Jump to content
UnevenEdge

Trumpist Insurrection in DC


_lost_username_

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Ginguy said:

So, who was the cop who removed a section of barrier and waved people in?

Who gave that cop the order to do that?

Why wasn't the National Guard on scene?

Why did Speaker Pelosi, Chuck you Schumer and Mayor Bowser refuse National Guard assistance?

What part of "Peacefully" means go engage in rioting?

Why was Ashli Babbit shot when she was completely unarmed and of no threat to anyone? (This is against all standards of lethal force use in the U.S. unless suddenly the Capitol Building is Area 51)

If this is a fact finding commission, why was the minority party not allowed to appoint its members?

Where are the 400 hours of footage?

Why are people still being held without bail, access to medical care and counsel on misdemeanor charges?

Why are members of Congress not being allowed to see the people being held, or the conditions under which they are being held?

Why did this commission bring in an ABC producer for their primetime hearing if they are just a "fact finding" commission?

Who are the police seen on footage waving people into various sections of the Capitol?

Why gave these officers the order to wave people into those various sections of the Capitol?

Are velvet rope lines really capable of stopping insurrections?

Why is Alexandria Dientes de Burro claiming to be traumatized when she was a block away in a different building?

Has anyone been charged with insurrection?

If disrupting Senate proceedings is a "dangerous insurrection" why were the individuals who interrupted the hearings for Justice Kavanaugh not charged?

....

 

I see now why you don't use your words.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

I see now why you don't use your words.

Under the smug superiority lies a petulant child that can't just eat his own cake because it's unfair if you eat your own cake  since he wanted it.

All your cake is belong to Ginguy. Resistance is strongly discouraged. Saying futile would be impolite, so we elected, by the most democratic vote in history of votes, rule by 1 out of 1 Ginguys to leave it unsaid.

Edited by naraku360
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

Evidently their counter programming during the hearing was two hours (Carlson, Hannity) commercial-free. 

I wonder how much ad revenue that equals, to make sure there were no natural pauses to encourage viewers to flip over to the real thing.

It's hilarious just how fucking terrified they are that some of their viewers might get even the tiniest glimpse of reality. If that bubble ever gets popped, their ratings are fucked.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Top Gun said:

It's hilarious just how fucking terrified they are that some of their viewers might get even the tiniest glimpse of reality. If that bubble ever gets popped, their ratings are fucked.

I think a pretty large portion of that audience is more than happy to drink from a well they know is poisoned.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ginguy said:

So, who was the cop who removed a section of barrier and waved people in?

Who gave that cop the order to do that?

Why wasn't the National Guard on scene?

Why did Speaker Pelosi, Chuck you Schumer and Mayor Bowser refuse National Guard assistance?

What part of "Peacefully" means go engage in rioting?

Why was Ashli Babbit shot when she was completely unarmed and of no threat to anyone? (This is against all standards of lethal force use in the U.S. unless suddenly the Capitol Building is Area 51)

If this is a fact finding commission, why was the minority party not allowed to appoint its members?

Where are the 400 hours of footage?

Why are people still being held without bail, access to medical care and counsel on misdemeanor charges?

Why are members of Congress not being allowed to see the people being held, or the conditions under which they are being held?

Why did this commission bring in an ABC producer for their primetime hearing if they are just a "fact finding" commission?

Who are the police seen on footage waving people into various sections of the Capitol?

Why gave these officers the order to wave people into those various sections of the Capitol?

Are velvet rope lines really capable of stopping insurrections?

Why is Alexandria Dientes de Burro claiming to be traumatized when she was a block away in a different building?

Has anyone been charged with insurrection?

If disrupting Senate proceedings is a "dangerous insurrection" why were the individuals who interrupted the hearings for Justice Kavanaugh not charged?

....

 

Just to address a couple of things here. I may address more in the future when I feel like it.

