The Biden Administration and All Things Politics

[One Brow]

So Hannity isn’t on the right,

You didn't say "on the left", you said "the left". Olbermann is not "the left", but he is on the left. Hannity is not "the right", but he is on the right.

I would assume you just forgot to type in the preposition "on", except your sentence would make no sense grammatically. I should probably assume that nonetheless.

Did I say Mayor Adams talked about harassment? Did I say Mayor Adams talked about changing the court? Nope didn’t.

So, you offered the video as a counter-example to your own sentence? That's an interesting conversational strategy.

That video was him stating he would do everything he can to fight against this ruling., legally.

Agreed.

I’m was stating history of the left’s harassment and political murder attempts(baseball and kavanaugh).

Does every Proud Boy protesting outside a library constitute "the right"? They're not even mentally ill, unlike the men you refer to. Or, are you OK with "the right" harassing and attempts at political murder because you agree with them?

Maybe States should have laws about harassment, like DeSantis just signed, to stop this ridiculousness. That’s on Youngkin.

I searched on "desantis harassment law" and didn't see any articles about harassment laws. To what do you refer?

 

[Bucknutz]

You didn't say "on the left", you said "the left". Olbermann is not "the left", but he is on the left. Hannity is not "the right", but he is on the right.

I would assume you just forgot to type in the preposition "on", except your sentence would make no sense grammatically. I should probably assume that nonetheless.

The left or on the left is the same thing to me.
So is Stacey Abrams the left or on the left since she does not hold an office? Does she have political power? Seems like your argument is subjective?

So, you offered the video as a counter-example to your own sentence? That's an interesting conversational strategy.

Not a counter example, an example to show the left will fight against a ruling from the Supreme Court that supports the 2a.

Agreed.


Does every Proud Boy protesting outside a library constitute "the right"? They're not even mentally ill, unlike the men you refer to. Or, are you OK with "the right" harassing and attempts at political murder because you agree with them?

The proud boys are not even mentally ill, unlike the men you refer to? Adams and Keith are mentally ill? Do you want to clean up that statement before I respond.

I don’t follow extreme groups on either side. Proud boys sound like they are extremists on the right. They still get a voice and I believe in peaceful protests, not harassment. So if they were harassing or violent with people, **** them.

I’m not ok with any harassment or political murder attempts.

Are you okay with the left harassing people on the right?


View: https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/1538343357478584321?s=21&t=Oo_JfyNmUnw9WO8WrTqTwQ

I searched on "desantis harassment law" and didn't see any articles about harassment laws. To what do you refer?

Governor Ron DeSantis Protects Floridians from Protests Outside Their Homes

www.flgov.com

 

[One Brow]

The left or on the left is the same thing to me.
So is Stacey Abrams the left or on the left since she does not hold an office? Does she have political power? Seems like your argument is subjective?

She holds some political power (she got a lot of votes in 2018), and seems to have influence on Democratic party in Georgia in a way that Olbermann/Hannity do not influence their preferred parties. It's not subjective, but I do recognize there are degrees of power.

Not a counter example, an example to show the left will fight against a ruling from the Supreme Court that supports the 2a.

Well, sure. that's what politicians of all political stripes do with court rulings they don't like. I will assume for now you are aware I can easily present a dozen or so court rulings that the right hates and tries to fight against. Is the right in the wrong for so doing?

The proud boys are not even mentally ill, unlike the men you refer to? Adams and Keith are mentally ill? Do you want to clean up that statement before I respond.

I was referring to Hodgkinson and Roske (the baseball shooter and the guy outside Kavanaugh's home) as mentally ill. You can see that in the way Hodgkinson's life was falling apart before the shooting, while Roske directly told the 911 operator of his issues when he walked away from Kavanaugh's home. The Proud Boys don't have that excuse.

I don’t follow extreme groups on either side.

Good for you. However, you seem to have no trouble grouping in the extremist left people with "the left", while going out of your way to distance yourself from the extremist right. The Proud Boys, Gendron (Buffalo mass murderer), Cruz (Stoneman-Douglas High shooter), etc. are every bit as much a part of the right as Hodkinson is a part of the left.

Also, if you don't want to follow extremists, you should probably block Andy Ngo from your twitter feeds. He deliberately embeds himself with people instigating violence, records the results when the agitatees respond to the violence, and claims the instigators are being attacked. He's an extremist journalist.

Are you okay with the left harassing people on the right?

Absolutely not.

Send him to jail. Just don't pretend he represent the left any more than the Proud boys represent the right.

