The Rotten Core of Our Political System

[homersapien 12,275]

In their new account of the 2020 election, two New York Times reporters reveal just how broken American democracy has become.

 

By George Packer

Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin are star political reporters for The New York Times, and their scoops in This Will Not Pass: Trump, Biden, and the Battle for America’s Future have already made headlines. But the book is more interesting than just for perishable news that will attract ogling Washington insiders. It’s a document of decline and fall—a chronicle that should cause future readers to ponder how American leaders in the early 21st century lost the ability and will to govern. Step back from the page-by-page account of congressional Republicans’ desperate grasping for Donald Trump’s favor or the Biden administration’s struggle to pass its legislative agenda: You’re confronted with a world of almost unrelieved cowardice, cynicism, myopia, narcissism, and ineptitude, where the overriding motive is the pursuit of power for its own sake. It’s rare that a politician thinks about any cause higher than self-interest.

The book’s Democrats are at least sane, but they’re beset by petty quarrels, forever trying to solve the “identity politics’ Rubik’s cube,” and dragged down by a pervasive exhaustion; their elderly leaders are unable to grasp the brutal political forces swirling around them. The Republicans are hell-bent on the destruction of American democracy, or else too craven to stand in the way—the result is the same. Each party has a handful of impressive young politicians, but because they take governing seriously, they’re probably doomed to obscurity or defeat.

The book covers the frenetic events of 2020 and 2021, from the battles over the pandemic through the summer of protest, followed by the election, attempted insurrection, and inauguration, ending with the long, publicly opaque anti-climax of Joe Biden’s first year in office. The broad outline of this period is all too familiar. Trump casts a long, sinister shadow, but we have nothing new to learn about him—the stories just confirm his unfitness as a human being, let alone president. The authors are tireless reporters, and the book’s impact lies less in any headline revelations than in the accumulation of small details that can almost seem routine but that reveal the deeper condition of American democracy.

For example, the Biden campaign arrived at the choice of Kamala Harris as the nominee’s running mate, not because it trusted or even much respected her, but “through a process of elimination” that ruled out stronger contenders whose records carried any whiff of controversy, such as Senator Amy Klobuchar and Representative Karen Bass. Ron Klain, Biden’s longtime adviser, decided that Harris was the safest, best choice because she was the only woman of color who had been “vetted” during the presidential primaries (even if her performance was largely disastrous); also, she was a friend of Biden’s late son, Beau. On this basis, the campaign selected the Democrat most likely to lead the party into the post-Biden era. The inevitable result has been continuous tension and resentment between Harris and most of her colleagues in the White House.

The Democrats’ characteristic form of cowardice is risk aversion. For the Republicans, it’s moral weakness. Two days after the election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell assigned his deputy, John Cornyn, to tell the Delaware Democrat Chris Coons to pass a message to Biden, the president-elect in all but name: “McConnell would recognize Biden as the winner of the presidential election, just not quite yet.” On top of this, “Biden should not call McConnell too soon,” because the Republican would have to decline a conversation with his old Senate colleague. McConnell required nearly six more weeks to judge the time right. The purpose of all this theater was to ease Trump into oblivion without inciting the wrath of other Republicans and imperiling McConnell’s own position of power.

This brief vignette almost passes for business as usual, even a quiet show of honor on McConnell’s part. So it’s worth emphasizing the meaning: The leader of the Senate Republicans would not publicly acknowledge the country’s new president without first insulating himself in elaborate layers of manipulation and disguise.

Petty political acts occur on every page. Senator Susan Collins coolly asks two civil-rights leaders why she should vote for an election-reform bill when “the voting process in Maine worked well for her.” Senator Kyrsten Sinema, the flamboyant and inscrutable Arizona Democrat, ingratiates herself with an audience of business donors and lobbyists by declaring her affection for several House Republicans who continue to push the lie of a stolen election, including Andy Biggs, an extremist bigot from her home state who once declared Democrats to be “an adversary that’s trying to wipe this country out and change it forever.”

