Dangerous Rhetoric?

[BowlBrother85]

Then I guess the courts should have taken the real riots seriously and done something about the behavior. Otherwise it just becomes a new norm, and we know that's what the left is all about ... change. Sorry, but you don't get to argue that a behavior is right for one group and wrong for another. Your side doesn't get it and never will.

I'm not arguing that ... but it seems like you need to learn that when other people avoid accountability for criminal activity, it doesn't grant you the freedom to engage in the same activity, free of consequence. What-about-isms don't aid in the defense of criminal conduct in a court of law.

 

[Majors]

Nice effort at Whataboutism after the Pelosi attack.

But ultimately fails. Rhetoric from the right far worse.

explain. You don’t want to acknowledge the actions by the left prior to J6. So that means nah, that’s different. Or even after for that matter. Just asking a question in regards to picking and choosing which part of democracy we want to get upset about.

 

[lawgator1]

explain. You don’t want to acknowledge the actions by the left prior to J6. So that means nah, that’s different. Or even after for that matter. Just asking a question in regards to picking and choosing which part of democracy we want to get upset about.

The only way you'd even ask that question is if you are in complete denial of obvious facts so no point in answering you.

 

[Majors]

The only way you'd even ask that question is if you are in complete denial of obvious facts so no point in answering you.

denial for J6? Are you denying Nancy ripped up the State of The Union? If you only like democracy when it works in your favor, you don’t truly like democracy.

 

[AM64]

Don’t really agree with the first paragraph, mostly agree with the second paragraph and third paragraph. Last paragraph is spot on, IMO.

The “end of democracy” stuff is more borderline than “nazi Germany” and “coming for your kids,” which are nonsensical fear mongering.

I am concerned about the Republican position on elections, partly because of the continual escalation phenomenon. The next place to go for them seems to be just ignoring elections if you don’t like the result. So, on the one hand, I think it’s fair to campaign against election denial as a form of authoritarianism and as threatening democracy. On the other, saying “democracy is on the ballot” or predicting that Republicans will not give up power of they take control of the government is also a scary, radicalizing, and still likely untrue. Also democrats have had opportunity, while there are still a few moderate republicans left in the senate, to govern like democracy is on the ballot and they haven’t done it.

Defund the campaigns. Cut off the spurious and continuous campaigning by the "news". End constant campaigning from "official speeches"; end the daily WH briefing spectacle - replaced by a printed summary. By that I mean cut off donations to campaigns and go perhaps with minimal public funding. Would either force an end to all the rhetoric and force candidates to outline their goals and platforms? I don't know. The news media is supposed to be unbiased; since we obviously can't fix that part then limit the political talk. We supposedly have clipped wings of religious and other "non-profits"; apply similar logic to a group who are supposedly portraying the news in an unbiased way - if you can't police the speech then just cut it off - we sure as hell aren't going to miss it. You can't have candidates imitating Hitler at Nuremberg without funding - cut it.

 

[BowlBrother85]

If you only like democracy when it works in your favor, you don’t truly like democracy.

There isn't a better way to describe Trump-ism, than this statement above.

Trump's alternate elector scheme did not belong in a democratic system of elections.

 

[AM64]

I'm not arguing that ... but it seems like you need to learn that when other people avoid accountability for criminal activity, it doesn't grant you the freedom to engage in the same activity, free of consequence. What-about-isms don't aid in the defense of criminal conduct in a court of law.

Human behavior is modified over time by acceptance of new acts as the norm. Fashion is a perfect example. When I speak out against alternate football uniforms, often the answer is tradition doesn't matter ... it's what the kids want. Our legal system with few instances isn't codified; it is some horrendous collision of trends, politics, and witchcraft that go into making "decisions" that become "law". So I completely disagree. One group of people today has every right to believe they aren't constrained to historic norms but to the trend set by others. Even the LBGT... BS is a continuation of that. It flies directly in the face of all the workplace and public "sexual harassment" we've dealt in and preached for many years. It was right then to say you can't force your views on another - that should stand for all, or it is some sort of bigoted ruling. The same rules for all, or you are wrong.