Governor Ron DeSantis Protects Floridians from Protests Outside Their Homes

www.flgov.com

Thank you. Hopefully this will protect election workers as well as judges.

 

[Bucknutz]

She holds some political power (she got a lot of votes in 2018), and seems to have influence on Democratic party in Georgia in a way that Olbermann/Hannity do not influence their preferred parties. It's not subjective, but I do recognize there are degrees of power.

So Tucker doesn’t have more influence than Mitt on the right, since he doesn’t hold an office or have political power? Please define this because Thriller needs to learn this as well. Since you don’t rush to comment on his posts.

Well, sure. that's what politicians of all political stripes do with court rulings they don't like. I will assume for now you are aware I can easily present a dozen or so court rulings that the right hates and tries to fight against. Is the right in the wrong for so doing?

Didn’t say it was right or wrong. All I did was add it in the post to show the fight. Did you comment on they way the right was so upset and try to fight the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare? Or did you keep silent about it?

I was referring to Hodgkinson and Roske (the baseball shooter and the guy outside Kavanaugh's home) as mentally ill. You can see that in the way Hodgkinson's life was falling apart before the shooting, while Roske directly told the 911 operator of his issues when he walked away from Kavanaugh's home. The Proud Boys don't have that excuse.

How do you know this? They could be mentally unhealthy at the moment. Maybe being a part of a crazy group brings them purpose.

Good for you. However, you seem to have no trouble grouping in the extremist left people with "the left", while going out of your way to distance yourself from the extremist right. The Proud Boys, Gendron (Buffalo mass murderer), Cruz (Stoneman-Douglas High shooter), etc. are every bit as much a part of the right as Hodkinson is a part of the left.

The reason I am lumping these groups together is the majority of the posters in this thread always lump the right together with right extremists and distance from the left extremists.
This is what AL has been saying as well. Yet you don’t point this out to the other posters. I believe it’s because you have the same political beliefs.

Also, if you don't want to follow extremists, you should probably block Andy Ngo from your twitter feeds. He deliberately embeds himself with people instigating violence, records the results when the agitatees respond to the violence, and claims the instigators are being attacked. He's an extremist journalist.

I know of him but don’t follow him. A twitter search for “left harassment and left violence” brought up a ton of videos. There are extremists on both sides. That is the point I keep making.

Absolutely not.


Send him to jail. Just don't pretend he represent the left any more than the Proud boys represent the right.

I don’t. I don’t believe either sides extremists represents their side. Once again, I can provide many posts in this forum that lumps right extremists with the right. It’s just intellectually dishonest..
I am happy that you agree that proud boys do not represent the right any more than the left extremists represent the left.

Thank you. Hopefully this will protect election workers as well as judges.

I agree. I wish more states had these laws. Especially in Maryland and Virginia all the politicians there. I will have the same stance on this if AOC was being harassed this way.

 

[fishonjazz]

So the 2nd amendment. I notice it says a well REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What does "well regulated" mean? Does that mean that the 2nd amendment is saying that there should be restrictions (regulations) on gun rights?
Also, what does it mean by "militia"? I own a couple of guns and they are not regulated (they were both given to me without any background check or anything) and I dont belong to a militia.
What gives?
Also, I wonder if they were referring to a certain type of gun that was used in that day and age. Like a muzzle loader musket or something. I bet if the people who wrote the 2nd amendment could see what came from it they would have some regrets.
I saw a statistic that in england there are 7.7 murders per 1 million people and in the US it was like 90 something murders per 1 million people. And the percentage of murders in the US was like 79% from guns. I always here the argument that if someone wants to kill someone then they will find a way to even if they dont have a gun to do it. They will stab or run people over or whatever. The numbers dont support that though. Seems like guns are way more effective and used more frequently to murder someone than other ways of killing (which seems obvious since the whole reason a gun exists is to kill but knives and cars were made for other reasons, thought they certainly can be used to kill). Im sure if you put suicides into the numbers then it would look way worse for the US in the comparison than it already does.

I dont think anything much can be done at this point. There are like 400 million guns in civilians homes and something like 20 million are bought and sold each year so at this point we are pretty much ****ed. Its too late to do much. But I do get sick of hearing that guns aren't the problem when they clearly are.