Biden shrinks from one chance after another to push the two contending factions in his party to pass major legislation, leaving the dirty work to the two Democratic congressional leaders, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer. Pelosi is a legislative powerhouse who has stayed on too long and is trying to construct a legacy in a rising swamp. Schumer seems so conventional and recessive that he’s wholly unequal to the task of holding his caucus together. Delusional vanity plays a part in the follies of both Democratic factions. Centrists deceive themselves into believing they can forge a bipartisanship that doesn’t exist, while progressives can’t see what’s in front of their faces—that they have little public support.

Biden comes across as a decent man in the wrong era and out of his depth, barely visible to the public, too trusting of both his colleagues’ good faith and his own powers of persuasion. Far from being a master dealmaker, he’s tactically indecisive and strategically trapped between two competing goals. Unlike most of this book’s characters, Biden has ambitions higher than simply power: He wants both to heal the nation and to “craft a presidency of grand and lasting impact,” but he can’t see, let alone resolve, the inherent contradiction between these objectives. The verdict so far is clear: The second was always unlikely, and the first was never possible.

The failures of the book’s Democrats do not threaten the republic. The rotten core around which our democracy has begun to collapse is the Republican Party. It remains Trump’s party as long as he keeps his grip on its voters and can defy the medical odds against an old man who eats badly and never exercises. Trump’s most fervent supporters in Congress, such as Representatives Mo Brooks, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, don’t even exist in a category of responsibility and blame: Their behavior is the political equivalent of not guilty by reason of insanity. Burns and Martin reserve their sharpest criticism for Republicans who know better—moral vacuities motivated by opportunism and power lust. These include lesser-known members of Congress such as Jim Banks of Indiana and Elise Stefanik of New York; the erratic Senator Lindsey Graham, whose only constant seems to be an insatiable desire for attention; and McConnell himself, who flirted briefly with principle in his comments on Trump after January 6, before finding safety in a refusal to say much of anything.

But the embodiment of Trump’s Republican Party, and the object of the authors’ undisguised contempt, is House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. He is willing to betray any vestige of truth, courage, and self-respect to stay in Trump’s good graces and therefore remain the party’s top contender for speaker of the House. At one point, Burns and Martin inform us that Trump took to calling McCarthy a “p***y,” and they add: “McCarthy responded not by defying the former president but by more or less setting out to prove him right.” One of the biggest scoops—McCarthy’s brief, private criticism of Trump and his congressional fanatics immediately after January 6—endangered all of the work McCarthy had done afterward to secure the godfather’s blessing. When McCarthy declared the story a falsehood of the liberal media, the authors produced an audio recording to confirm its accuracy. But McCarthy and his party are so lost in a miasma of tribalism and lies that this humiliation didn’t matter. He retained the support of Trump, who might share Burns and Martin’s disdain for McCarthy but who knows a useful tool when he sees one.

This Will Not Pass raises a question that isn’t easy to answer: What is it about political power that leads people to desecrate themselves so nakedly in its pursuit? Speaker of the House is an important position, but what’s the overwhelming appeal of a career as a congressional backbencher, or as a committee chair gaveling endless meetings that achieve nothing in particular? The book’s Republicans hardly seem motivated by policy ideas, let alone by a desire to govern well in the public interest. They passed little substantive legislation when their party controlled Congress and the White House during Trump’s first two years. The most popular of them are nihilistic combatants in the culture wars whose chief skill is building personal brands. When the institutions of government hollow out, what’s left is the chase for these cheap gratifications, removing the last self-restraints from those in power.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/books/archive/2022/05/this-will-not-pass-book-review-democrats-republican-political-power/629895/

Edited May 18, 2022 by homersapien

[GoAU 1,696]

Stopped reading at about the third paragraph - the bias became unbearable.   Initially I though it might make sense and chastise both parties, because they are both broken and put the party ahead of the constituents - but to say the Dems are plagued by infighting and the Republicans are bent on destroying democracy is asinine. , 

[homersapien 12,275]

22 hours ago, GoAU said:

Stopped reading at about the third paragraph - the bias became unbearable.   Initially I though it might make sense and chastise both parties, because they are both broken and put the party ahead of the constituents - but to say the Dems are plagued by infighting and the Republicans are bent on destroying democracy is asinine. , 

You don't think refusing to accept the legally certified results of an election threatens our democracy?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

44 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You don't think refusing to accept the legally certified results of an election threatens our democracy?