 

[Majors]

There isn't a better way to describe Trump-ism, than this statement above.

Trump's alternate elector scheme did not belong in a democratic system of elections.

Well that’s good because, I took it from the liberal who runs Tennessee Holler. When he was addressing the school board in regards to CRT.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Human behavior is modified over time by acceptance of new acts as the norm. Fashion is a perfect example. When I speak out against alternate football uniforms, often the answer is tradition doesn't matter ... it's what the kids want. Our legal system with few instances isn't codified; it is some horrendous collision of trends, politics, and witchcraft that go into making "decisions" that become "law". So I completely disagree. One group of people today has every right to believe they aren't constrained to historic norms but to the trend set by others. Even the LBGT... BS is a continuation of that. It flies directly in the face of all the workplace and public "sexual harassment" we've dealt in and preached for many years. It was right then to say you can't force your views on another - that should stand for all, or it is some sort of bigoted ruling. The same rules for all, or you are wrong.

This is pure BS.

I will say it again ... when someone, for whatever reason avoids accountability for criminal conduct, it does NOT grant you immunity from prosecution, if you choose to engage in the same conduct. To argue otherwise, is asinine.

 

[AM64]

There isn't a better way to describe Trump-ism, than this statement above.

Trump's alternate elector scheme did not belong in a democratic system of elections.

You are confusing one specific action or statement with a broader conflict. 1/6 may have been supposedly all about electors, but in truth it was a culmination of frustrations about all the election nonsense that went before. I'm talking poorly implemented and hastily implemented mail in voting etc without proper vetting, oversight, and at least a modicum of testing. Complete lack of confidence in electronic voting. It's like the night things boiled over in Neyland and mustard attacks took place. It wasn't a call; it was the collection of flops leading to frustration that boiled over with a call being the culmination of the frustration. At least have the honesty to see things for what they really are. BTW we're in a new election with no real improvement in the process because government doesn't deal with real matters - just popularly selected ones - generally along party lines.

 

[whodeycin85]

This is pure BS.

I will say it again ... when someone, for whatever reason avoids accountability for criminal conduct, it does NOT grant you immunity from prosecution, if you choose to engage in the same conduct . To argue otherwise, is asinine.

What if said criminal behavior seemed to allowed to become normal behavior? Then wouldn't the everyone be allowed the same treatment?

 

[BowlBrother85]

What if said criminal behavior seemed to allowed to become normal behavior? Then wouldn't the everyone be allowed the same treatment?

The people who comprise the United States Federal Judiciary would be the arbiters of any such defense; not private citizens. The United States Courts of Appeals and The Supreme Court exist to settle such disputes. In the meantime, the citizens of this country are best advised to familiarize themselves with the rule of law, and follow it. You should not expect to get away with acts of vandalism, just because some people in Seattle and Portland did a few years ago.

 

[BowlBrother85]

BTW we're in a new election with no real improvement in the process because government doesn't deal with real matters

If the Republicans do win control of both the House and the Senate on Tuesday, and also win the Presidency in 2024 ... something tells me that we will never hear another damn peep from Republicans about election integrity. More than anything else, that crap is an excuse for losing.

 

[AM64]

If the Republicans do win control of both the House and the Senate on Tuesday, and also win the Presidency in 2024 ... something tells me that we will never hear another damn peep from Republicans about election integrity. More than anything else, that crap is an excuse for losing.

One thing we actually agree on. The party that wins has absolutely no interest in change or even really looking into things. The one that loses has too little power to stir things up. The desire for cleaning up things just flip flops with wins and losses and nothing gets done. You'll hear about it again from republicans - just not until they lose the next election. One think I'll say for dems; if they think things look iffy, they get proactive in changing things in their favor - like scaring up new voters and making it easy to vote - like eliminating all the legalities and checks.

Where we don't agree is on questions about irregularities as "an excuse for losing" - and both sides bring it up on a semi regular basis.

 

[Electric Orange]

 

[Electric Orange]

Even the winner should agree that there has to be a way both sides can agree to count and verify or audit the results in such a way that proves the votes are legitimately cast and accurately tallied.

