 10% R
1988 89% D, 11% R

"Republicans are making real inroads into Black and Hispanic communities" sells papers. "About 10% of Black people vote Republican, which hasn't changed in 30 years", less so. (There's a small change in 2008 and 2012; it's almost like Black voters felt like something Democrats were doing at that point was treating their concerns seriously.)

Hispanic voters are a more complex case; as we've noted, Cubans have long been Republican, and whereas Black members of Congress are 55-2 Democrat-Republican, Hispanic members are 39-12 (or 37-11, if you only count voting members.) But you've repeated "Black and Hispanic communities"; why should I do extra work to dig up more data?

62prosfilaes
Editat: gen. 3, 2:24am

>52 Earthling1: We saved your asses over and over

I was born in Germany, because that's where the USAF felt my father could best serve his country.

My father was served in Vietnam in the Marine Corps, join the USAF and served in Germany where he was told if the Soviet Union attacked, they would stay at their radar until told otherwise, then they would take up their guns and head east. (The Nazis can tell you how that turns out for the soldiers.) His father served in the US Army in WWII. My other grandfather requested permission to serve in Vietnam, but was denied because the nuclear information he knew was too sensitive/classified to take the risk of him falling into the hands of the enemy; he later retired from the US Air Force and eventually took up a job with the State of Oklahoma, where he at times personally advised the Governor and State Legislature.

My most recent immigrant ancestor, I believe, was my great-grandfather. My earliest ancestor on this continent was in Virginia in the 17th century.

None of this shit matters. But that you chose to bring it up, without knowing who you were talking to, does not seem quite wise.

63Earthling1
gen. 3, 10:24am

Won't Get Fooled Again
https://youtu.be/UDfAdHBtK_Q

65Earthling1
gen. 3, 2:23pm

Dyslexia runs in the Bush family. You think it's cute and funny to ridicule people for that. I don’t.

66davidgn
gen. 3, 2:29pm

>65 Earthling1: Just asking: what on Earth does that have to do with dyslexia?

67MsMixte
gen. 3, 3:01pm

Crossing the Rubicon (with an emphasis on the 'con'):

Trump is recorded calling the SOS of Georgia for an hour long rant attempting to have Raffensperger change the vote total, and threatening to charge Raffensperger with criminal conspiracy if he doesn't:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-raffensperger-call-georgia-vote/20...

How many other swing states did he call with the same threats?

68proximity1
gen. 3, 3:33pm


>53 KAzevedo:

"Personal attacks in an insane, ignorant rant should be flagged."

'not,' of course, itself
a 'personal attack.' LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

69Earthling1
gen. 3, 4:05pm

A normal day here at the asylum.

70kiparsky
gen. 3, 5:51pm

>68 proximity1: 'not,' of course, itself a 'personal attack.

That's correct, it's not. See the TOS:

Personal attacks are attacks on a person. To dispute or disparage someone's words is not a personal attack. It is the line between "You are a liar" and "Your recent post was a lie." The former is a violation of the TOS. The latter is not.

To call a person "insane" or "ignorant" would be a personal attack. To call someone's post "insane" or "ignorant" or a "rant" is not.

71KAzevedo
Editat: gen. 3, 6:18pm

>68 proximity1: The "attack" was against the rant, dear, not the person. So, nope.

72KAzevedo
gen. 3, 6:21pm

>69 Earthling1: I see you are incapable of admitting your mistake or apologizing to profisales for your rant. That seems to exemplify the lack of honesty in your many, sad posts.

73Earthling1
gen. 3, 8:18pm

>72 KAzevedo: I've never lied on this web site, but I have been accused of it many times. I feel no obligation to apologize to anyone, given that I've done nothing worth apologizing for. On the contrary, I've been attacked on this site in all kinds of ways from day one, usually involving personal attacks that don't get flagged. I'm aware of the tactics of liars and bullies and power freaks who do and say dumb thing and then blame others for that very thing. It's Psychology 101. It's deranged, it's immature, it's tiresome.