Many believe democracy is nothing more than "mob rule".   Limiting democracy has long been a Republican belief.  I can remember William F. Buckley saying, the problem is not that too few black people are participating, the problem is too many people in general are allowed to participate. 

[homersapien 12,275]

On 5/18/2022 at 3:53 PM, GoAU said:

Stopped reading at about the third paragraph - the bias became unbearable.   Initially I though it might make sense and chastise both parties, because they are both broken and put the party ahead of the constituents - but to say the Dems are plagued by infighting and the Republicans are bent on destroying democracy is asinine. , 

"Asinine"?

Trump’s alarming GOP primary wins demand a serious response

By Greg Sargent

 

Republicans are in full-scale panic about Doug Mastriano, the right-wing extremist who won the GOP primary for Pennsylvania governor this week. They fear that his active collaboration in Donald Trump’s coup attempt, along with his crackpot views, might squander a big gubernatorial pickup opportunity in this crucial swing state.

In a world where such GOP angst might be channeled in a constructive direction, it could result in reforms that render the antidemocratic implications of Mastriano’s victory less alarming. Chief among these is fixing the Electoral Count Act of 1887, or ECA.

After all, Republican strategists appear to recognize just how radical Mastriano truly is. So will their counterparts in Congress act to protect the system from the threat he poses? Or are they worried only about the threat his extremism poses to GOP electability?

If it’s the latter, Democrats will have to seize this moment to press the case for reform much harder. And they can go further: They can focus the public discussion more sharply on the precise nature of the threat, as newly illustrated by the success of Mastriano and other candidates like him.

This week’s primaries offer a new hook for this. In addition to Mastriano, Rep. Ted Budd won the GOP primary for Senate in North Carolina. Budd voted to object to Joe Biden’s electors after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection attempt and has refused to say Biden legitimately won. Both have Trump’s support.

Meanwhile, Georgia GOP primary voters might nominate the Trump-endorsed Rep. Jody Hice for secretary of state next Tuesday. While anti-Trump Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp will probably survive his primary — a good development — Hice is running on an implicit vow to subvert future elections. He can create great mischief.

All this strengthens the case for ECA reform in a new way, highlighting with fresh specificity which protections we need.

“Hopefully the Pennsylvania results crystallize the coming threat,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of a bipartisan group of senators examining fixes to the ECA, told me.

So what should this look like? Let’s start with the threat posed by Mastriano, who has endorsed the principle that the popular vote isn’t binding when it comes to state certification of presidential electors.

As governor, Mastriano could handpick a secretary of state who might refuse to certify a Democratic presidential candidate’s legitimate popular-vote win in 2024. Mastriano could then certify sham electors for the Republican candidate in defiance of the popular vote.

This might be unlawful. As in other states, the Pennsylvania legislature exercised its constitutional role in determining the “manner” of appointment of electors by passing a law empowering the voters to pick the electors of the candidate they prefer, which the state then certifies.

Of course, if Mastriano becomes governor, the GOP-controlled legislature could pass a new law giving itself and/or the governor the sole authority to determine certification, as constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe points out.

But even if that didn’t happen, Mastriano — who appears to believe God’s word permits him to nullify elections — might happily break the law to certify the loser’s electors. If he did this, and a GOP-controlled House of Representatives counted them, they would probably stand.

“All Trump needs to throw out American democracy is one governor and a majority in the House,” Murphy told me. “He’s arguably very close to that arrangement.”