What that looks like I have no idea, and I have no faith in our government's ability to be able to or even want to solve the problem.

 

[The_Big_Orange]

Nice effort at Whataboutism after the Pelosi attack.

But ultimately fails. Rhetoric from the right far worse.

Everyone says this but show me where? I can pop open 5 mainstream, left wing news sites right pumping this to the masses. With the right it’s fringe sites with not a lot of exposure. Even fox has toned it down.

Beating a monster by becoming a monster helps no one.

 

[utvolpj]

Nice effort at Whataboutism after the Pelosi attack.

But ultimately fails. Rhetoric from the right far worse.

When you attempt to use the power of govt to subjugate your political opponents there will be pushback. It's why the left got out in front of it so early and labeled them racists and terrorists. It's also why they're trying to remove the means of fighting back from the populace

 

[whodeycin85]

The people who comprise the United States Federal Judiciary would be the arbiters of any such defense; not private citizens. The United States Courts of Appeals and The Supreme Court exist to settle such disputes. In the meantime, the citizens of this country are best advised to familiarize themselves with the rule of law, and follow it. You should not expect to get away with acts of vandalism, just because some people in Seattle and Portland did a few years ago.

Wouldn't selective prosecution and or apprehension of those the committed the crime in turn set a new precedent as to what is socially acceptable behavior....if say 100 people committed vandelism but 10 were pursued and 2 prosecuted...then why would 100 in an another area that commit the same
crime expect a different punishment?

 

[Electric Orange]

 

[BowlBrother85]

Wouldn't selective prosecution and or apprehension of those the committed the crime in turn set a new precedent as to what is socially acceptable behavior....if say 100 people committed vandelism but 10 were pursued and 2 prosecuted...then why would 100 in an another area that commit the same
crime expect a different punishment?

You are not accounting for how much easier it was for the people rioting inside of the Capitol to be positively identified, as opposed to the people rioting in the streets of Seattle and Portland. It's not as though vandals were arrested in Seattle and Portland, and the District Attorney's office declined to prosecute. The primary reason that they weren't charged is because they were never identified.

It would only qualify as selective prosecution if the same crime was committed in the same jurisdiction by two separate parties, with both parties being apprehended, but only one of them faced prosecution.

 

[ButchPlz]

Peaceful left-wing rhetoric.

 

[InVOLuntary]

If the rhetoric didn't work the politicians wouldn't do it. Too many sheep drooling for it. Too many sheep believe it.

 

[MarcoVol]

Since so many of our posters are concerned about dangerous political rhetoric what are we to make of the latest "threat to democracy" rhetoric of the left?

Biden, Obama and now Clyburn are saying that voting for Republicans will end democracy (ironic that voting ends democracy but whatever).

Their surrogates are echoing the calls suggesting that their children will be killed and historians won't exist.

R candidates are "really dangerous"

How is this not as nutty as Q-stuff? Wouldn't this encourage some one on the edge to take action to stop this existential threat to democracy? (Obama said it's not an exaggeration to say democracy will end).

"He said that if a slate of GOP candidates who have pushed baseless conspiracy theories about the 2020 election win in the November 8 vote, "democracy as we know it" there may die.

"If you've got election deniers serving as your governor, as your senator, as your secretary of state, as your attorney general, then democracy as we know it may not survive in Arizona," Obama said. "That's not an exaggeration. That is a fact.""


Just a sample


House Majority Whip: US 'on track to repeat' Nazi Germany, downplays inflation ahead of midterms

‘A really dangerous candidate’: Kari Lake, the new face of Maga Republicanism

Biden and Obama said the GOP is now a threat to democracy — ramping the warning up to 11 ahead of knife-edge midterms

NBC historian warns of a future where ‘our children will be arrested and conceivably killed’ if GOP wins

Well republicans did try to overturn a democratic election. Caught on tape looking for votes, asking for votes to be thrown out, coming up with alternate elector schemes.

 

[hog88]

Well republicans did try to overturn a democratic election. Caught on tape looking for votes, asking for votes to be thrown out, coming up with alternate elector schemes.

Dems tried to overturn teh 2016 election so.... Neither is an example of virtue.