Christopher Miller was acting defense secretary at the time.  Notice it says acting because Trump fired Mark Esper two days after Biden was projected the winner of the election.
Trump was president at the time and Miller was acting defense secretary.  The fact that he was trying to blame Nancy is both idiotic and a desperate attempt to shift blame.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/09/933105262/trump-terminates-secretary-of-defense-mark-esper


  The police didn't just invite the insurrectionist in.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/07/ask-politifact-did-capitol-police-let-mob-trump-su/

Edited by Sieg67
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Ginguy said:

So, who was the cop who removed a section of barrier and waved people in?

Who gave that cop the order to do that?

Why wasn't the National Guard on scene?

Why did Speaker Pelosi, Chuck you Schumer and Mayor Bowser refuse National Guard assistance?

What part of "Peacefully" means go engage in rioting?

Why was Ashli Babbit shot when she was completely unarmed and of no threat to anyone? (This is against all standards of lethal force use in the U.S. unless suddenly the Capitol Building is Area 51)

If this is a fact finding commission, why was the minority party not allowed to appoint its members?

Where are the 400 hours of footage?

Why are people still being held without bail, access to medical care and counsel on misdemeanor charges?

Why are members of Congress not being allowed to see the people being held, or the conditions under which they are being held?

Why did this commission bring in an ABC producer for their primetime hearing if they are just a "fact finding" commission?

Who are the police seen on footage waving people into various sections of the Capitol?

Why gave these officers the order to wave people into those various sections of the Capitol?

Are velvet rope lines really capable of stopping insurrections?

Why is Alexandria Dientes de Burro claiming to be traumatized when she was a block away in a different building?

Has anyone been charged with insurrection?

If disrupting Senate proceedings is a "dangerous insurrection" why were the individuals who interrupted the hearings for Justice Kavanaugh not charged?

....

 

I’ll just ask questions and say things that are proven lies  -Jingai 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, discolé monade said:

you should totz work for fox news. 

Where do you think he got the talking points? 

That's about two hours worth of crybaby right there and any answer given is going to be called a lie unless it's being given by the faux noise candysexual, Yertle the Turtle or Kevin 'It's Everyone Else's Fault!' McCarthy. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

That’s the face I make when the machine won’t take my dollar bill.

The face i make when you still know where there's a vending machine that takes dollar bills.....Seriously, I was at DFW trying to buy a drink and could not buy one with cash at any machine.  I don't want my card showing up in some turn key audit (tho I'm sure it's in much worse places anyway) so I just got a soda at a bar.

But I figured it was just DFW....Nope, local hospital too.....No cash machines.  But it was much easier and cheaper to get one out of the cafeteria.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cyberbully said:

The face i make when you still know where there's a vending machine that takes dollar bills.....Seriously, I was at DFW trying to buy a drink and could not buy one with cash at any machine.  I don't want my card showing up in some turn key audit (tho I'm sure it's in much worse places anyway) so I just got a soda at a bar.

But I figured it was just DFW....Nope, local hospital too.....No cash machines.  But it was much easier and cheaper to get one out of the cafeteria.

I was vacillating on whether to joke about the machine not taking my  dollar or the machine not taking my phone app.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2022 at 8:30 PM, discolé monade said:

you should totz work for fox news. 

They don't pay enough, and New York shits out loud.

On 6/10/2022 at 8:31 PM, Raptorpat said:

This is false. The minority party provided five appointees, and two were rejected due to a direct conflict of interest (one of which was even subpoenaed by the commission), so the Minority Leader pulled the rest of his appointees and boycotted the commission out of partisan spite.

There was no conflict of interest with Jim Banks. I know, I've asked him. Jim Jordan is questionable at best. The fact is, if the GOP did the same thing there would be "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"s echoing still.

 

On 6/11/2022 at 4:01 AM, PenguinBoss said:

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/trump-admin-was-ready-to-deploy-national-guard-on-jan-6-capitol-police-timeline-shows-january-donald

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf

“Carol Corbin (DOD) texts USCP Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher, Protective Service Bureau, to determine whether USCP is considering a request for National Guard soldiers for January 6, 2021 event,” the timeline reads in an entry listed for Saturday, Jan. 2, 2021.

The next morning, the timeline indicates, “Gallagher replies to DOD via text that a request for National Guard support not forthcoming at this time after consultation with COP Sund.”