That’s where ECA reform comes in. One crucial fix would require Congress to count only the electors the courts determine to be legitimate. If a governor certified sham electors — or if a state-level dispute erupted over which electors to certify, say between Kemp and Hice — court challenges would follow. Congress would have to count the rightful winner.

Such a reform is being considered by the bipartisan group, Murphy told me. This idea has been urged by outside experts.

The difficulty lies in securing that reform while also preventing a corrupt Congress — a GOP-controlled House and Senate with more Ted Budds in it, for example — from refusing to count legitimate electors to prevent a rightful winner from claiming an electoral college majority.

As Murphy put it, the challenge is to “make it harder both for a governor to send a false certification to Congress, and for Congress to overturn a state certification.”

One approach would build in that judicial backstop against state certification of sham electors while also raising the threshold for Congress to overturn legitimate electors. Murphy says this is being examined.

Will 10 Republican senators vote for such reforms? We still don’t know. On the other side, a few Democrats might defect if the package doesn’t include voting rights protections.

For now, these GOP primaries are highlighting the need for a much more forceful effort to communicate with the public the precise nature of the threat the elections are highlighting. “Everybody that cares about upholding democracy has got to start ringing alarm bells,” Murphy told me.

Trump’s grip on these primaries raises an unsettling question: At this point, is our system even capable of protecting itself from the gathering threat?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/19/trump-primary-victories-electoral-count-act-reform/

[GoAU 1,696]

On 5/19/2022 at 4:21 PM, homersapien said:

"Asinine"?

Trump’s alarming GOP primary wins demand a serious response

By Greg Sargent

 

Republicans are in full-scale panic about Doug Mastriano, the right-wing extremist who won the GOP primary for Pennsylvania governor this week. They fear that his active collaboration in Donald Trump’s coup attempt, along with his crackpot views, might squander a big gubernatorial pickup opportunity in this crucial swing state.

In a world where such GOP angst might be channeled in a constructive direction, it could result in reforms that render the antidemocratic implications of Mastriano’s victory less alarming. Chief among these is fixing the Electoral Count Act of 1887, or ECA.

After all, Republican strategists appear to recognize just how radical Mastriano truly is. So will their counterparts in Congress act to protect the system from the threat he poses? Or are they worried only about the threat his extremism poses to GOP electability?

If it’s the latter, Democrats will have to seize this moment to press the case for reform much harder. And they can go further: They can focus the public discussion more sharply on the precise nature of the threat, as newly illustrated by the success of Mastriano and other candidates like him.

This week’s primaries offer a new hook for this. In addition to Mastriano, Rep. Ted Budd won the GOP primary for Senate in North Carolina. Budd voted to object to Joe Biden’s electors after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection attempt and has refused to say Biden legitimately won. Both have Trump’s support.

Meanwhile, Georgia GOP primary voters might nominate the Trump-endorsed Rep. Jody Hice for secretary of state next Tuesday. While anti-Trump Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp will probably survive his primary — a good development — Hice is running on an implicit vow to subvert future elections. He can create great mischief.

All this strengthens the case for ECA reform in a new way, highlighting with fresh specificity which protections we need.

“Hopefully the Pennsylvania results crystallize the coming threat,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of a bipartisan group of senators examining fixes to the ECA, told me.

So what should this look like? Let’s start with the threat posed by Mastriano, who has endorsed the principle that the popular vote isn’t binding when it comes to state certification of presidential electors.

As governor, Mastriano could handpick a secretary of state who might refuse to certify a Democratic presidential candidate’s legitimate popular-vote win in 2024. Mastriano could then certify sham electors for the Republican candidate in defiance of the popular vote.

This might be unlawful. As in other states, the Pennsylvania legislature exercised its constitutional role in determining the “manner” of appointment of electors by passing a law empowering the voters to pick the electors of the candidate they prefer, which the state then certifies.

