All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[numberthirty]

So originalist Scalia decided that parts of the Constitution can be considered no longer applicable. Sounds right for that hypocrit.

"Considered..." has nothing to do with it.

We have a standing army now. That makes the entire bit about militia a non-issue. It is literally not applicable.

Meanwhile, the right that is clearly "Of The People..." is there plain as day.

[Adam Allen]

It doesn't seem to be a great dog whistle if so many people on the left can hear it.

Granted, this guy seems to be a political hack who worked for Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and Ken Paxton before barely winning a congressional election in a right-wing district, so we cannot assume a significant level of competence.

I'm still trying to figure out how the dog whistle would work. What are the racists supposed to hear?

I think it's important to understand where other people are coming from, especially if there are aspects of their views that they are not communicating, in some cases because they take it for granted that everyone else is sharing their frame of reference.

I didn't realize that your understanding of the world is such that you think a political hack's statement about punishing people who commit crimes against Asian-Americans is so obviously a coded message to racists about supporting violence against African-Americans that anyone who comes to a different conclusion is worthy of insult.

I think that this is a high bar. I'm curious about how others on the board feel about it, Are they in agreement about every point? If they disagree about any of it, and aren't willing to say so, it would suggest a hypocrisy in any declarations about how Republicans who don't believe in a crazy conspiracy theory should call out those who do.



The right to bear arms is in the second amendment.

There is a push to add a constitutional amendment, guaranteeing a right to vote, but there is no universal right to vote.

https://www.fairvote.org/right_to_vote_amendment

Hmm. So, we all agree you should be insulted, or we are hypocrites (for thinking Republicans need to condemn the worst of the their ranks)?

So, those are my choices. I'm a hypocrite, or I agree that you deserve to be insulted. Am I misunderstanding that this is the choice you're kind of pressing, here?

[CSTowle]

"Considered..." has nothing to do with it.

We have a standing army now. That makes the entire bit about militia a non-issue. It is literally not applicable.

Meanwhile, the right that is clearly "Of The People..." is there plain as day.

I suppose it depends on what you think the intent of the amendment was. While I'd agree that part of it was the Founders not wanting a standing Army (which they quickly realized wasn't a viable option) part of it was to give citizens a way to overthrow a tyrannical government. I'd argue that this is also a 100% obsolete idea.

Whatever masturbatory fantasies some on the extreme right/white supremacist spectrum might believe, a bunch of men with personal firearms has zero chance of overthrowing several branches of our armed services who have things like aircraft carriers, ICBMs, satellite surveillance, nukes, etc. And military alliances with many countries that would fight hard to prevent a Christian Taliban White Supremacist United States (again, folks most likely to entertain this fantasy) from gaining nukes.

Some of them argue the military would side with them (history says otherwise). Even if that were true, though I'd still say a fantasy, citizens with personal firearms are still absolutely and without question irrelevant in the equation.

I believe there are folks in the government who realize this and believe it's less trouble to allow these folks to sit back and talk tough, beating their chests among their friends, about what they're going to do "when the revolution comes!" when they're going to help "water the tree of liberty", while instead going on to work and buy things and never do anything more than complain and fantasize. It's just easier for them than trying to crack down, even factoring in mass shootings.

Also, in the 1700s firearms were a commonly used tool for acquiring food, as well as personal protection. Probably seemed like a no-brainer.

[worstblogever]

It doesn't seem to be a great dog whistle if so many people on the left can hear it.

Granted, this guy seems to be a political hack who worked for Rick Perry, Ted Cruz and Ken Paxton before barely winning a congressional election in a right-wing district, so we cannot assume a significant level of competence.

I'm still trying to figure out how the dog whistle would work. What are the racists supposed to hear?

I think it's important to understand where other people are coming from, especially if there are aspects of their views that they are not communicating, in some cases because they take it for granted that everyone else is sharing their frame of reference.

I didn't realize that your understanding of the world is such that you think a political hack's statement about punishing people who commit crimes against Asian-Americans is so obviously a coded message to racists about supporting violence against African-Americans that anyone who comes to a different conclusion is worthy of insult.

I listed all the rhetoric that in real time, as Republicans vomited it out, critics warned of the consequences of potential hate crimes. I didn't add Trump and voter fraud, or all the anti-choice nuts in the GOP who also embolden terrorism against abortion clinics.

This is your party. No hyperbole. And you're defending it. And starting to dismiss this reality as "a conspiracy theory" when it's reality.