However, that initial rejection from Capitol Police came as they were beginning to change their assessment of the potential threats of violence.

Just hours after Gallagher’s rejection of DOD’s offer for troops, Capitol Police issued a new warning to its commanders and executives, as well as to the two congressionally appointed House and Senate Sergeants at Arms responsible for congressional security, the timeline shows.

Furthermore, as word began circulating around Washington of the Capitol Police’s changing stance on the need for National Guard troops on Jan. 6, Democratic Mayor for the District of Columbia, Muriel Bowser, wrote a letter to Miller and other Departments of Defense and Justice officials asking that National Guard troops not be deployed unless the local Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) approved.

Bowser cited an earlier event from the summer of 2020, when National Guard troops were deployed to Lafayette Park outside the White House amid social justice protests that took place in the nation’s capital, spurred by the death of George Floyd. Bowser argued the deployment “caused confusion” and could have led to “a national security threat with no way for MPD and federal law enforcement to decipher armed groups.”

“To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to and consultation with MPD, if such plans are underway," Bowser wrote in her letter, adding that MPD was “well trained and prepared to lead the way” on ensuring safety during the rally in the nation’s capital on Jan. 6."

Hmmm, sure seems like Huffington Post is spreading fake news....

On 6/11/2022 at 12:36 PM, Sieg67 said:

Just to address a couple of things here. I may address more in the future when I feel like it.

Christopher Miller was acting defense secretary at the time.  Notice it says acting because Trump fired Mark Esper two days after Biden was projected the winner of the election.
Trump was president at the time and Miller was acting defense secretary.  The fact that he was trying to blame Nancy is both idiotic and a desperate attempt to shift blame.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/09/933105262/trump-terminates-secretary-of-defense-mark-esper


  The police didn't just invite the insurrectionist in.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/07/ask-politifact-did-capitol-police-let-mob-trump-su/

Part 1 see above

As far as the cops letting protestors in,  yeah, they did.

 

 

  • D'oh 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ginguy said:

There was no conflict of interest with Jim Banks. I know, I've asked him. Jim Jordan is questionable at best. 

They all but admitted beforehand that their goal was to run defense and muddy the water.

But Jordan, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, and Banks, the head of the Republican Study Committee, have emerged as some of the most vocal Trump defenders in the wake of the insurrection, infuriating Democrats of all stripes who consider Trump’s allies to be complicit in the attack.

Both Jordan and Banks have said in recent days that they were hoping to use their positions on the select committee to investigate what Pelosi knew about the security threat ahead of the violence.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/564122-pelosi-rejects-jordan-banks-for-jan-6-committee/

Is the working theory here that Dem leadership is at fault for not knowing or not recognizing that an actual lynch mob was going to literally try to kill them to prevent a peaceful transfer of power - rather than it being the fault of the maga mob and the maga people who incited it? Was it a "Palpatine kidnaps himself" 12-D chess level play?

11 minutes ago, Ginguy said:

The fact is, if the GOP did the same thing there would be "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"s echoing still.

If belligerent Democrats mob the Capitol - scaling walls, breaking through windows, beating security, etc. - with the intent to hang the vice president, assassinate the opposition, and so on, hypothetical Democrat Gym Gordan probably shouldn't be on a commission to investigate them either.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Raptorpat said:

If belligerent Democrats mob the Capitol - scaling walls, breaking through windows, beating security, etc. - with the intent to hang the vice president, assassinate the opposition, and so on, hypothetical Democrat Gym Gordan probably shouldn't be on a commission to investigate them either.

If democrats did it they would have all been shot by the national guard.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ginguy said:

They don't pay enough, and New York shits out loud.

There was no conflict of interest with Jim Banks. I know, I've asked him. Jim Jordan is questionable at best. The fact is, if the GOP did the same thing there would be "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"s echoing still.

 

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/trump-admin-was-ready-to-deploy-national-guard-on-jan-6-capitol-police-timeline-shows-january-donald

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf

“Carol Corbin (DOD) texts USCP Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher, Protective Service Bureau, to determine whether USCP is considering a request for National Guard soldiers for January 6, 2021 event,” the timeline reads in an entry listed for Saturday, Jan. 2, 2021.

