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

[Mister Mets]

While Trump may not have known the Capitol would be attacked, he damn sure wasn’t in a hurry to send in the National Guard to quell the violence after it started.

Oh sure.

This remains a different argument than whether he knew in advance, and certainly whether the idea that he knew in advance is so blindingly obvious that to hint at any other possibility is to invite ridicule.

When you often respond to posts that don't reference you and factor in that the posts in question referenced you by name, it's fair to assume you read them.

I'm going to respond to this point by point.

I'll probably read most posts here. It doesn't mean that I'll be equally able to respond to everything, nor is it reasonable to assume this of anybody.

We're hobbyists here, and should be respectful of other people's time.

So when you cop out on the cheapest possible answer it's not arguing in good faith, whether you wish to think it's your responsibility or not you knew that's not what I was asking and responded as you did anyway.

I don't think I responded with the cheapest possible answer.

I did think the argument was weak, but there are cheaper tactics than responding to a weak post, like quoting exclusively the weakest part of a post and pretending that's someone's entire argument, introducing a strawman version of an argument in order to respond to it, going with ad hominems, or going with personal insults. Note- I'm not saying you do all this, but that these are ways people respond to posts, so if you have a process concern, those seem to be better targets.

You posted "Could you explain the nuance you see in "The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters"?" It seems fair to respond to a question you pose. And I did.

I certainly don't know that you're asking for something different than the thing you're literally asking. I don't think it's fair to expect me to come up with a better version of your argument.

That's not good behavior for a teacher, nor is supporting misinformation in any form much less from someone representing themself as an expert on the matter.

Who is representing themselves as an expert?

More moderate than some in a world where there are those who call for their death isn't as high a bar as you think, especially in a country where the GoP vilifies them as sex-criminals who aren't safe to have in bathrooms (Ex: all the Bathroom laws passed and not).

You're closer to the people who think transsexuality is a mental disorder than they are to the people who call for the death of trans people, so I don't think that's a good way to consider the scale of positions on the topic.

One way to think about it is how one hundred randomly selected Americans would feel about the topic. Shrier's probably going to be around the middle of that ranking.

However my question was how much nuance you saw in the book itself, and not in what you assume her personal views are based on lip service in speeches when compared to what she publishes. You avoided the question again when it was clearly laid out, so yes I still believe you have a habit of avoiding answers to direct questions. Not something I would expect in an educator either, outside of philosophy.

My specific comment was not about the book. As I said, "From the interviews I've listened to and read, she seems much more nuanced than her detractors."

It's easy to dismiss stuff as lip service. That way, we can ignore things anyone we disagree with actually says, and go for a strawman.

If there's any non-loaded question that you think I've failed to answer, post it clearly and I'll do my best to answer.

[numberthirty]

https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/...be-overturned/

19 more wrongful convictions tied to ex-CPD Sgt. Ronald Watts overturned

[numberthirty]

https://www.newsweek.com/south-dakot...vernor-1675563

South Dakota Republicans Halt Kristi Noem's Abortion Bill, Shock Governor

A South Dakota House committee declined to hold a hearing on Wednesday on Republican Governor Kristi Noem's proposed draft legislation that would ban nearly all abortions in the state, effectively ending the bill's chances in a move that surprised the governor.

The Republican-led House State Affairs Committee declined to give the bill a hearing, citing concerns that the bill that would ban abortions after cardiac activity can be detected at around six weeks of pregnancy could conflict with other legal battles over other abortion restrictions the state is involved in, according to the Associated Press.

Lawmakers on the committee said they believed adopting the bill would be "premature" considering the other legal battles the state is part of regarding abortion and the upcoming rulings from the Supreme Court and other federal judges on the cases from Mississippi and Texas, according to the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

[worstblogever]

What does this have to do with gerrymandering being a larger fight where both sides are tainted?.

That anyone claiming about "both sides" is disingenuous, and providing their latest bad faith argument.