If you deem that an "insult" while you regurgitate transphobic rhetoric of your party on this forum, well, that kind of establishes some confirmation bias and how you might be a part of the problem our nation faces.

I guess the advice I'm going to give you as an empathic human being is to seek professional help before this escalates Mets. Because they're radicalizing you, and I don't think you even realize it.

[Mister Mets]

Why do Republicans always leave out the first part of the 2nd?



It says "regulated" right there in the Amendment. It also says "militia", which by it's very nature is an organized group.

Now mets will tell us what that has been interpreted to mean by the NRAGOP, unrestricted access. But the 14th and 15th Amendments give voting rights to all male citizens and the 19th to all women. I guess mets feels okay with his Party's restrictions on voting rights.

I didn't leave anything out. You made a statement about the constitution, and I'm noting that it explicitly mentions a right to bear arms (I'm well aware of the prefatory clause, although that's a sperate argument) and that people who want less restrictions on voting wish that it said that voting is a right.

Pointing out what the constitution said is a different question from what's right or prudent for a political party to do.

The YouTube clip that is in that piece...



Can't see why Dems are not, at the very least, making a serious push on that amendment right now.

That's a good question.

I'm sure there are different opinions on this. An amendment is very difficult to pull off, so there may be a concern if you go with an amendment it looks like you're doing something, but that it won't have any effect. It might undercut some of the legal arguments by allowing lawyers to use the effort to get an amendment as proof that it is not the existing law. Some of the states won't like the idea of giving up more control to the federal government. There is also potential chaos when it gets to primaries, since the text of the proposed amendment would also apply to making it easier to vote in primary elections in ways the mainstream of a party might not care for.

But that Hack's views are held and expressed just as freely by the mainstream party members...

The fact that it got a lot of attention suggests that those are not standard Republican talking points.

Hmm. So, we all agree you should be insulted, or we are hypocrites (for thinking Republicans need to condemn the worst of the their ranks)?

So, those are my choices. I'm a hypocrite, or I agree that you deserve to be insulted. Am I misunderstanding that this is the choice you're kind of pressing, here?

It's not about me. If we ask people here if I deserve to be insulted, the answer to that question will be informed by previous arguments.

It's about whether anyone who came to a different conclusion on a political question is worthy of insult. The view that he articulated was that Chip Roy's statement about punishing people who commit crimes against Asian-Americans is so obviously a coded message to racists about supporting violence against African-Americans that it reflects poorly on anyone who disagrees.

If others here agree with the statement, that's useful to know. If they don't agree, they should say so, especially if their view is that conservatives should publicly call out conservatives who are wrong.

[Panfoot]

It's about anyone whether anyone who came to a different conclusion on a political question is worthy of insult.

This assumes all political positions are equally valid, which time and time again has shown, sure as hell is wrong.

[PwrdOn]

It's not about me. If we ask people here if I deserve to be insulted, the answer to that question will be informed by previous arguments.

It's about anyone whether anyone who came to a different conclusion on a political question is worthy of insult. The view that he articulated was that Chip Roy's statement about punishing people who commit crimes against Asian-Americans is obviously a coded message to racists about supporting violence against African-Americans that it reflects poorly on anyone who disagrees.

If others here agree with the statement, that's useful to know. If they don't agree, they should say so, if their view is that conservatives should publicly call out conservatives who are wrong.

I feel like you're trying to do the usual faux-civil pettifogging bit here, but you're not doing a very good job. Let's just make this easy for you - Chip Roy was clearly just broadcasting to the GOP base that lynching is an acceptable way to deal with people they consider to be evil, which likely includes any black people deemed even mildly threatening and pointedly does NOT include the Atlanta shooter because, well, he was just having a bad day, and a bunch of Asian sex workers hardly rate as people to Republicans anyway. This point was then punctuated by his pivoting to ranting about how evil the CCP is, the exact same talk that has been responsible for the spike in hate crimes against Asians to begin with, so he isn't even bothering with pretense that he cares about Asian people or bringing killers to justice.

If you genuinely disagree with any of this, you're just an idiot. Roy was being very clear with his remarks and was not leaving any room for interpretation, it's not really a dog whistle when you're talking about getting a rope and finding a tree. If conservatives were decent people they would call this out, but I don't think anyone is holding their breath for that. So please, just stop whatever the hell it is you're trying to do, and just take the L on this one.

