01-27-2021, 02:45 AM
(01-26-2021, 07:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(01-26-2021, 03:45 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:(01-26-2021, 02:16 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:(01-25-2021, 11:48 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:(01-25-2021, 08:51 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Your lack of a sense of humor amazes me.
It would be perfectly appropriate to put him on the list. He is a domestic terrorist, no question. And besides, he might screw things up by not getting his umbrella through the door.
I'm no more of a terrorist than you or one of the morons we see flapping their gums and talking tough on CNN or the owner of Face Book or Goggle or Twitter at this point. Of coarse, a wrong move by any Democratic group at the wrong time in history could prove to be a deadly and costly mistake for all groups or persons who are associated with the Democratic party these days. Welcome to the 4T.
It wasn't clear that many of the people who participated in the January 6 insurrection did anything in the open that suggested that they could do something so unthinkable. This said, anyone who attacks a police officer of any kind for political reasons is likely a terrorist. Disrupting a session of Congress is itself a serious crime, and nobody has the defense that one dislikes what is going on. In a mature democracy there is typically an effective 55-45 split at most on most issues, and when the government ends up in a 51-49 split in power with the 51 reliable forcing its way upon the 49, then the process mandates that the "49" find ways in which to transform themselves in to '52'... and, ideally, the '52' acting in ways to not unduly hurt the '48' through lopsided process.
It's up to Democrats to show and exercise political wisdom and not step on toes that do not deserve to be stepped on. Let's do, at least on our part, things that make life better in some places that now vote heavily R that even as late as a quarter-century ago, tended to go D in Presidential elections. How about a New Deal or a Marshall Plan for America's poor? Many people who need the help are white, and since 2000 they have been voting reliably R in Presidential elections.
In a mature democracy, election laws aren't significantly changed by people who don't have the constitutional authority to change them just before a national election takes place. You and every other Democrat who doesn't think what happened was either wrong or fraudulent deserves to live out the rest of your lives as worthless peasants/slaves and die under the rule of a relatively careless form of dictatorship. Your side f-d up dude. Also, I wouldn't rely on your senseless/careless party that we see to be wise and not step on the toes the wrong Americans either. They're already stepping on them and making more enemies and placing themselves and Democratic supporter like you at further risk of being hurt one way or another by more Americans.
Again, the objective was to make sure that people could vote despite a pandemic. The electoral results showed patterns suggesting that the increase in voting was better explained by the increased voting activity of the Millennial generation which itself had a portent in the huge difference in voting between th e 2014 and 2014 midterm elections. The changes in rules prevented vote fraud that arose paradoxically from an entity whose influence was widely seen as unwelcome -- that of the SARS-2 virus that causes the deadly infection of COVID-19. Over 427,000 people have died of COVID-19 in America.
The courts established that changes in the rules to accommodate safe voting were even-handed enough to allow anyone who would have voted in person under normal circumstances to vote nonetheless.
Hear me out: a country undergoing an exit from colonial, oligarchic, or dictatorial rule can have broad coalitions because about everyone wants to see the elimination of the last vestiges of a despised old way of doing things, whether foreign rule, Apartheid, fascism, Communism, or military dictatorship. As time passes, coalitions narrow. New democracies can have 70-30 majorities for the new way of doing things. Old ones split more like 52-47 in most times and go 60-40 only when one side has incredibly-poor candidates for Parliament or the Presidency. In American history, 60-40 splits have been approached with Mondale against Reagan, McGovern against Nixon, Goldwater against LBJ, or Landon vs. FDR.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.