I'm sure you know that, on some level. Looking to justify injustices and atrocities with absurdities, and all that.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2015, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” posted a profile of Jim DeMint, who was trying to abolish the IRS as far back as 2004, warned against same sex marriage in 2008 because of the “prevalence of certain diseases amongst homosexuals”, who he also wanted to ban schools from hiring gay teachers out of sheer homophobia. DeMint also wanted to privatize our Social Security system and let the banks handle it, but a few months after they imploded the American economy in 2007. He also blamed the Shoe Bomber on President Obama’s supposed policies of “appeasement”, and used that example as the crux of an argument against unionizing the TSA, falsely claimed on FOX News that President Obama was increasing taxes on Christmas trees out of disdain for Christians, and on another occasion, predicted that “America would not survive” if Obama was elected to a second term as president. He’s also blatantly told lies about figures on healthcare and immigration, tried to ban discussion of abortion over the internet (because that’s worth throwing out the 1st Amendment), and once claimed the federal government played no role in the freeing of the slaves, and it was the Constitution that did so (ignoring how Abraham Lincoln, the founder of his party, had to sign the Emancipation Proclamation). Since stunning Washington insiders with his resignation in 2013, DeMint began working for the Heritage Foundation, until 2017, when he started his own political non-profit group that currently has provided a landing spot for former Congressman, and White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows, as he is being investigated for sedition. Great hire, Jim!

On this date in 2016, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” posted a profile of Bill Otto, a former member of the Kansas House of Representatives and self-professed "ham" whose deep political thoughts inspired him to create a Youtube channel, from which he could spread his political views as an amateur comedian on the internet. This, however, did little but to spotlight what a bigoted nutter he truly is. While sometimes he would perform his own covers of “Home on the Range”, where he would alter the lyrics to justify his opposition to climate change and moving to use green energy, by October 2009 Otto’s little corner of the interwebs blew up in his face completely, after he posted a video of himself performing the “Redneck Rap”, a scathing criticism of President Obama, while wearing a hat that said, “Opossum, The Other White Meat”. In that song, he began suggesting Barack Obama take prisoners from Gitmo to the IRS to torture them there, and referred to the first African American president as "the other dark meat". Needless to say, the "Redneck Rap" wasn't exactly the soundtrack to 8 Mile. His creative endeavors were not Bill Otto's only signs of mental instability, as he once pretended to reach for his firearm when encountering a fellow state legislator, then chuckled that he was "only kidding" because he thought he was a different member of the legislature who deserved to be shot. Besides that, Otto had two conspiracy theories he floated on the floor of the Kansas state legislature, the first being the threat of the United Nations Agenda 21 conspiracy, and the other being his belief that based on the number of shots during the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. Bill Otto failed to be elected in 2012 as well as in 2014, and has faded from all relevance.



On this date in 2017, 2018, 2019, as well as 2020, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” published its first profile of Mississippi State Senator Lydia Chassaniol, a close ally of former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, who was first elected to office back in the off-year elections in 2007. She has won re-election twice, in both 2011 and 2015, which is amazing because halfway through her first term in office in 2009, she was a keynote speaker at a meeting of the white supremacist group, the Council of Conservative Citizens. Of course, when confronted about her membership and appearance at the CCC's conference in 2009 by the Southern Poverty Law Center, she responded by trying to assure them the CCC was a “conservative organization.” She also wrote, “I do not consider myself racist.” Chassaniol's speech back in 2009 had the featured topic of “Cultural Heritage in Mississippi.” where she gave a brief history of the state since 1540, opined that the U.S. was in decline, citing as her evidence tributes to Michael Jackson, a “pedophile who’s being celebrated.” She encouraged members of the CCC present to join Tea Party protests, and warning that the government wanted to “take from those who have and give to those who don’t want to work for it” which sounds a lot like a racial dog whistle from where we're sitting. Chassaniol, after injecting white supremacists directly into the blood stream of the Mississippi Tea Party, continued to praise the movement thereafter.

Chassaniol's path to re-election was hardly a sure thing in 2015 after her CCC connections were dragged back to the fore after Dylann Roof's killing spree. Her district is over 27% African American, after all, and she was linked to a group that around election time, was posting eugenics studies to claim that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites. And, while that should be more than enough to display she was a terrible candidate, in January 2015, Chassaniol also led a failed effort by the Mississippi state legislature to become a shadow government that could conduct business behind closed doors. And yet... she won, mostly on the benefit of two factors... the vote was split between her Democratic and Libertarian opponents, and that she received over four times the amount of donations that her opponents did, usually from such tiny little donors as corporate giant Monsanto. (Thanks again, Citizens United decision.) As a legislator, Chassionol has supported GOP voter suppression efforts by supporting stricter Voter ID measures, voted to try and create “covenant marriages” to make it mandatory to take a year of marriage counseling before someone could be granted a divorce, and has repeatedly gone all-in on anti-abortion efforts and anti-LGBTQ legislation.

in 2018, she voted for legislation to allow the gas chamber, electric chair, and firing squad to be brought back as potential methods of execution in Mississippi, and while she seems opposed to having the LGBTQ community protected by hate crime legislation, she co-sponsored legislation that would deem targeted attacks on law enforcement as a hate crime.At least she’s consistent about being a terrible bigot. Regrettably, Chassaniol was allowed to run for re-election in 2019 unopposed, and thus gets four more years to be a not-so-subtle part of the GOP’s growing build towards being an outright white nationalist party.