 

[Gameface]

So the 2nd amendment. I notice it says a well REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What does "well regulated" mean? Does that mean that the 2nd amendment is saying that there should be restrictions (regulations) on gun rights?
Also, what does it mean by "militia"? I own a couple of guns and they are not regulated (they were both given to me without any background check or anything) and I dont belong to a militia.
What gives?
Also, I wonder if they were referring to a certain type of gun that was used in that day and age. Like a muzzle loader musket or something. I bet if the people who wrote the 2nd amendment could see what came from it they would have some regrets.
I saw a statistic that in england there are 7.7 murders per 1 million people and in the US it was like 90 something murders per 1 million people. And the percentage of murders in the US was like 79% from guns. I always here the argument that if someone wants to kill someone then they will find a way to even if they dont have a gun to do it. They will stab or run people over or whatever. The numbers dont support that though. Seems like guns are way more effective and used more frequently to murder someone than other ways of killing (which seems obvious since the whole reason a gun exists is to kill but knives and cars were made for other reasons, thought they certainly can be used to kill). Im sure if you put suicides into the numbers then it would look way worse for the US in the comparison than it already does.

I dont think anything much can be done at this point. There are like 400 million guns in civilians homes and something like 20 million are bought and sold each year so at this point we are pretty much ****ed. Its too late to do much. But I do get sick of hearing that guns aren't the problem when they clearly are.

Regulated did mean something slightly different in the context of a militia. Military "regulars" was a common term at the time and it didn't mean they were average or basic, it meant that they were "well regulated." That essentially meant well trained, well equipped and well disciplined.

I had a novel concept that is nothing more than something I had some fun thinking about enacting the 2nd in a very literal sense. I called it the "Militia System" and in order to have arms you had to be a member of a militia and that militia would actually be in control of all the arms of the militia and would have to maintain an armory where the arms were held under normal circumstances. Arms could be checked out for practice or training or they could be issued in times of emergency, but members couldn't just generally keep arms at their house. The militia would need to show that they engaged in active training of their members and worked to keep their militia "well regulated." The armory would have to be available for inspection at any time and militias not in compliance with regulations would be subject to penalties and/or dissolvement.

 

[One Brow]

So the 2nd amendment. I notice it says a well REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
What does "well regulated" mean?

At this point, in the context of the 2nd Amendment, nothing. This clause has been deemed irrelevant for the interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[One Brow]

Once again, I can provide many posts in this forum that lumps right extremists with the right. It’s just intellectually dishonest..

I'm guessing this sentence forms your principal complaint. I agree with you to an extent. People get violent in support of their political goals, and this does happen all over the political map.

I'm not going over the rest of your post point-by-point, for various reasons, despite my disagreements.

 

[The Thriller]

This is just amazing


View: https://twitter.com/thedailyshow/status/1540125156705714177?s=21&t=BeJd-v38gPnpAiuWXWAldg

 

[Red]

I've lived in an autocracy with a king, and secret police, and everything down to what photographs you were taking being subject to oversight.

I don’t care if you were held in a Chinese reeducation camp for 20 years, there is no excuse for failing to recognize the trends toward autocracy here in our own country…

The Authoritarian Playbook - Protect Democracy

Today’s authoritarian playbook is a process that happens piecemeal and is hard to distinguish from normal political jockeying.

protectdemocracy.org

Authoritarian takeovers rarely happen overnight these days.

Today’s authoritarian playbook is a process that happens piecemeal and is hard to distinguish from normal political jockeying.

Our report, The Authoritarian Playbook: How reporters can contextualize and cover authoritarian threats as distinct from politics-as-usual outlines the seven fundamental tactics used by aspiring authoritarians, describes examples from in and outside the United States, and offers a framework journalists can use to differentiate between politics-as-usual and something more dangerous to democracy.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

As much as I disapprove of his jurisprudence, I truly doubt that Alito is so dumb that he doesn't know the difference between NY state and NYC.

On the bright side, at least your instincts on Alito knowing the difference between NY state and NYC are likely correct. Too bad you didn't bother to double check your own incorrect impression over where the concealed carry "proper cause" restriction, which was the central component of this case, was in effect.

As an example, you can still find the old form up on the Onondaga County Sheriff's website: https://sheriff.ongov.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/propercauseforconcealedcarry.pdf

 

[One Brow]

Too bad you didn't bother to double check your own incorrect impression over where the concealed carry "proper cause" restriction, which was the central component of this case, was in effect.

Live and learn. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Red]

This was a good read. I guess the extractions here will be seen as alarmist by some, reasonable to others. Reasonable as in a good working model, providing a context that illuminates. I want things that let me see the big picture. To me, that lends clarity to the present moment, the broader the historical context, any context that illuminates trends, etc. Sometimes, it can alarm, but sometimes reality does that.