Of course, if Mastriano becomes governor, the GOP-controlled legislature could pass a new law giving itself and/or the governor the sole authority to determine certification, as constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe points out.

But even if that didn’t happen, Mastriano — who appears to believe God’s word permits him to nullify elections — might happily break the law to certify the loser’s electors. If he did this, and a GOP-controlled House of Representatives counted them, they would probably stand.

“All Trump needs to throw out American democracy is one governor and a majority in the House,” Murphy told me. “He’s arguably very close to that arrangement.”

That’s where ECA reform comes in. One crucial fix would require Congress to count only the electors the courts determine to be legitimate. If a governor certified sham electors — or if a state-level dispute erupted over which electors to certify, say between Kemp and Hice — court challenges would follow. Congress would have to count the rightful winner.

Such a reform is being considered by the bipartisan group, Murphy told me. This idea has been urged by outside experts.

The difficulty lies in securing that reform while also preventing a corrupt Congress — a GOP-controlled House and Senate with more Ted Budds in it, for example — from refusing to count legitimate electors to prevent a rightful winner from claiming an electoral college majority.

As Murphy put it, the challenge is to “make it harder both for a governor to send a false certification to Congress, and for Congress to overturn a state certification.”

One approach would build in that judicial backstop against state certification of sham electors while also raising the threshold for Congress to overturn legitimate electors. Murphy says this is being examined.

Will 10 Republican senators vote for such reforms? We still don’t know. On the other side, a few Democrats might defect if the package doesn’t include voting rights protections.

For now, these GOP primaries are highlighting the need for a much more forceful effort to communicate with the public the precise nature of the threat the elections are highlighting. “Everybody that cares about upholding democracy has got to start ringing alarm bells,” Murphy told me.

Trump’s grip on these primaries raises an unsettling question: At this point, is our system even capable of protecting itself from the gathering threat?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/19/trump-primary-victories-electoral-count-act-reform/

Yes, asinine.  And you followed it up with another article that is equally or more asinine.  To ensure I clarify, I am not saying you are asinine - I am referring to the authors.  Not trying to make this personal. 
 

People  that throw around the words “coup” and “insurrection” are silly.   The idiots that trespassed and illegally entered the Capital surely broke the law and are getting what they deserved, but that was far from and insurrection or a coup.  Not a single firearm was found, even though I think we can all agree that the vast majority of the people there likely owned firearms.   If they intended to overthrow the government, I would have imagined they would have brought them along.  If that act of Donald Trump not immediately conceding the election is what makes it a coup, I guess Gore did one in 2000?  There were certainly some irregularities in the last election - not saying it was “stolen”, but I can certainly see the concerns around it.  
 

By the author saying the GOP is “concerned” in the first paragraph that implies the majority don’t agree with him.  I haven’t seen similar articles about the Democrats primary winner, who seems just as extreme, but in the other direction.  I guess the Pennsylvanians don’t get any moderate candidates- should make for an interesting election.  

Edited May 21, 2022 by GoAU

[icanthearyou 4,468]

It clearly was an attempt at a coup.  The whole point of the attack was to intimidate Pence.   If not for Pence, it may well have gotten bloody,,, much bloodier. 

Edited May 21, 2022 by icanthearyou

[PUB78 1,414]

On 5/19/2022 at 3:21 PM, homersapien said:

"Asinine"?

Trump’s alarming GOP primary wins demand a serious response

By Greg Sargent

 

Republicans are in full-scale panic about Doug Mastriano, the right-wing extremist who won the GOP primary for Pennsylvania governor this week. They fear that his active collaboration in Donald Trump’s coup attempt, along with his crackpot views, might squander a big gubernatorial pickup opportunity in this crucial swing state.

In a world where such GOP angst might be channeled in a constructive direction, it could result in reforms that render the antidemocratic implications of Mastriano’s victory less alarming. Chief among these is fixing the Electoral Count Act of 1887, or ECA.