On this date in 2021, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” profiled Derrick Evans, who won election for the first time in 2020, but was only a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates for about forty days from December 1st, 2020- January 9th, 2021. How does one end up being forced to resign less than six full weeks into their tenure? Easy. You wake up on January 6th, 2021, and decide to not just go down to the U.S. Capitol and be a Trump-supporting seditious, fascist ***hole, you just don’t climb through broken windows into the capitol wearing paramilitary fatigues and a helmet, but you film yourself doing it in a live broadcast on social media. Yes, on Facebook Live, just in cast people didn’t realize it was him, he even identified himself, screaming, “We’re in, we’re in! Derrick Evans is in the Capitol!” That’s exactly the sort of genius that made sure the coup was never going to succeed. And also, managed to be was charged with one count of knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; and one count of violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol Grounds. Feel free to watch the FBI’s response video, where he’s given his perp walk as his grandmother watches. He wasn’t pardoned by Trump, and is currently negotiating a plea agreement that will determine how much time he goes to prison. As he is now unlikely to ever return to office, we will set aside his profile at this time to cover another wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 1071-50, since this was established in July 2014.

[worstblogever]

Doug Ericksen

Welcome to what is the 1071st original profile here at “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day”, where we’ll be discussing the late Washington State Senator Doug Ericksen, who served a dozen years in the Washington House of Representatives before moving to the upper chamber in the 2010 Tea Party Wave, and in the 2018 Blue Wave year, he hung on for one more term in office by a mere 46 votes out of over 72,000 cast.

During his quarter century in office, Erickson sponsored transphobic bathroom legislation, voted against bans on gay conversion therapy, and voted against legalizing same-sex marriage. He once sponsored a bill to stop protests that disrupt coal trains, or gas pipelines, referring to people exercising their First Amendment rights as “economic terrorism”. Oh, and he was also constantly supporting legislation that made it easier to kill people, be it his vote against the repeal of the death penalty, against a ban on 3D printed “ghost guns”, and of course, a vote against legislation that would limit parents’ ability to provide measles vaccine exemptions to their children as a requirement before they enter public schools.

And it’s that last bit on his anti-vaccine stance that seems relevant. Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, Doug Erickson had criticized Washington Governor Jay Inslee at every step the way for every step he took to try and mitigate the spread of Covid-19. Be it mask mandates, or vaccine mandates. In fact, he sponsored legislation in 2021 to try and ban vaccine mandates. For reasons that are still not known (he is believed to have been monitoring a foreign election), Erickson decided to travel abroad during a pandemic he downplayed, and while in El Salvador, he contracted Covid-19, and then had his travel options greatly limited while he was being quarantined. He frantically wrote to fellow Republican legislators in Washington, seeking ways he could have a Regeneron treatment made available to him abroad, but he passed away before getting them at the age of 52.

The Republican Party has become a death cult, and Doug Erickson was so dedicated to government “freedom” and libertarian “hands off” principles that he supported zero government legal protections against the deadly virus that killed him. A true believer, whose own choices made his wife a widow and his children without a father.

You’d think there would be Republicans who ask, “Wait, why are we doing this to ourselves?” But anyone who buys into Donald Trump’s “election fraud” lies like Erickson or his fellow members of the GOP probably don’t have the requisite self-awareness to ask that question and run headlong into the grave. Like Doug Erickson did.

[Tendrin]

That anyone claiming about "both sides" is disingenuous, and providing their latest bad faith argument.

I'm sure you know that, on some level. Looking to justify injustices and atrocities with absurdities, and all that.

One party's supporters are trying to end gerrymandering, and have tried to do so at a local and federal level. Republicans have overturned their efforts at every level as best they can.

I WONDER WHY THAT IS.

[Tami]

Missouri Republican lawmaker pushes gun bill that would ‘make murder legal,’ prosecutors say

A new Missouri bill that would alter self-defense laws and establish that any use of “physical or deadly force” would be presumed to be self-defense has prompted controversy and sharp criticism from opponents.