You, for example, contradicted yourself within, what seven seconds? You said your post was not a personal attack because it was "against" a rant, but then you turn around and expect me to apologize for my "rant". What planet did you grow up on that you think life works this way? Nothing in my post was wrong, nothing was a personal attack, nothing was a violation of the rules. The fact that it bothers so many people indicates to me that I was correct, but the rules state that you aren't supposed to flag a post simply because you dislike it or disagree with it. Flags aren't supposed to be used as weapons, but that rule is broken all the time here. It's no wonder people here have such a hard time accepting the Democrats cheated in this election. The M.O. is very much the same. Get power. Make bad rules. Break the rules. Rewrite the rules. Break rules again. Accuse others of breaking the rules. Forbid others from talking about the rules. Change the rules so that others can't follow the rules. Ho hum.

74kiparsky
gen. 3, 8:55pm

>61 prosfilaes: Newspapers are good for facts
Indeed, that's why I read them.

They're not great sources of historical trends.
Depends how long you read them, doesn't it? It's amazing how much you can pick up by paying attention.

What's worse is that you're not even pointing at a source or making claims clear enough to be disproved.

Yeah, I was actually not writing a research paper, I was just, you know, indulging in a conversation. Which is why, when it turned out that you wanted to get frantic about it, I was willing to let it drop.

My impression, derived largely from following the news, from doing regular get-out-the-vote work for candidates and issues here in Mass, and from working with a software bootcamp for people from underestimated communities, suggests that this is a rising problem for Democrats. It sounds like you have a different impression. If you wanted to talk about that, I would be interested in hearing more. But apparently you want to turn it into a shouting match, and frankly I'm not interested. So I'll say it again: I'm sure you're right and I'm wrong and you get to win. Happy?

Sheesh.

75prosfilaes
gen. 3, 11:40pm

>74 kiparsky: Depends how long you read them, doesn't it? It's amazing how much you can pick up by paying attention.

Not really. Newspapers are basically useless for stuff like this. The coverage of the New York Times of gay and Black issues over time are going to tell you more about the cultural and political feelings of the times than the level of gay and Black issues of the times. It's very easy to confuse awareness of or opinion about a problem with the existence or level of a problem.

Which is why, when it turned out that you wanted to get frantic about it, I was willing to let it drop.

That's not at all true. You've responded fairly verbosely to every comment I've made in response to you, with the tersest one, "I'm sure that you're absolutely right and taking the Black and Hispanic vote for granted will continue to work just fine forever." putting the claims I was arguing against in my mouth.

I've got to say you've hit one of my pet peeves; people who assert opinions as fact, and then when I bring up evidence get huffy, and neither let it drop or respond to evidence. You're claiming to be willing to let it drop, but demanding the last word at the same time.

My impression, derived largely from following the news, from doing regular get-out-the-vote work for candidates and issues here in Mass, and from working with a software bootcamp for people from underestimated communities, suggests that this is a rising problem for Democrats.

Okay. Among other things, that seems to have huge sampling problems. Massachusetts is a liberal state with a smaller minority population (72% non-Hispanic white, as opposed to 60% non-Hispanic white in the US). Democrats don't need Black (8.8% of the population) voters in Massachusetts.

Not only that, you're claiming that "Democrats have for decades treated mostly as sources of ready votes, and not as constituencies with concerns that needed to be satisfied." That's hard to tell from get-out-the-vote work and software bootcamps; you might get the feeling that people have that opinion, but not whether that opinion is factual. That's a very important distinction, because if the Democrat's current actions are getting ignored, the solution is not for them to double down upon it. It in fact may encourage the Democrats to stop worrying about Black voters, if the narrative overwhelms actual perception of what the Democrats do.

As for Republicans making inroads, Race and Politics: New Challenges and Responses for Black Activism (1997) mentions a 1992 study that says "...there is a potential for Republicans to make real inroads in the Black vote. Our answer is that it is possible, though not likely, given Republican policy stances." Again, I doubt the difference between 1988 (89% D, 11% R) and 2020 (87% D, 12% R) is statistically different, and, again, nothing changes is not news, so newspapers aren't a great source for this. I'm sure there's local differences, and other measurements that give different results, but when something has been repeated for 30 years, saying that it will happen anytime starts falling flat and needs something more than assertion and feels.

So I'll say it again: I'm sure you're right and I'm wrong and you get to win. Happy?

If you believe that, then drop it.

