Totally agree...arguing on twitter or WhatsApp isn't the same as pulling the trigger. Are you really going to shoot your uncle over the slightly racist memes he posts?
I am not saying civil war is likely, but the notion that everyone in a country with a civil war is killing each other is inaccurate.
Most people are caught in the middle. They might take sides in principle, but most have no interest in fighting or war.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The point is that members from both parties are saying the election is going to be rigged by their opponent. Watch Fox News and you see it all the time. Trump has been ramping up the fears of election rigging for ages.
It's all part of sowing distrust and division among the electorate and undermining the electoral process. The election is the last legal means of removing Trump from office, and if it comes to be considered illegitimate while Trump and the GOP hold nearly all the seats of power, it's over. Fake news is a critical part of undermining the system. There are people who will cheer the death of their democracy at the same time as they believe they are defending it.
Yes but his point is there is already heaps of evidences and public admission by one side that they are actively trying to steal the election. They've said if the people vote they will lose, they've said they wont accept the election results, they've told their voters to vote twice, there are court filings from their lawyers saying that they are seeking to discriminate against people for political reasons, they've told their followers they should take weapons to polling places, they've public request foreign help in elections, they've used government employees as part of a political campaign, they are almost certainly selling out American interests for assistance in an election and aren't even trying to hide it, and the list goes on.
And the other side faces rhetorical accusations of election fraud as part of the first sides efforts to sow enough discord that a stolen election might just be accepted by enough people, without a spec of evidence.
Basically by spouting this you are actively participating the election fraud.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
Yes but his point is there is already heaps of evidences and public admission by one side that they are actively trying to steal the election. They've said if the people vote they will lose, they've said they wont accept the election results, they've told their voters to vote twice, there are court filings from their lawyers saying that they are seeking to discriminate against people for political reasons, they've told their followers they should take weapons to polling places, they've public request foreign help in elections, they've used government employees as part of a political campaign, they are almost certainly selling out American interests for assistance in an election and aren't even trying to hide it, and the list goes on.
And the other side faces rhetorical accusations of election fraud as part of the first sides efforts to sow enough discord that a stolen election might just be accepted by enough people, without a spec of evidence.
Basically by spouting this you are actively participating the election fraud.
Wth are you talking about? Spouting what? That influential voices on both sides are using the messaging of potential election rigging? That's simply a fact. They are using that messaging. On the Republican side, it's part of the rigging.
Earlier in the thread Poster said simply that he was amazed by the reality that both sides are using the same messaging. He then got jumped on as if he was saying they were both equally involved in election rigging, which is not what he wrote.
I wrote my reply emphasizing that his point was expressing amazement at what they were saying, not implying that they were doing the same things. People were misreading his post and jumping to accuse him of something he had not expressed.
Now you're suggesting that I'm participating in the election fraud for pointing out that people were misreading Poster's point?
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
Wth are you talking about? Spouting what? That influential voices on both sides are using the messaging of potential election rigging? That's simply a fact. They are using that messaging. On the Republican side, it's part of the rigging.
Earlier in the thread Poster said simply that he was amazed by the reality that both sides are using the same messaging. He then got jumped on as if he was saying they were both equally involved in election rigging, which is not what he wrote.
I wrote my reply emphasizing that his point was expressing amazement at what they were saying, not implying that they were doing the same things. People were misreading his post and jumping to accuse him of something he had not expressed.
Now you're suggesting that I'm participating in the election fraud for pointing out that people were misreading Poster's point?
But the entire point of the republicans making empty allegations, is so that people will use the phrase Both Sides, just by saying you have done their work for them.
And this is the entire game they are playing, I sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist, but it's true, they've admitted it publicly, nobodies even trying to hide it.
Joe Biden could come out and say the Republicans are communists that will destroy the economy, Nobody is going to run around saying both sides say the other side is full of economy ruining communists, they'll call Joe crazy.
2016 continues to be a temper tantrum for the ages.
I wonder how folks feel about that write in ballot, or voting for a third party, or not voting at all, now that the supreme court is decided for a generation and the threats to Roe v Wade, ACA, voting rights, etc. etc. have been made crystal clear.
I get HRC wasn't a great candidate. But the alternative has been so dramatically worse than anything even remotely considered at the time.
In less than 4 years we've gone from the peaceful transfer of power following an election as a given, to a president who is priming the public that he will contest the result.....unless his open efforts to suppress votes allow him to remain in power.
We are in for quite a ride over the next several months.
I voted third party for President in 2016 (Johnson/Weld).
I have no regrets.
Texas wasn’t going to go for Clinton even if I and a couple other thousand people had voted for her and, in any event, I simply couldn’t vote for her and wanted to express my dislike for the two main options.