Proponents of the bill argue that it shields citizens who exercise their Second Amendment rights, and are protected by existing state self-defense laws, from unfair prosecution. Opponents warn that it could bring dangerous, unintended consequences for public safety and hinder law enforcement’s ability to prosecute violent criminals.

Under current state law, citizens have the right to use physical force on another person to protect themselves, in instances including, but not limited to, when someone unlawfully enters private property or someone’s home. Yet the person bears the legal burden to prove he or she “reasonably believed physical or deadly force was necessary to protect him or herself or a third person.”

The proposed Senate Bill 666 would shift that burden of proof onto prosecutors, who would now need to present “clear and convincing evidence” during a pretrial hearing that the defendant was acting on motives other than self-defense before they can press charges.

The initiative has prompted a sharp rebuke from prosecutors, civil rights groups and law-enforcement agencies and organizations including the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, the Missouri Sheriffs United, the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police and the St. Louis Police Officers Association, among others.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Missouri Republican lawmaker pushes gun bill that would ‘make murder legal,’ prosecutors say

That should be “make murder legal for white folks”. This is all about Republicans who were pissed off that the killers of Ahmaud Arbery were sent to prison instead of getting a get out of jail free card.

[thwhtGuardian]

Missouri Republican lawmaker pushes gun bill that would ‘make murder legal,’ prosecutors say

I love that its Bill#666...surely that should tell you it's a poor idea?

[Tami]

Josh Mandel May Be Trolling The GOP. He Could Be Ohio's Next Senator.

TOLEDO, Ohio — Jason Kander says he met Josh Mandel back when he wasn’t Josh Mandel.

In Kander’s telling, Mandel called him up out of the blue a decade or so ago to pitch a project. It made sense why. The two men had similar profiles: Jewish combat veterans in their early 30s. New statewide officeholders in the Midwest. Rising stars in their respective parties — Kander as a Democrat and Mandel as a Republican.

That was the pitch. Mandel told Kander he wanted to collaborate on something like a cable news segment or show, as opposing “moderates” from the Heartland.

Kander ultimately wasn’t into it and passed. Since then, he “hasn’t kept in touch with the guy at all,” he told HuffPost in December.

Now Kander can hardly believe the Josh Mandel who’s running for U.S. Senate in Ohio.

“I’ve watched his performance over the past few years, and it’s a very different guy than the guy I briefly met over the phone,” said Kander, who was Missouri secretary of state when Mandel was Ohio treasurer. “I’ve seen clips of him where he sounds like he’s running in a Republican primary in southwest Missouri. I’ve been to Ohio. I know that’s not what it sounds like,” he said. Kander, who has his own Midwestern drawl, was referring to clips of Mandel, a Cleveland native, adopting a fake Southern accent. “I don’t know who that’s for, but it’s so strange.”

Mandel seems to know exactly who it’s for. After two other attempts at the Senate, Mandel has been heavily courting the evangelical “Make America Great Again” vote in this pivotal primary to replace Republican Rob Portman.

And he’s willing to pretty much do anything to win it. No position is too extreme — Mandel edges right up to the line of open racism and radicalizing against democracy. All immigrants are “illegals,” all Black Lives Matter activists are “thugs,” all non-Trump-loving Republicans are “RINOs” (Republican in Name Only, the worst GOP-on-GOP burn), all Democrats are “socialists” trying to destroy the country. Among his rivals, Mandel is the loudest proponent of the “big lie” that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election. He says he wants the House select committee that’s investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by extremist Trump supporters replaced with a “Nov. 3 commission” to probe what was, by all expert accounts, a free and fair election.

Mandel’s tweets can read like a deranged bot trying to imitate Trump.

I kept hearing the same things: that Mandel, a former golden child of the GOP, used to be perceived as more moderate before evolving into a staunch conservative and then veering hard right as a Trump acolyte; that he’s obsessively hardworking and ambitious; that he scares and embarrasses some members of his own party. To the degree it’s possible to discern anyone’s true political motivations, people following Mandel don’t completely buy that any of this is genuine. That Mandel, a practicing Jew, is running his campaign through Ohio’s evangelical churches, feels to some like a move calculated for strategic political exposure to the MAGA base.

[Dalak]

I'll probably read most posts here. It doesn't mean that I'll be equally able to respond to everything, nor is it reasonable to assume this of anybody.

We're hobbyists here, and should be respectful of other people's time.