[Tendrin]

The idea of extra-judicial justice is already normalized on the right. If it wasn't, Roy wouldn't be where he is, and wouldn't be making the statements he was. Members of the GOP have long played footsy conspiracies that call for the mass execution of democrats, but Mets will continue to defend flaks like Roy, and launder other people's transphobic jokes.

[PwrdOn]

The idea of extra-judicial justice is already normalized on the right. If it wasn't, Roy wouldn't be where he is, and wouldn't be making the statements he was. Members of the GOP have long played footsy conspiracies that call for the mass execution of democrats, but Mets will continue to defend flaks like Roy, and launder other people's transphobic jokes.

The only world that conservatives can ever imagine is one where they retain the monopoly on the use of force indefinitely, and can use the law to stifle their opponents' aspirations while freely ignoring it when it impedes them. You'd think though that with that much power, they'd try to actually do something meaningful instead of just spending all day attacking trans people.

[Tendrin]

The only world that conservatives can ever imagine is one where they retain the monopoly on the use of force indefinitely, and can use the law to stifle their opponents' aspirations while freely ignoring it when it impedes them. You'd think though that with that much power, they'd try to actually do something meaningful instead of just spending all day attacking trans people.

Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

Like the man says.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Supporters Rally Across The Nation Against Anti-Asian Hate After Spa Shootings

In Atlanta, San Francisco, Pittsburgh and beyond, crowds gathered to demand justice for the victims of the Georgia spa shootings.

**********

Miami Beach Declares State Of Emergency Over Out-Of-Control Spring Breakers

The city imposed an 8 p.m. curfew after hard-partying crowds turned streets into what the city manager compared to a massive “rock concert.” Ron Deathsantis could've prevented all that by declaring Florida closed for spring break, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO....!

**********

Donald Trump Jr. Slammed For Sharing Violent Meme Attacking Joe Biden

The former president’s son tweeted an edited video showing his father hitting golf balls that strike President Joe Biden on the head. Talk about moronic, and that's being kind.

**********

Fallout From Riot, Coronavirus Pandemic Leaves Toxic Mood On Capitol Hill

Not yet 100 days into the new Congress, the legislative branch has become an increasingly unsettled place. Especially with Qpublicans who supported Trump's attempt to overturn the election, if not the riot itself.

**********

Tokyo Olympics Bans Spectators From Abroad Over COVID-19 Fears

Officials said the risk was too great to admit ticket holders from overseas during the coronavirus pandemic. Can't say I'm surprised. The risk is too great.

**********

How the mighty have fallen....

Donald Trump’s Personal Boeing Reportedly Sits Mouldering At Small New York Airport

Rudy Giuliani Tried To Sic Cops On ‘Borat’ Crew After Humiliating Scene, Says Producer

[worstblogever]

In 2015, in 2016, and in 2017, “Crazy Stupid Republican of the Day” published profiles of former Washington State Senator Pam Roach, who we noted for a quarter century was a terror in the Washington State Legislature, with reports of her mistreating or threatening staffers (including once reportedly brandishing a firearm to do so), and giving the middle finger to a colleague over the terrible offense of moving her beloved bouquet of roses that she insists on having delivered every day (not caring that her colleague moved them because they’re allergic). She was forced into anger management classes by her own caucus, and when they allowed her back from them too soon, they were sued for allowing her to return and “create a hostile work environment”. Roach, of course, believes she is being unfairly treated in all of these incidents, and played the victim card, saying that she has fewer rights than “somebody who burgles the house, who rapes a child that causes a fire and causes a building to go down”. The Washington GOP set up a primary challenger for her in 2014, who lost to her because he was a convicted sex offender. Her temper tantrums make the fact that she’s pro-death penalty, anti-LGBTQ rights, pro-transphobic bathroom bans, and anti-abortion including in cases of rape or incest seem almost forgettable, in comparison to the drama she brings. Pam Roach barely won re-election in the 2014 elections after the state GOP attempt to give her a primary challenger, so she took a hint and decided to not run for her seat in the Washington State Senate in 2016. We will retire her CSGOPOTD profile at this time and go ahead and take a look at a different wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 663-25, since this was established in July 2014.)