76kiparsky
gen. 3, 11:55pm

>75 prosfilaes: Well, I'm glad you got a chance to get all that out of your system.

77proximity1
Editat: gen. 4, 8:42am

>71 KAzevedo:

Quoting you (previously)

..."in an insane, ignorant rant" ...

magically written "insanity" & "ignorance". Such is the silliness at this site that one may say of a post that its contents are "insane," "ignorant" and a "rant" but at the same time the author of such a comment is magically indemnified from the charge of having claimed (or implied) that the author of such stuff is himself (or, dear me! "herself") any of those things: "insane", "ignorant" or a "ranter."

"Lions and Tigers and Bears!--Oh! My!"

LMFAO!!!!

Such is the effect once one goes down the idiot Rabbit-Hole of Political Correctness.



Well, my point was that your _rant_ against his "rant" (denounced as such by you) was "personal", though, of course, you won't admit such an obvious thing because that's not allowed inside the little protective bubble-of-make-believe in which you live.

78Earthling1
Editat: gen. 4, 9:01am

>77 proximity1: What do we with the millions of deranged people in America? Put them on an island somewhere? Euthanize them? It's for their own good, after all. Maybe a hundred million have taken leave of their senses. Would the ice bucket challenge help? One wonders if an America like that is even worth saving. Is America an asylum?

79kiparsky
gen. 4, 11:35am

>77 proximity1: If you don't like the terms of service as written, I suggest you argue with the guy who wrote them.

As it stands, I can say that your post was idiotic and not violate the TOS. It would be a TOS violation to call you rude names ("idiot", "pathetic", "clapped-out old wanker", for example, would all be examples of things that I would not be able to call you, as would "sorry-ass intesticulate dog-bothering panty-sniffer", that sort of thing is all off-limits) which is why you will never see me calling you such names, at least not on a forum which restricts name-calling such as this one. Even it were true, I would be forbidden to call you, for example "unpatriotic", "racist", "bigoted", or even "inarticulate". I would have to check, but I suspect that even new coinages such as "fumblenuts" or half-clever repurposing of existing words such as "half-cocked" would be right out.

There are lots of things that I would not be allowed to say about your august and honorable person on this forum, even if I should ever want to.

However, according to the TOS, I can say what I like about your words and conversely you about mine. Of course, it is necessary to be careful. For example, I would not be allowed to draw inferences from your post to your personality. Something like "this post makes it obvious that you're an unpatriotic toad" would not be allowed, or "only a parrot-loving beak freak would say such a thing". But to call a post "insane" or "ignorant" is a statement about a text, not about its author. I could point to many posts of yours which are both insane and ignorant, but I would never call you either of those names, at least not here where it's forbidden to say such things.

I understand that it's a fine distinction and one that even someone as clearly intelligent and well-informed as you might struggle with. But neither of us get to make the rules, we just get to live by them.

80KAzevedo
gen. 4, 1:05pm

>79 kiparsky: I bow to your magnificent explanation of the TOS.

81KAzevedo
Editat: gen. 4, 3:53pm

>77 proximity1: I think and will state that what Trump SAID in his recent call to the Georgia SOS was insane, but I don't think, and won't say Trump is insane. Are you capable of seeing the difference as it relates to the TOS?

82Limelite
gen. 4, 2:00pm

One of the inmates of the asylum thinks he runs things around here. By now even his petard is laughing up his ______.

And here's a beignet for conspiracy lovers. . . John Dean, yes that John Dean, Nixon Watergate lawyer and eventual "betrayer" of his boss, thinks Trump recorded the call and released it to the press to plant the fake news that Raffensberger taped and released the infamous election tampering phone call in order to stir up Republicans to react wrongly by provoking them (with subtle instruction) to attack the leak rather than the tampering.

MAGAttack -- mad attack by right wing nuts on the reality based community based on false planted rumors designed to drive easily triggered mindless Trump lemmings crazy.

83MsMixte
gen. 4, 2:13pm

>82 Limelite: Raffensperger already stated that his office released it, due to Trump's lies about the conversation.

84Limelite
Editat: gen. 4, 3:54pm

>83 MsMixte:

Sterling, GA election official, said explicitly during his presser that just ended that Trump probably also recorded the call and that he released part of it. In other words, GA didn't release the entire call. Only the good parts?