Then why did you disrespect my time by answering in a way you knew was clearly disingenuous? That seems much more insulting than being offended by being disrespected thusly and responding to a point you brought up independently.

I don't think I responded with the cheapest possible answer.

I would agree to the point in-that you could have added an insulting statement to accentuate it and elevate the response to Trolling. Otherwise, it's pretty much a deliberate cop out answer and you know it, thus this aggrieved stance you are taking on.

I did think the argument was weak, but there are cheaper tactics than responding to a weak post, like quoting exclusively the weakest part of a post and pretending that's someone's entire argument, introducing a strawman version of an argument in order to respond to it, going with ad hominems, or going with personal insults. Note- I'm not saying you do all this, but that these are ways people respond to posts, so if you have a process concern, those seem to be better targets.

You posted "Could you explain the nuance you see in "The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters"?" It seems fair to respond to a question you pose. And I did.

Weak Argument? It was a one sentence question that was clearly not asking about just a 6 word subtitle to a book rather than about the book itself, as was pointed out. What argument is there in a one sentence question? Why should I be upset at people not responding to me in these ways as opposed to when you are responding to me like that? (Not each example you provided)

I certainly don't know that you're asking for something different than the thing you're literally asking. I don't think it's fair to expect me to come up with a better version of your argument.

When I made a separate post clearly replying to someone directly about you, with your name Quoted in it on top of that, it's more reasonable to assume that someone who reads the thread would read it than assume they would respond in a way which was clearly not intended, respectful, or in good faith. No one expected you to 'make up' anything, and acting as if that's the case here is continuing to be disingenuous.

Who is representing themselves as an expert?

You cannot be this oblivious and be a teacher when we are discussing a best-selling book and the author of it which you bring up by name.

You're closer to the people who think transsexuality is a mental disorder than they are to the people who call for the death of trans people, so I don't think that's a good way to consider the scale of positions on the topic.

One way to think about it is how one hundred randomly selected Americans would feel about the topic. Shrier's probably going to be around the middle of that ranking.

My point was that 'More Moderate than some' isn't a good argument in the world we live in, and that isn't changed by this. America isn't the world, and I even clarified to a popular GoP anti-trans opinion which this book can enflame.

My specific comment was not about the book. As I said, "From the interviews I've listened to and read, she seems much more nuanced than her detractors."

And I specifically asked you about the book, not the person. Conversations evolve and you will be asked questions that don't have to do with things you've already specifically said, that shouldn't be a surprise or an impediment to communication.

It's easy to dismiss stuff as lip service. That way, we can ignore things anyone we disagree with actually says, and go for a strawman.

If there's any non-loaded question that you think I've failed to answer, post it clearly and I'll do my best to answer.

When you compare what a person says to what a person does, I believe what they do is far more revealing than what they say. I consider this when dealing with people in my personal life and when thinking about more public figures.

When comparing what Shrier says in a speech after she was called out to what she actually published, what do you think is more representative of her true opinions? Remember that she hasn't said anything she published was wrong, nor did she acknowledge the valid criticisms brought up in the link you posted to defend her before you answer.

[Xheight]

One party's supporters are trying to end gerrymandering, and have tried to do so at a local and federal level. Republicans have overturned their efforts at every level as best they can.

I WONDER WHY THAT IS.

How is it that said party is ending gerrymandering? There is simply cut and dried method for determining districts and any attempt to draw them will invite subjective bias and its subjective criticism. You can't cry racism and then build a racial bloc of voters that just happens to be favorable to one's outcome. Both sides equal...yet again.

[Xheight]

What does this have to do with gerrymandering being a larger fight where both sides are tainted?.

because it is classic baby with the bathwater argument that that seeks to link one with the other. The merits of one argument don't effect the other except in some puritanical sense of being free of sin altogether and which as you rightly point out gerrymandering is either a sin both are guilty of or it is not a sin to begin with but simply a function of majorititarianism that one party seems to advocate for in other cases.

[Xheight]

They're still fighting in the Donbas region which started in 2014 I think? The representatives of the separatists say their people want to secede, Kyiv says no we must stay unified. And the military-industrial complex is pleased, making a ton of money as the US/Nato and Russia continue to send weapons into Ukraine.

That could have something to do with said separatist's being astroturfed tool of larger military industrial complex. Unity for unity's sake is a crock I admit. Let's not pretend that there is a valid ideological component to Russia's ambitions. Small self determined nation states are something to be encouraged by people who favor individualist freedoms.