On this date in 2018, 2019, as well as 2020, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profiled Mark Cole, a member of the Virginia House of Delegates representing District 88 since 2001, and man voted most likely to be a chin donor in his high school yearbook. And, suffice to say, there’s not much interesting to say about the first half of his career. Since 2010 though…

In February of 2010, Mark Cole made a name for himself for sponsoring legislation to outlaw medical insurance companies or employers from implanting microchips in people. Which… wasn’t actually a thing that anyone was doing, but Mark Cole wanted to fear-monger and convince he would put a stop to. Specifically, he started to rant about how he was on a mission to prevent the Anti-Christ.

"My understanding -- I'm not a theologian -- but there's a prophecy in the Bible that says you'll have to receive a mark, or you can neither buy nor sell things in end times. Some people think these computer chips might be that mark."

Now, that’s pretty nutty, even for a lot of the fear Republicans wanted to propagate around the time the Affordable Care Act passed. Well, that’s not the only piece of legislation that Mark Cole sponsored that’s cringeworthy. In January of 2016, he sponsored a piece of transphobic bathroom legislation aimed at school children that actually asked that the genitals of the children be inspected to determine their “anatomical sex” and then assign which restroom they should be allowed to use in school. Because THAT isn’t inherently creepy. Let’s hire people to inspect the kiddos’ bits and pieces.

While Cole did survive the bloodbath the Virginia GOP endured in the 2017 election, he hasn’t changed much in the new term, including that he blocked the passage of an Equal Rights Amendment in the state in February of 2018. He countered by sponsoring anti-immigrant legislation to prohibit the creation of sanctuary cities. The rest of his voting record, of course, shows him as being wildly anti-choice, pro-gun, and pro-death penalty.

Mark Cole won re-election in the 2019 elections with 55% of the vote possibly because he showed up at the polling station in his district handing out fliers that were on blue paper to mislead voters to think he was the Democratic candidate on the ticket.

Fast forward about a year, and Mark Cole was writing letters to Mike Pence prior to the insurrection of 1/6/21, asking him to not certify Virginia’s electoral votes even though Joe Biden won his state handily, and e-mailing a video to all his constituents of former Trump staffer Steve Bannon yelling about how Democrats were going to “steal this election”. That seditious move got him rebuked by his own party and removed from his Committee post in the Virginia State Assembly. Mark Cole of course, true to his party, did not learn his lesson, sponsoring two new bills aimed at voter suppression and intimidation.

We’re looking forward to seeing someone bounce his stupid *** out of office in 2021.

[Mister Mets]

This assumes all political positions are equally valid, which time and time again has shown, sure as hell is wrong.

I've never suggested that all positions are valid.

In the next sentence, I mentioned the specific claim I was evaluating, that Chip Roy's statement about punishing people who commit crimes against Asian-Americans is so obviously a coded message to racists about supporting violence against African-Americans that it reflects poorly on anyone who disagrees.

I listed all the rhetoric that in real time, as Republicans vomited it out, critics warned of the consequences of potential hate crimes. I didn't add Trump and voter fraud, or all the anti-choice nuts in the GOP who also embolden terrorism against abortion clinics.

This is your party. No hyperbole. And you're defending it. And starting to dismiss this reality as "a conspiracy theory" when it's reality.

If you deem that an "insult" while you regurgitate transphobic rhetoric of your party on this forum, well, that kind of establishes some confirmation bias and how you might be a part of the problem our nation faces.

I guess the advice I'm going to give you as an empathic human being is to seek professional help before this escalates Mets. Because they're radicalizing you, and I don't think you even realize it.

It seems to be an inconsistent act for someone claiming to be an empathetic human being to publicly say that a person they're disagreeing with should seek professional help. If you truly felt that way, wouldn't you suggest so privately? If you don't feel that way, and are lying about it, that is disappointing and reflects poorly on you.

It is a conspiracy theory if you think that congressman made a statement about violent justice for people who commit crimes against Asian-Americans in order to signal support to racists, as part of a larger effort by the Republican party to kill minorities. You are suggesting that prominent people are working together in secret for nefarious means, and that what they say can't be taken at face value, which are hallmarks of conspiracy theories.

I don't think you've summed up the insults. Take a look at your earlier comments, and consider whether the personal rhetoric would be merited if it were part of an argument on which reasonable people can disagree (IE- Who should Gavin Newsom appoint as California Attorney General now that Xavier Becerra has been confirmed for Biden's cabinet?)

I'm also curious as to what I've said in this discussion that's radical.