The next morning, the timeline indicates, “Gallagher replies to DOD via text that a request for National Guard support not forthcoming at this time after consultation with COP Sund.”

However, that initial rejection from Capitol Police came as they were beginning to change their assessment of the potential threats of violence.

Just hours after Gallagher’s rejection of DOD’s offer for troops, Capitol Police issued a new warning to its commanders and executives, as well as to the two congressionally appointed House and Senate Sergeants at Arms responsible for congressional security, the timeline shows.

Furthermore, as word began circulating around Washington of the Capitol Police’s changing stance on the need for National Guard troops on Jan. 6, Democratic Mayor for the District of Columbia, Muriel Bowser, wrote a letter to Miller and other Departments of Defense and Justice officials asking that National Guard troops not be deployed unless the local Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) approved.

Bowser cited an earlier event from the summer of 2020, when National Guard troops were deployed to Lafayette Park outside the White House amid social justice protests that took place in the nation’s capital, spurred by the death of George Floyd. Bowser argued the deployment “caused confusion” and could have led to “a national security threat with no way for MPD and federal law enforcement to decipher armed groups.”

“To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to and consultation with MPD, if such plans are underway," Bowser wrote in her letter, adding that MPD was “well trained and prepared to lead the way” on ensuring safety during the rally in the nation’s capital on Jan. 6."

Hmmm, sure seems like Huffington Post is spreading fake news....

Part 1 see above

As far as the cops letting protestors in,  yeah, they did.

 

 

Yeah, that cop was communicating with another officer off screen.  Nice try but this was debunked shortly after the video went online but of course right wing media is going to continue to take it out of context.
That's how they do.

Edited by Sieg67
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ginguy said:

https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/trump-admin-was-ready-to-deploy-national-guard-on-jan-6-capitol-police-timeline-shows-january-donald

 

https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-06/USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf

“Carol Corbin (DOD) texts USCP Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher, Protective Service Bureau, to determine whether USCP is considering a request for National Guard soldiers for January 6, 2021 event,” the timeline reads in an entry listed for Saturday, Jan. 2, 2021.

The next morning, the timeline indicates, “Gallagher replies to DOD via text that a request for National Guard support not forthcoming at this time after consultation with COP Sund.”

However, that initial rejection from Capitol Police came as they were beginning to change their assessment of the potential threats of violence.

Just hours after Gallagher’s rejection of DOD’s offer for troops, Capitol Police issued a new warning to its commanders and executives, as well as to the two congressionally appointed House and Senate Sergeants at Arms responsible for congressional security, the timeline shows.

Furthermore, as word began circulating around Washington of the Capitol Police’s changing stance on the need for National Guard troops on Jan. 6, Democratic Mayor for the District of Columbia, Muriel Bowser, wrote a letter to Miller and other Departments of Defense and Justice officials asking that National Guard troops not be deployed unless the local Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) approved.

Bowser cited an earlier event from the summer of 2020, when National Guard troops were deployed to Lafayette Park outside the White House amid social justice protests that took place in the nation’s capital, spurred by the death of George Floyd. Bowser argued the deployment “caused confusion” and could have led to “a national security threat with no way for MPD and federal law enforcement to decipher armed groups.”

“To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to and consultation with MPD, if such plans are underway," Bowser wrote in her letter, adding that MPD was “well trained and prepared to lead the way” on ensuring safety during the rally in the nation’s capital on Jan. 6."

Hmmm, sure seems like Huffington Post is spreading fake news....

 

 

Cool.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/12/16/fact-check-no-trump-request-10000-guard-troops-jan-6/8929215002/

Quote

 

A government memo about the events leading up to Jan. 6, statements from Pelosi’s office and the Pentagon and testimony from the former House sergeant-at-arms show Trump did not request 10,000 troops ahead of the rally.

Drew Hammill, Pelosi's spokesperson, told USA TODAY that Pelosi’s office was not consulted or contacted regarding any request for the National Guard ahead of Jan. 6, and he noted the speaker of the House does not have the power to reject that type of request. 