They're both behind the "leak."

85aspirit
Editat: gen. 4, 5:56pm

The situation is ridiculous in a way.

"Ha, I'm going to get back at you with the truth!"

"No, I'll share what happened, and everyone will know I'm more honest than you!"

In the meantime, the general public is wondering if these people understand how wrong are the phone call and all others like it.

We'll see if the immature bickering has an impact on tomorrow's in-person voting in Georgia.

86Limelite
gen. 4, 6:07pm

Stunning that David Perdue declared today that what was shameful is that the call was recorded without telling Trump it was being recorded. Yoda says, "Stepped in it, he did."

It's not the contents of the message that's shameful, Perdy, it's the messenger? Riiiiight. Listen, Trump carefully scripted that call and rehearsed it before making it. That's intent.

We're supposed to believe that Trump didn't record it, too? Let's see. . ."Lordy, I hope there are tapes!" after Trump said he had tapes. The taped shakedown attempt of Ukrainian leader to "find" criminal acts by the Bidens. And other instances.

Following Gabriel Sterling's presser, GA Sec'y. of State said in an interview that he "had no idea how the tapes were leaked," casting doubt on the idea that he did and lending credence to John Dean's assertion that he believes Trump did it for his own domestic political conspiracy.

87kiparsky
gen. 4, 6:38pm

It's not like "leaking" stuff about himself would be something new for him. He was "leaking" gossip about himself to the tabloids constantly when he was just a failing real estate hack in New York. I don't see why he wouldn't do it now.

88prosfilaes
gen. 4, 7:51pm

>76 kiparsky: Snide remarks at people actually bringing facts to the table seem uphelpful.

89MsMixte
gen. 4, 8:02pm

>84 Limelite: Oh, I've been out feeding and cleaning the horses, and didn't see that. Thank you for that correction!

90kiparsky
gen. 4, 8:18pm

>88 prosfilaes: Anything you say, sunshine.

91Limelite
gen. 4, 8:21pm

>89 MsMixte:

I heard the interview on MSNBC while Lime Spouse was out cleaning our horses. Do you know Lime Spouse? Lol!

92MsMixte
gen. 4, 8:58pm

>91 Limelite: Hmmm, not as far as I know, but let me know if Lime Spouse is a fellow Arabian lover!

93Earthling1
gen. 4, 9:20pm

Morons hijack threads.

94Limelite
Editat: gen. 5, 4:31pm

>92 MsMixte: Two OTTBs, a pair of too smart for their owners gentlemen. We like Arabians and once at an Arab auction that included both Polish and Arabic breeding lines, we had to SIT on our hands to avoid temptation!

95KAzevedo
Editat: gen. 5, 6:10pm

>92 MsMixte: MsMixte
> 94 Limelite
At thirteen I was given a green throrobred from the track which led to working locally with an Arab trainer. He made a National Champion Driving mare named Mi Fanci. He was then hired by Wayne Newton and I spent my late teens working with Newton`s horses. Look up Aramis, a Polish bred stallion. I held him backstage in Las Vegas before he and the trainer went on the Mike Douglas show. (Or was it Merv Griffith?)

96MsMixte
gen. 5, 7:45pm

>95 KAzevedo: I suppose we should mention that this is slightly off topic for those who are not interested, but I don't know how to do the off topic box.

Merv Griffin raised and bred Arabians, so I think it would have been his show. What a fabulous story, to have worked with *Aramus! Wayne Newton still has Arabians, and when Lady Gaga lost her Arabian, Arabella, Wayne Newton invited her to his ranch to offer her a replacement from the *Aramus line.

>94 Limelite: I think anyone looking at my library has probably figured out that I am a fanatic about Arabians. I've had a couple of TBs, a couple of QHs, but currently all are purebred Arabians.

97KAzevedo
gen. 5, 9:39pm

>96 MsMixte: I can't believe I misspelled his name. He was a very kind, gentle stallion. He was Canadian National Champion the same year. I went all over the West with them. Oh, and how can I forget, I got to meet Walter Farley that year at the Nationals. Thought I'd died and gone to heaven.