After all, Republican strategists appear to recognize just how radical Mastriano truly is. So will their counterparts in Congress act to protect the system from the threat he poses? Or are they worried only about the threat his extremism poses to GOP electability?

If it’s the latter, Democrats will have to seize this moment to press the case for reform much harder. And they can go further: They can focus the public discussion more sharply on the precise nature of the threat, as newly illustrated by the success of Mastriano and other candidates like him.

This week’s primaries offer a new hook for this. In addition to Mastriano, Rep. Ted Budd won the GOP primary for Senate in North Carolina. Budd voted to object to Joe Biden’s electors after the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection attempt and has refused to say Biden legitimately won. Both have Trump’s support.

Meanwhile, Georgia GOP primary voters might nominate the Trump-endorsed Rep. Jody Hice for secretary of state next Tuesday. While anti-Trump Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp will probably survive his primary — a good development — Hice is running on an implicit vow to subvert future elections. He can create great mischief.

All this strengthens the case for ECA reform in a new way, highlighting with fresh specificity which protections we need.

“Hopefully the Pennsylvania results crystallize the coming threat,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of a bipartisan group of senators examining fixes to the ECA, told me.

So what should this look like? Let’s start with the threat posed by Mastriano, who has endorsed the principle that the popular vote isn’t binding when it comes to state certification of presidential electors.

As governor, Mastriano could handpick a secretary of state who might refuse to certify a Democratic presidential candidate’s legitimate popular-vote win in 2024. Mastriano could then certify sham electors for the Republican candidate in defiance of the popular vote.

This might be unlawful. As in other states, the Pennsylvania legislature exercised its constitutional role in determining the “manner” of appointment of electors by passing a law empowering the voters to pick the electors of the candidate they prefer, which the state then certifies.

Of course, if Mastriano becomes governor, the GOP-controlled legislature could pass a new law giving itself and/or the governor the sole authority to determine certification, as constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe points out.

But even if that didn’t happen, Mastriano — who appears to believe God’s word permits him to nullify elections — might happily break the law to certify the loser’s electors. If he did this, and a GOP-controlled House of Representatives counted them, they would probably stand.

“All Trump needs to throw out American democracy is one governor and a majority in the House,” Murphy told me. “He’s arguably very close to that arrangement.”

That’s where ECA reform comes in. One crucial fix would require Congress to count only the electors the courts determine to be legitimate. If a governor certified sham electors — or if a state-level dispute erupted over which electors to certify, say between Kemp and Hice — court challenges would follow. Congress would have to count the rightful winner.

Such a reform is being considered by the bipartisan group, Murphy told me. This idea has been urged by outside experts.

The difficulty lies in securing that reform while also preventing a corrupt Congress — a GOP-controlled House and Senate with more Ted Budds in it, for example — from refusing to count legitimate electors to prevent a rightful winner from claiming an electoral college majority.

As Murphy put it, the challenge is to “make it harder both for a governor to send a false certification to Congress, and for Congress to overturn a state certification.”

One approach would build in that judicial backstop against state certification of sham electors while also raising the threshold for Congress to overturn legitimate electors. Murphy says this is being examined.

Will 10 Republican senators vote for such reforms? We still don’t know. On the other side, a few Democrats might defect if the package doesn’t include voting rights protections.

For now, these GOP primaries are highlighting the need for a much more forceful effort to communicate with the public the precise nature of the threat the elections are highlighting. “Everybody that cares about upholding democracy has got to start ringing alarm bells,” Murphy told me.

Trump’s grip on these primaries raises an unsettling question: At this point, is our system even capable of protecting itself from the gathering threat?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/05/19/trump-primary-victories-electoral-count-act-reform/

Homer, you are too paranoid.😰

[homersapien 12,275]

 

 

18 hours ago, GoAU said:

Yes, asinine.  And you followed it up with another article that is equally or more asinine.  To ensure I clarify, I am not saying you are asinine - I am referring to the authors.  Not trying to make this personal. 
 