 

Quote

 

Additionally, when asked by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, during a Feb. 23 Senate hearing if discussions took place on Jan. 4 with congressional leadership about bringing in the National Guard, former House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving said he "had no follow up conversations." 

"It was not until the sixth that I alerted leadership that we might be making a request," Irving said. "And that was the end of the discussion." 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Top Gun said:

@Ginguy Real talk: Why the fuck do you still post here? No one buys a single word of your bullshit because we're not like the brain-dead Fox-poisoned drooling zombies your kind recruit. No one wants to read what you have to say. No one wants you here. Take a fucking hint.

I feel honored, honestly. Clearly he talks to high-level people on a regular basis and yet still finds time out of his busy day to fuck with us.

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this whole thing is that the MAGA crowd is basically saying "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

Anyone who objectively looks at what happened, looks at the videos that are coming out, and actually reads the reports comes to the same conclusion. This was an insurrection where Trump threw napalm on a fire. The crowd brought a literal gallows to the insurrection and wanted to hang Mike Pence, The VP of the United States. Trump constantly flamed the fires by creating the Big Lie and undermining the entire foundation of our Democracy because hes a sore loser. Hes still doing it to this day even though it has been proven, multiple times, that he lost the election fair and square. If he didnt want to lose he should have been a better candidate.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
  • D'oh 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Master-Debater131 said:

The problem with this whole thing is that the MAGA crowd is basically saying "Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

Anyone who objectively looks at what happened, looks at the videos that are coming out, and actually reads the reports comes to the same conclusion. This was an insurrection where Trump threw napalm on a fire. The crowd brought a literal gallows to the insurrection and wanted to hang Mike Pence, The VP of the United States. Trump constantly flamed the fires by creating the Big Lie and undermining the entire foundation of our Democracy because hes a sore loser. Hes still doing it to this day even though it has been proven, multiple times, that he lost the election fair and square. If he didnt want to lose he should have been a better candidate.

@Ginguy Time to hang up the towel, even the alter-ego has turned on you.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is any of this gonna matter?  Is any of the information that comes out going to prevent Trump from running in 2024?  Idk I been preparing myself for a Trump/Desantis run and win in 2024.  Desantis probably wants to make his own run for potus but I totally see him as the vp candidate cuz he’ll co-sign all of Trump’s bullshit. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Is any of this gonna matter?  Is any of the information that comes out going to prevent Trump from running in 2024?  Idk I been preparing myself for a Trump/Desantis run and win in 2024.  Desantis probably wants to make his own run for potus but I totally see him as the vp candidate cuz he’ll co-sign all of Trump’s bullshit. 

probably not at all. in fact, this is probably the BIGGEST distraction in the history of distractions. 

 

from what you ask? who tf knows. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Is any of this gonna matter?  Is any of the information that comes out going to prevent Trump from running in 2024?  Idk I been preparing myself for a Trump/Desantis run and win in 2024.  Desantis probably wants to make his own run for potus but I totally see him as the vp candidate cuz he’ll co-sign all of Trump’s bullshit. 

It absolutely matters.

Electorally it dooms Trumps chances of ever winning again. All that has to happen is a small, but meaningful, amount of GOP primary voters have to be turned off from Trump and support someone else.  DeSantis is the likely not-Trump option for the GOP and is probably the strongest candidate in the GOP field. The primaries for 2024 are going to be "Has to be someone who can win", and that aint Trump. I know some people here who are still pretty MAGA but have been saying that Trump is too damaged at this point so they need to nominate someone else. Even if Trump somehow manages to win the nomination hes not winning the general election. These hearings are being distributed to a huge portion of the electorate, and they will absolutely be used in adds in 2024 against Trump.

 

Beyond the election they absolutely matter for history. Its important that we record what happened so that we can hopefully learn from it and not have it happen again. History books absolutely need to contain the insurrection. Its up there with the British burning the White House in the war of 1812 in terms of importance. You just dont have people storming Congress every day. What happened absolutely must be taught in our nations history.