I feel like you're trying to do the usual faux-civil pettifogging bit here, but you're not doing a very good job. Let's just make this easy for you - Chip Roy was clearly just broadcasting to the GOP base that lynching is an acceptable way to deal with people they consider to be evil, which likely includes any black people deemed even mildly threatening and pointedly does NOT include the Atlanta shooter because, well, he was just having a bad day, and a bunch of Asian sex workers hardly rate as people to Republicans anyway. This point was then punctuated by his pivoting to ranting about how evil the CCP is, the exact same talk that has been responsible for the spike in hate crimes against Asians to begin with, so he isn't even bothering with pretense that he cares about Asian people or bringing killers to justice.

If you genuinely disagree with any of this, you're just an idiot. Roy was being very clear with his remarks and was not leaving any room for interpretation, it's not really a dog whistle when you're talking about getting a rope and finding a tree. If conservatives were decent people they would call this out, but I don't think anyone is holding their breath for that. So please, just stop whatever the hell it is you're trying to do, and just take the L on this one.

This seems to be an extreme interpretation, that anyone who doesn't agree with everything you've said (that a Congressman's statement was a signal to the GOP base, that he is suggesting all black people considered mildly threatening are worthy of being murdered, that he doesn't think the Atlanta shooter is worthy of severe punishment, etc.) is an idiot.

I think it's possible that Chip Roy wanted to make it clear that he thinks we should punish people who assault Asian-Americans, but that he's also concerned that this conversation is used an excuse to stifle legitimate discussion.

This is a sensitive issue, where there's a lot of misunderstanding. For example, there's the common idea that a cop said that the shooter was having a bad day, when he was explaining what the shooter had told him.

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/sta...30763092975617

There also does not appear to be confirmation that the murdered women (who ranged in age from 44 to 69) were sex workers.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ed-ncna1261575

Obviously what happened to them wouldn't be okay if they were sex workers, but it does reflect how there are major details about the story that we don't yet know.

[thwhtGuardian]

I didn't leave anything out. You made a statement about the constitution, and I'm noting that it explicitly mentions a right to bear arms (I'm well aware of the prefatory clause, although that's a sperate argument) and that people who want less restrictions on voting wish that it said that voting is a right.

Pointing out what the constitution said is a different question from what's right or prudent for a political party to do.


That's a good question.

I'm sure there are different opinions on this. An amendment is very difficult to pull off, so there may be a concern if you go with an amendment it looks like you're doing something, but that it won't have any effect. It might undercut some of the legal arguments by allowing lawyers to use the effort to get an amendment as proof that it is not the existing law. Some of the states won't like the idea of giving up more control to the federal government. There is also potential chaos when it gets to primaries, since the text of the proposed amendment would also apply to making it easier to vote in primary elections in ways the mainstream of a party might not care for.

The fact that it got a lot of attention suggests that those are not standard Republican talking points.

It's not about me. If we ask people here if I deserve to be insulted, the answer to that question will be informed by previous arguments.

It's about anyone whether anyone who came to a different conclusion on a political question is worthy of insult. The view that he articulated was that Chip Roy's statement about punishing people who commit crimes against Asian-Americans is obviously a coded message to racists about supporting violence against African-Americans that it reflects poorly on anyone who disagrees.

If others here agree with the statement, that's useful to know. If they don't agree, they should say so, if their view is that conservatives should publicly call out conservatives who are wrong.

It's definitely a pretty standard view, there are literally dozens of similar comments from members across the party and its not hard to find them. It gets attention not because its outside the norm but because it's just plain wrong and deserves to be called out whenever its uttered.

[worstblogever]

I'm also curious as to what I've said in this discussion that's radical.

You're not. You've explicitly had multiple posters call you out on the things that are in the past two weeks.

Also, you don't seem to understand how conspiracy theories work, and are just throwing the term around in a "rubber/glue" fashion now to defend your own party doing it. The GOP have been called out for attempted stochastic terrorism now for several years, and irresponsible rhetoric. The rise in violence shows that people were right to predict what would happen. That this link exists, and they continue to openly use the same rhetoric shows they don't care. Similar to now how they are moving away from saying "thoughts and prayers" after attacks and to start maligning the victims in statements more frequently. That's... not a conspiracy. That's reality.

Y'know, the thing you're starting to refuse to accept because it doesn't agree with your political opinions. A hallmark of someone who's been radicalized.

Seek help. I say this out in the open because I'm hoping others start to advise you to do the same. This is not how I recall you conducting yourself on this forum around 5 years ago, and it appears your ability to discern truth from fiction is only deteriorating.