People  that throw around the words “coup” and “insurrection” are silly.   The idiots that trespassed and illegally entered the Capital surely broke the law and are getting what they deserved, but that was far from and insurrection or a coup.  Not a single firearm was found, even though I think we can all agree that the vast majority of the people there likely owned firearms.   If they intended to overthrow the government, I would have imagined they would have brought them along.  If that act of Donald Trump not immediately conceding the election is what makes it a coup, I guess Gore did one in 2000?  There were certainly some irregularities in the last election - not saying it was “stolen”, but I can certainly see the concerns around it.  
 

By the author saying the GOP is “concerned” in the first paragraph that implies the majority don’t agree with him.  I haven’t seen similar articles about the Democrats primary winner, who seems just as extreme, but in the other direction.  I guess the Pennsylvanians don’t get any moderate candidates- should make for an interesting election.  

The article I posted in response is factual and describes the sort of people who GOP are nominating.  And their "Fuhrer" is still making the same base claim - the election was stolen from him by the opposing party.  That's also fact.

In fact, about 60% of Republicans believe that.  Belief in that "big lie" is the preeminent qualifier for running for office as a Republican.  Otherwise, you won't get the Fuhrer's  endorsement.

As for Democrats being "just as extreme, but in the other direction", I don't see Democrats casting dispersion or doubts on the legality of our elections, as fully 60% of Republicans are doing.

And if you have problems with the terms "coup" or "insurrection" simply because the Jan. 6  rioters were not all were carrying weapons , try "sedition".   They were clearly trying to halt the process of certifying the election because they felt Trump won.  You do agree with that, right?  If not, what exactly were they trying to do?

[homersapien 12,275]

13 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Homer, you are too paranoid.😰

No, I just have the sense to take what Trump - and his party - are saying sincerely. I believe them.  And they are a direct threat to our liberty.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.''  

So, I am not "paranoid", I'm vigilant. Apparently, you aren't.    

Edited May 21, 2022 by homersapien

[PUB78 1,414]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

No, I just have the sense to take what Trump - and his party - are saying sincerely. I believe them.  And they are a direct threat to our liberty.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.''  

So, I am not "paranoid", I'm vigilant. Apparently, you aren't.    

Oh, I am vigilant. I keep my eyes on the demonic plans and activities of the NDP and do whatever I can to stop them.

[GoAU 1,696]

16 hours ago, homersapien said:

 

 

The article I posted in response is factual and describes the sort of people who GOP are nominating.  And their "Fuhrer" is still making the same base claim - the election was stolen from him by the opposing party.  That's also fact.

In fact, about 60% of Republicans believe that.  Belief in that "big lie" is the preeminent qualifier for running for office as a Republican.  Otherwise, you won't get the Fuhrer's  endorsement.

As for Democrats being "just as extreme, but in the other direction", I don't see Democrats casting dispersion or doubts on the legality of our elections, as fully 60% of Republicans are doing.

And if you have problems with the terms "coup" or "insurrection" simply because the Jan. 6  rioters were not all were carrying weapons , try "sedition".   They were clearly trying to halt the process of certifying the election because they felt Trump won.  You do agree with that, right?  If not, what exactly were they trying to do?

First I want it to be painfully clear that I do not, in any way, shape or form, support the illegal entry into the Capital.  It was wrong - no question about it.  
 

What that was, however, was a protest that went completely out of control.  Did they intend to have their voices heard and influence their representatives - sure, that is what all protests do, even the summer of love / defund the police / BLM protesters were trying to do - influence the government.  
 

To say that was an attempt to actually overthrow the government is a blatant exaggeration with political motive. 

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Big, big difference between influence the government and, intimidate an individual.

No matter, people will believe what they wish to believe.

[GoAU 1,696]

14 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Big, big difference between influence the government and, intimidate an individual.

No matter, people will believe what they wish to believe.