 

What happened also has to be dissected so our security protocols can be updated. We have to learn how they were able to breach congress so easily so we can secure and fortify it. None of our elected officials should ever have to be in fear that a mob of insurrectionists could break into Congress and attack/kill them. Thats just not acceptable at all. I may not like all of their opinions, but they absolutely have the right to say them and their representation of the electorate is key to the foundations of Democracy. Once you erode that through threats of violence you go down an extremely dark path.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

Is any of this gonna matter?  Is any of the information that comes out going to prevent Trump from running in 2024?  Idk I been preparing myself for a Trump/Desantis run and win in 2024.  Desantis probably wants to make his own run for potus but I totally see him as the vp candidate cuz he’ll co-sign all of Trump’s bullshit. 

Immediately, it probably doesn't matter because there are other more important issue facing the electorate now (like the economy, abortion rights, the crisis in the Ukraine).  From the standpoint of history, this absolutely matters - it puts into official record the things we know from other sources, and it stops the potential of a future despot-in-the-making from trying the same playbook.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

probably not at all. in fact, this is probably the BIGGEST distraction in the history of distractions. 

 

from what you ask? who tf knows. 

I just really doubt that come presidential primaries any of this will matter if Trump is allowed to run and if Desantis is the next best option jfc it gets no better.  He’s a fuckin asshole too

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

I just really doubt that come presidential primaries any of this will matter if Trump is allowed to run and if Desantis is the next best option jfc it gets no better.  He’s a fuckin asshole too

And that's before you stop to imagine who will run on the Dem side. I mean, it clearly can't be Biden, right? Except who else then? Hillary? There's nobody good over there either. Who is going to prevent Trump II?

There is Bernie, but the party has made clear it will never allow him the nomination. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Nablonsky said:

And that's before you stop to imagine who will run on the Dem side. I mean, it clearly can't be Biden, right? Except who else then? Hillary? There's nobody good over there either. Who is going to prevent Trump II?

There is Bernie, but the party has made clear it will never allow him the nomination. 

Bernie is going to be considered too old and there’s no one else. Maybe AOC but idk if she’ll be old enough by 2024 idts. 
I thought Biden wasn’t going to run again because of his age.  Trump is old af too but for some reason it’s fine. 
fuckin shit show dumpster fire of a country this is and it only gets worse. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is interesting....  Of course, take the article with a grain of salt since it's from CNN, but it brings up an interesting point about how we perceive government. 

For this discussion, the idea of a "fan fiction left" is less about whether or not the Democrats are functional and more about how expectations tend to shape electorates.  However you parse it, the Democrats have not maximized there slim margin and even if the results might not have been substantially different, there was certainly more that could have been done.  Still, that does not mean voting for third parties is going to substantially break the hold that Trump has over the right, and that side by sides comparison of how Republicans responded to a clearly inept Trump versus how Democrats have responded to a clearly less inept Biden.  That also does not mean that Democrats (and other liberals) are wrong for being disenchanted.  What it means is that the left is still clearly not playing the same game as the right, and that speaks to the inherent dangers of a radicalized and unhinged right.  The truth is... there isn't going to be a savior on the left that can galvanize constituents like Trump could because the left isn't populated by the relatively homogenous electorate that right is.

  • Like 2
  • D'oh 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

I just really doubt that come presidential primaries any of this will matter if Trump is allowed to run and if Desantis is the next best option jfc it gets no better.  He’s a fuckin asshole too

and that's my point.

not 1 butimpeachments and no convictions. 

we, the u.s., are LITERALLY watching the fall of a nation. and all we can/will do is sit on our collective asses and watch it burn. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Nablonsky said:

And that's before you stop to imagine who will run on the Dem side. I mean, it clearly can't be Biden, right? Except who else then? Hillary? There's nobody good over there either. Who is going to prevent Trump II?

There is Bernie, but the party has made clear it will never allow him the nomination. 

 that's the problem with a 2 party system. 

and to top it off, the ^independent^ party(s) are never taken seriously. ever. 

i think dukakis was pretty close. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

 that's the problem with a 2 party system. 

and to top it off, the ^independent^ party(s) are never taken seriously. ever. 

i think dukakis was pretty close. 