Simply believing that the third party or write-in or non-voting voters are the cause or problem is short-sighted. After all, perhaps if the DNC had put forward a better candidate (or, you know, not tipped the scales in favor of their chosen one), we wouldn’t be in this situation. And, of course, as evidenced by this year’s primary election, if certain ethnic/racial groups wouldn’t vote as a monolithic group and possibly against their own interests, perhaps we’d have better options too.
But the entire point of the republicans making empty allegations, is so that people will use the phrase Both Sides, just by saying you have done their work for them.
And this is the entire game they are playing, I sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist, but it's true, they've admitted it publicly, nobodies even trying to hide it.
Joe Biden could come out and say the Republicans are communists that will destroy the economy, Nobody is going to run around saying both sides say the other side is full of economy ruining communists, they'll call Joe crazy.
I mean, I see what you're saying, but it's crazy to me that we should just remove the phrase 'both sides' from our dialogue regardless of context. What are the limits of this? What about 'both sides of a piece of paper' or 'both sides of the street' or 'both sides of Mitch McConnell's face deserved to be slapped by every person in America who values democracy'?
This is part of the point I was making in the RBG thread yesterday too. People are so emotionally reactive right now that it's preventing them from exercising simple reading comprehension.
If Democrats were saying the same things about a communist takeover as the Republicans, I wouldn't see an issue with using the phrase both sides. Is that wrong?
I guess based on the reaction in this thread maybe you're right, that people are so wound up right now that the mere innocuous use of the phrase 'both sides' is enough to destroy intelligent conversation regardless of how it's used. Letting the Republicans own this phrase doesn't sit well with me either though.
Edit: Wait a minute, I didn't even use the phrase 'both sides' in my initial post that you replied to. I said 'both parties'. So is this about just banning the word 'both' in relation to US politics? Trump doesn't get to own the word 'both'.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
Last edited by JohnnyB; 09-23-2020 at 08:33 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
I mean, I see what you're saying, but it's crazy to me that we should just remove the phrase 'both sides' from our dialogue regardless of context. What are the limits of this? What about 'both sides of a piece of paper' or 'both sides of the street' or 'both sides of Mitch McConnell's face deserved to be slapped by every person in America who values democracy'?
This is part of the point I was making in the RBG thread yesterday too. People are so emotionally reactive right now that it's preventing them from exercising simple reading comprehension.
If Democrats were saying the same things about a communist takeover as the Republicans, I wouldn't see an issue with using the phrase both sides. Is that wrong?
I guess based on the reaction in this thread maybe you're right, that people are so wound up right now that the mere innocuous use of the phrase 'both sides' is enough to destroy intelligent conversation regardless of how it's used. Letting the Republicans own this phrase doesn't sit well with me either though.
Edit: Wait a minute, I didn't even use the phrase 'both sides' in my initial post that you replied to. I said 'both parties'. So is this about just banning the word 'both' in relation to US politics? Trump doesn't get to own the word 'both'.
LOL, In part I was also replying to a couple posts earlier too, where people were making similar arguments.
It's not really about the phrase, but specifically the context where the Republicans are bad actors within the system and blatantly trying to cover it up by pretending the other side is doing the same thing with no evidence. It tacks 10x as much energy to refute bull#### as it does to create it, so accepting the premise and saying both parties are doing the same thing does nothing but hurt the cause of truth.
I think we should say there are legitimate concerns that the republicans are attempting to undermine a free and fair election while lying about the other sides actions creating false equivalencies and may cause their followers not to accept the results.
I think that is as accurate as you can be in trying to express the point you were making.
You keep pushing that scenario. I'm not sure if you understand how unlikely that is. Yet you've stated it as a foregone conclusion, multiple times.
Just because it is a horrible outcome. Just because it is something we have not seen in our lifetime in this country or in most western societies. Just because we don’t think it is possible because “good and ordinary” people would never turn on their neighbours, does not mean the horrible and tragic cannot happen. And it would be a disaster, particularly in fact for us as Canadians.
Wars or revolutions or bloody coups- whatever you want to call it- are about usually economic gain. The States has multiple generations that have been brought up with the false narrative that they are the most “free” country in the world and then Trump came in and put on very public display that such a notion is a mirage. That Americans cannot pursue the American dream because it actually doesn’t exist. He has consolidated power, obliterated confidence in the US checks and balances to said power, and now is on the brink of cementing control forever- I might add. The idea that, even if Trump loses this but somehow retains the presidency, which is absolutely a possibility here especially with the Supreme Court up for grabs now and the ability to install sweeping political changes to the American system to transform it to his exclusive benefit- he will ever be up for re-election again, is about as reliable as the suggestion that he will just resign.
The only thing Trump doesn’t lie about and that you can trust is his telegraphed political plays to retain and embolden his power structure for the ultimate authority of the United States. He will amend what he needs to in order to eliminate presidency term limits. Like his good friend and mentor Putin did, when Russia had term limits what did he do? He switched out the power structure from president to prime minister, then ran for that while passing a law that the position he was slithering into had no term limits. Voila, Putin for life. Trump is operating out of the same playbook.