Agreed that people will believe what they want, and the likelihood of any of us changing our minds is slim, but for some reason we all somehow enjoy the dialogue……. Go figure LOL
 

Regarding the rest of your post - can we both agree then that CHAZ / CHOP then was also an insurrection?  What happened to this responsible?  Clearly telling the gov that they cannot enter public areas, denying EMS support, and overrunning police stations is at least equal, if not greater, in scope.  
 

Protesting outside Supreme Court justices houses, the protests outside of Manchin’s residence and the Defund / BLM protests were all largely designed to intimidate.  You know, the “burn it down” events?   
 

Like I said, criminal trespass, vandalism, assault (as warrranted) should absolutely be applied to the Capital protestors (and more of the aforementioned as well) but the rhetoric of it being an insurrection is overblown.  

[homersapien 12,275]

23 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Oh, I am vigilant. I keep my eyes on the demonic plans and activities of the NDP and do whatever I can to stop them.

Good.  When they organize their entire party around the concept of falsely rejecting the outcome of a legitimate election, please be sure to let us know!

[homersapien 12,275]

8 hours ago, GoAU said:

First I want it to be painfully clear that I do not, in any way, shape or form, support the illegal entry into the Capital.  It was wrong - no question about it.  
 

What that was, however, was a protest that went completely out of control.  Did they intend to have their voices heard and influence their representatives - sure, that is what all protests do, even the summer of love / defund the police / BLM protesters were trying to do - influence the government.  
 

To say that was an attempt to actually overthrow the government is a blatant exaggeration with political motive. 

I appreciate your position but again, I am willing to take them at their words.

You know, the same words they continue to push.

[PUB78 1,414]

4 hours ago, homersapien said:

Good.  When they organize their entire party around the concept of falsely rejecting the outcome of a legitimate election, please be sure to let us know!

I don’t think the 2020 Presidential election was stolen.

[homersapien 12,275]

4 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

I don’t think the 2020 Presidential election was stolen.

Why should I care what you think?

I was referring to the Republican Party. (I thought that was obvious.)

[SaltyTiger 8,633]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Why should I care what you think?

I was referring to the Republican Party. (I thought that was obvious.)

I don’t think it was stolen either……beginning to think we might be better off had it been though. 

[PUB78 1,414]

22 hours ago, GoAU said:

Agreed that people will believe what they want, and the likelihood of any of us changing our minds is slim, but for some reason we all somehow enjoy the dialogue……. Go figure LOL
 

Regarding the rest of your post - can we both agree then that CHAZ / CHOP then was also an insurrection?  What happened to this responsible?  Clearly telling the gov that they cannot enter public areas, denying EMS support, and overrunning police stations is at least equal, if not greater, in scope.  
 

Protesting outside Supreme Court justices houses, the protests outside of Manchin’s residence and the Defund / BLM protests were all largely designed to intimidate.  You know, the “burn it down” events?   
 

Like I said, criminal trespass, vandalism, assault (as warrranted) should absolutely be applied to the Capital protestors (and more of the aforementioned as well) but the rhetoric of it being an insurrection is overblown.  

Well said!

[aubiefifty 18,398]

On 5/21/2022 at 5:41 PM, PUB78 said:

Oh, I am vigilant. I keep my eyes on the demonic plans and activities of the NDP and do whatever I can to stop them.

i believe trump is the devil because you guys just keep worshiping him.

[PUB78 1,414]

2 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

i believe trump is the devil because you guys just keep worshiping him.

Naw. I like a lot of the things he accomplished during his four years. Saved America for a few more years from the demonic Democrats. I do not like him as a person.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

1 hour ago, PUB78 said:

Naw. I like a lot of the things he accomplished during his four years. Saved America for a few more years from the demonic Democrats. I do not like him as a person.

Are all Democrats demons?  Are any Republicans?

How do you qualify a demon?

[homersapien 12,275]

15 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I don’t think it was stolen either……beginning to think we might be better off had it been though. 

Well, you'll probably get another crack it it.

[autigeremt 7,251]

We're not a Democracy....though the Republic is quickly sinking.