 

Ross Perot. Despite being mocked for using a good old fashioned dry erase board to make points [ and for looking like a treasure troll ] , he got more than enough votes to make things look like they could become a functional 3-party system or at least make it worth politicians time to actually not phone it in. 

Then Buchanan invaded and skunked that sideways. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scoobdog said:

What it means is that the left is still clearly not playing the same game as the right, and that speaks to the inherent dangers of a radicalized and unhinged right.

I still say a large part of the problem is that, despite the "two party system," the two parties are not really very equivalent. On the left you've got everything from radically progressive all the way down to do-nothing establishment types. While the right presents a united front with one singular goal: own the libs.

Which just kinda highlights the farcical nature of the system. One party can't get anything done because they can't agree on how much to do, and the other party can't do anything unless it fucks someone else over.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, rpgamer said:

I still say a large part of the problem is that, despite the "two party system," the two parties are not really very equivalent. On the left you've got everything from radically progressive all the way down to do-nothing establishment types. While the right presents a united front with one singular goal: own the libs.

Which just kinda highlights the farcical nature of the system. One party can't get anything done because they can't agree on how much to do, and the other party can't do anything unless it fucks someone else over.

It's a little more than that.  The right can coalesce around "owning the libs" because they're a comparatively small group.  They tend to have a narrower concern range (predominantly economic) and their more exrtreme ideological tenants tend to affect people outside their concerns.  Also, they're essentially playing defense:  they're more interested in preserving the status quo (like centrist members of the Democratic Party) than pushing an specific agenda.

That's why the current spectre of revoking women's rights is a potential game changer.  Republicans may be fine with the ideological stance against abortions, they won't be fine if the stance ends up directly affecting them.  If inflation can be tempered in some way at election time, the abortion issue becomes a major player because it has broad enough ramifications.  That being said, the area of concern for the right still essentially consists of two issues while the are of concern for the left includes at least five distinct issues with different fault lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

Bernie is going to be considered too old and there’s no one else. Maybe AOC but idk if she’ll be old enough by 2024 idts. 
I thought Biden wasn’t going to run again because of his age.  Trump is old af too but for some reason it’s fine. 
fuckin shit show dumpster fire of a country this is and it only gets worse. 

Trump supporters don't realize Trump is only 4 years younger than Biden(if I remember correctly.)
This probably has a lot to do with Biden not being orange or dying his hair.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Sieg67 said:

Trump supporters don't realize Trump is only 4 years younger than Biden(if I remember correctly.)
This probably has a lot to do with Biden not being orange or dying his hair.

Trump will be 78 in 2024. The same age Biden was when he was elected. Trump supporters that said Biden was too old will make excuses as to why it’s ok for Trump. They’ll say some crazy shit like his mind is more together than Biden’s. You know how it is. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

Trump will be 78 in 2024. The same age Biden was when he was elected. Trump supporters that said Biden was too old will make excuses as to why it’s ok for Trump. They’ll say some crazy shit like his mind is more together than Biden’s. You know how it is. 

I've pointed out as much to people and you're absolutely right.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, 1pooh4u said:

Is any of this gonna matter?  Is any of the information that comes out going to prevent Trump from running in 2024?  Idk I been preparing myself for a Trump/Desantis run and win in 2024.  Desantis probably wants to make his own run for potus but I totally see him as the vp candidate cuz he’ll co-sign all of Trump’s bullshit. 

 

19 hours ago, discolé monade said:

probably not at all. in fact, this is probably the BIGGEST distraction in the history of distractions. 

 

from what you ask? who tf knows. 

 

15 minutes ago, Nablonsky said:

Asking again -- if Dems don't care, why should we? May as well just move on. 

 

FVNmeP7WUAQkOxV.jpeg

@1pooh4u

see, what's the fucking point? if ^they^ aren't being charged, then what is this? 

distraction. 

the rising oil prices, inflation, roe v. wade. 

the gov. is in the habit of 'slide of hand' at all opportunities. 

i'm not saying as nefarious as poisoning our food supply ( >.>)

but something is up. and you can watch it all on netflix. *insert eyeroll*

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...