“Podhorzer isn’t predicting another civil war, exactly. But he’s warning that the pressure on the country’s fundamental cohesion is likely to continue ratcheting up in the 2020s. Like other analysts who study democracy, he views the Trump faction that now dominates the Republican Party—what he terms the “MAGA movement”—as the U.S. equivalent to the authoritarian parties in places such as Hungary and Venezuela. It is a multipronged, fundamentally antidemocratic movement that has built a solidifying base of institutional support through conservative media networks, evangelical churches, wealthy Republican donors, GOP elected officials, paramilitary white-nationalist groups, and a mass public following. And it is determined to impose its policy and social vision on the entire country—with or without majority support. “The structural attacks on our institutions that paved the way for Trump’s candidacy will continue to progress,” Podhorzer argues, “with or without him at the helm.”

It seems unlikely that the Trump-era Republicans installing the policy priorities of their preponderantly white and Christian coalition across the red states will be satisfied just setting the rules in the places now under their control. Podhorzer, like Mason and Grumbach, believes that the MAGA movement’s long-term goal is to tilt the electoral rules in enough states to make winning Congress or the White House almost impossible for Democrats. Then, with support from the GOP-appointed majority on the Supreme Court, Republicans could impose red-state values and programs nationwide, even if most Americans oppose them. The “MAGA movement is not stopping at the borders of the states it already controls,” Podhorzer writes. “It seeks to conquer as much territory as possible by any means possible.”

America Is Growing Apart, Possibly for Good

The great “convergence” of the mid-20th century may have been an anomaly.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[The Thriller]

As someone who remembers Republicans and their attempts to spread democracy throughout the Middle East, it’s pretty amazing to see them pull a 180 here and attack American allies and demand isolationism if they’re not helping Repubs and their culture wars.

View: https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1541606545733066752?s=21&t=2ErHWWXFurZNA9FDFglo2A


https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1541606545733066752?s=21&t=2ErHWWXFurZNA9FDFglo2AView: https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1541608704864403456?s=21&t=2ErHWWXFurZNA9FDFglo2A

 

[The Thriller]

Huh. Well look at that. It’s almost like overturning a right that most Americans want to have isn’t very popular.


View: https://twitter.com/billscher/status/1541385731972669443?s=21&t=2ErHWWXFurZNA9FDFglo2A

 

[The Thriller]

Wow! This should be interesting! Tune in at 11:00 am Utah time or set your DVR. Every American serious about law and order in our democracy should be watching these hearings and be eager about bringing the former president and his criminal lapdogs to justice.


View: https://twitter.com/postcubedmodern/status/1541625411263639552?s=21&t=2ErHWWXFurZNA9FDFglo2A

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Huh. Well look at that. It’s almost like overturning a right that most Americans want to have isn’t very popular.


View: https://twitter.com/billscher/status/1541385731972669443?s=21&t=2ErHWWXFurZNA9FDFglo2A

Meh. Democrats were also really upset when Dred Scott v. Sandford was overturned. There is little doubt there will be a contingent of lost cause types who do reenactments or plaster little flags on their vehicles to commemorate when chattel slavery or letting women kill their children was allowed. Those types may even be numerous enough to sway things politically for decades, especially in certain regions of the country, but I'm more than at peace with the idea of ending the practices of chattel slavery and letting women kill their children, both of which Democrats insisted were rights enshrined in the constitution.

 

[fishonjazz]

Meh. Democrats were also really upset when Dred Scott v. Sandford was overturned. There is little doubt there will be a contingent of lost cause types who do reenactments or plaster little flags on their vehicles to commemorate when chattel slavery or letting women kill their children was allowed. Those types may even be numerous enough to sway things politically for decades, especially in certain regions of the country, but I'm more than at peace with the idea of ending the practices of chattel slavery and letting women kill their children, both of which Democrats insisted were rights enshrined in the constitution.

Often times it was the father of the child who was pushing the mother to get the abortion and paying for the abortion and also the doctor doing the killing was a male. Not surprised that you trying to make women villains here though.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[One Brow]

Meh. Democrats were also really upset when Dred Scott v. Sandford was overturned.

Yes, the conservatives were very unhappy when that happened, and are happy today.

... letting women kill their children was allowed.

Thus dies any claim you have to respect the notion of self-defense.

 

[Avery]

It's only a matter of time before we hear about some politician who supports the SC decision ends up pushing an abortion on their significant other, an affair, their daughter, etc. where they attempt to keep it on the down low yet engage in the act themselves.