When a large group of people, like the millions of Americans, want change- and they cannot get it- it will only last so long. The structure won’t work forever to have the kind of exploding class inequality like the states has. And then on top of that, you have this extremely individualistic, overly proud culture, that believes in things like self-determination, and “standing up for what’s right” (as if they are the arbiters of that- eyeroll). You have a Trump base, that is rabidly supportive literally no matter what. And you have huge discontent And rapidly growing other group, some of which includes centrists and Republicans but mostly Democrats, , for the crimes of shattering democracy and destroying what was honestly in most Americans hearts and minds the greatest nation in the world. You also have everybody owning a gun(s).
So let’s see. Political power structure destroyed. Authoritarianism consolidated, utilizing much of the same plays as dictators in historical memory and at present. A president with literally nothing to lose or he goes to jail. A super pissed populace with unending problems and no ability to see resolution based on current power structure, and who felt they’ve been fed a lifetime of lies (and they have), and then you have said super pissed group armed to the teeth. Throw in some racism, and mass economic inequality... sprinkle in some child detention centres and other notable crimes against humanity...
...... yeah tough to see how this doesn’t boil over? I get that it sucks and is scary, I actually can’t see any other way out. You ask me why I’m so confident, I guess I ask you why you’re so confident that the result is not a savage bloody explosion of violence here?
Commentary in this clip around the reckoning Americans now face as a result of many things, but focuses in on Americans in 2016 who decided that Hillary and Trump are cut from the same cloth and decided to either vote for Trump, abstain from voting altogether (because poor Bernie) or write someone in, handing power to Trump.
The Following User Says Thank You to activeStick For This Useful Post:
...... yeah tough to see how this doesn’t boil over? I get that it sucks and is scary, I actually can’t see any other way out. You ask me why I’m so confident, I guess I ask you why you’re so confident that the result is not a savage bloody explosion of violence here?
Sustained civil unrest requires two major demographic factors:
1. A large number of young men, proportionally, in the population.
2. Those young men to be experiencing extremely high levels of unemployment (20-25%).
Absent these two factors, you simply do not see sustained unrest anywhere. On the other hand, the existence of these two demographic factors is incredibly predictive of such violence.
The Following User Says Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
Is there a decent source for this trafficking stuff or is Ron Johnson just throwing darts? Honest question.
It's QAnon, so the evidence of existence is people tweeting about it, which is evidence of existence, which causes more people to tweet about it, in a circuitous loop of self-feedback feeding the delusional paranoia of easily duped rubes.
I heard Jacob Wohl has a guy who is going to testify that it's all real and Hunter Biden sold him into slavery but his press conference doesn't start until the cheque clears!
Enough with this horse####. There is no evidence that anyone in the democratic party is planning to tamper with the vote. There is hard evidence that Russia already tampered with the 2016 election and is doing so again to benefit the Republicans, and Trump is on record stating that he will not accept the result if he loses and is planning to send voter intimidation squads in blue voting districts. One side is justifiably frightened that this election will be stolen and the US will slide into fascism, the other side is being fed fake news by Trump and Fox
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
Is there a decent source for this trafficking stuff or is Ron Johnson just throwing darts? Honest question.
Not one that you will care for anyways, nypost and a few others are reporting it. Come up in the Senate report from wednesday, possible ties as he was sending money to people with ties to human trafficking, prostitution and the adult industry. Which isnt suprising considering he enjoys banging strippers.
All of that aside, he's still clearly, demonstrably in the pocket of russian oligarchs.
"Accuse the other side that which you are guilty of." Not a good look.
It's time that we all acquire some basic media literacy. There are conservative publications that do great reporting like The Economist. New York Post is a friggin' tabloid rag with a clear agenda. It's basically like someone citing Mother Jones or Huffington Post on the left.
Do better.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
It's time that we all acquire some basic media literacy. There are conservative publications that do great reporting like The Economist. New York Post is a friggin' tabloid rag with a clear agenda. It's basically like someone citing Mother Jones or Huffington Post on the left.
Do better.
Its. In. The. Senate. Report.
Like I said, possible ties. Nothing proven. But the big payday from corrupt russian politicians has been proven.
Yes, take it with a grain of salt. But I guess we will find out. I mean, it's not like they are trying to tie the courts up for three years on the back of the ever dreaded russian misinformation tactics, right?
Commentary in this clip around the reckoning Americans now face as a result of many things, but focuses in on Americans in 2016 who decided that Hillary and Trump are cut from the same cloth and decided to either vote for Trump, abstain from voting altogether (because poor Bernie) or write someone in, handing power to Trump.
Thanks this is a good one. He gets it but most on the left don't. And that's not entirely their fault, again, the Democrats haven't viewed the courts as important as the Republicans so they don't campaign on it. Even in power Democrats put moderates on the court, Republicans put extremists.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
