Party moving too radical?

[code1211]

I don't trust that at all. Maybe that many think it was the crowd's intention to protect democracy.

But there is no way in hades 45% of republicans agree with the illegal stuff that happened. Asking the right questions can. Make one side look bad or the other side, I see it all the time.

That is the key point in this.

Only a very small fraction of what happened on January 6 was illegal.

A whole bunch of it was stupid.

I whole bunch of the reactions to it have been stupid.

There is more than enough stupid to go around in Washington DC.

 

[Ug make hammer]

That is the key point in this.

Only a very small fraction of what happened on January 6 was illegal.

Breaking and entering is not "really" illegal now?

A whole bunch of it was stupid.

I whole bunch of the reactions to it have been stupid.

There is more than enough stupid to go around in Washington DC.

Well if we're going to compare it with "private sector" rioting (which is dubious) then we must negate the law treating damage or trespass on Federal property as MORE serious than doing the same to private property. But by the same token, it can't be excused as less serious. I mean, just for the sake of argument.

Different jurisdictions are more or less harsh, and another disappointing thing is that trials do not delve into motive. I guess none of these crimes really rely on motive to make the case.

 

[code1211]

Breaking and entering is not "really" illegal now?



Well if we're going to compare it with "private sector" rioting (which is dubious) then we must negate the law treating damage or trespass on Federal property as MORE serious than doing the same to private property. But by the same token, it can't be excused as less serious. I mean, just for the sake of argument.

Different jurisdictions are more or less harsh, and another disappointing thing is that trials do not delve into motive. I guess none of these crimes really rely on motive to make the case.

You are biased beyond any connection with reality or common sense.

At the Capitol on January 6, there were no fires, no murders committed by the rioters and almost no damage to the Capitol.

The damages committed by the rioters through the Summer of 2020 destroyed billions of dollars of property, murdered several people and destroyed business across the country.

Your propaganda is what it is. One thing it is not is accurate.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Most of the people spewing the "I was a Democrat until very recently" line are generally 1 of 2 things. First being a grifter type Ala Candace Owens/Hodgetwins/Tim Poole who realized they could make a lot more money pandering to the far right and white grievance crowd than they could on the other "side". It works even better if you're a minority who's willing to trash other minorities and "white liberals".

The other is Bush Republicans who all abandoned him after 2008, who pretended to be "independents" and "libertarians" in the Obama era, who then went on to pretend to be against "forever wars" during Trump's tenure, after they spent years calling anyone who opposed the war in Iraq "unpatriotic". Oh, and they of course ignored the record amount of drone strikes during Trump's 4 years, after pretending to care about it during Obama's 8 years. There's never any consistency with these people, because at the end of the day, it's all about "owning the libs".

or 3) just liars.

 

[Perotista]

I think both major parties have become too radical if that’s the right word. Too many litmus tests must be passed to become a member of either party. They’re in the process of becoming pure ideologist, leaving more and more Americans without a party to call home. I think this is the reason both major parties are shrinking, that in a few years, independents will move from a plurality of the electorate to a majority. In 2006, independents made up 30% of the electorate, Democrats 35%, Republicans 30%. Today, independents make up 42%, Democrats 29%, Republicans 26%.

Both parties want mindless robots to follow the dictates of their party leaders, they don’t want free thinkers or those who are willing to make up their own minds on the issues. Dissent isn’t allowed within either party. Both major parties have become radicalized with neither willing to compromise or move toward a more middle or moderate view that most Americans support and are. Both will continue to shrink, but they hold a monopoly on our two-party electoral systems. By eliminating the more moderate, non-radical portions, factions of each party, they become more entrenched and powerful.

 

[Ug make hammer]

You are biased beyond any connection with reality or common sense.

At the Capitol on January 6, there were no fires, no murders committed by the rioters and almost no damage to the Capitol.

No fires, murders or extensive damage are required to establish the crime of BREAK AND ENTER. None of the protesters who entered the building past a broken-in door could possibly have been unaware that they were illegally entering, and as you've no doubt heard "ignorance of the law is no defense."

If that was private home, you would defend the right of the occupants to open fire with everything they had. But you have this quaint idea that because the public are admitted to the Capitol for tours, therefore anyone however threatening and unruly should be allowed in on the day Congress has constitutionally mandated work to do. It's you whose view is hopelessly skewed by partisanship, not me.

As to the riots of the year before last, I feel no compunction to comment. Worse crimes being committed by someone else, don't magically make it all right to commit lesser crimes. If that was so, there would be no food on the shelves in any supermarket because shoplifters would have taken it all.

The damages committed by the rioters through the Summer of 2020 destroyed billions of dollars of property, murdered several people and destroyed business across the country.

Your propaganda is what it is. One thing it is not is accurate.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I think both major parties have become too radical if that’s the right word. Too many litmus tests must be passed to become a member of either party. They’re in the process of becoming pure ideologist, leaving more and more Americans without a party to call home. I think this is the reason both major parties are shrinking, that in a few years, independents will move from a plurality of the electorate to a majority. In 2006, independents made up 30% of the electorate, Democrats 35%, Republicans 30%. Today, independents make up 42%, Democrats 29%, Republicans 26%.

It could also be that more and more primaries are "semi open" meaning they allow Independents to vote. The right to vote in that party's primary is the only reason to register as a member of either party, and there are downsides like letting your boss know how you (probably) vote.

My view on primaries is that people should be allowed to vote in either R or D, but without having to register either way. Then the parties should arrange for their mutual benefit that each voter can only vote in one primary. Neither party has an interest in "false flag" primary voters trying to promote the easiest-to-beat candidate. Third parties could decide for themselves whether to enter that pact, and I think generally they would not. The only point at which I would apply a bit of law is in preventing the major parties from excluding anyone only for voting in a minor party primary.

Both parties want mindless robots to follow the dictates of their party leaders, they don’t want free thinkers or those who are willing to make up their own minds on the issues.

Actually, you're blaming primary voters here. There are often free thinkers somewhere in the field, but a combination of lack-of-faith and distrust of the unknown, keeps them from surviving beyond New Hampshire.

Dissent isn’t allowed within either party.

I don't believe that. I think you're looking for strident dissent, theatrically crossing the floor, party splitting dissent. Maybe you're expecting dissenters to go as hard on their own party as all members go on opposing parties, but dissent is definitely there if you pay attention to the meaning of words rather than tone.

Both major parties have become radicalized with neither willing to compromise or move toward a more middle or moderate view that most Americans support and are. Both will continue to shrink, but they hold a monopoly on our two-party electoral systems. By eliminating the more moderate, non-radical portions, factions of each party, they become more entrenched and powerful.

The graph in the first post seems accurate to me. The Republicans have moved away from the common center more than the Democrats have. In fact it's remarkable that the Democrats haven't chosen either of the poison chalices: centrism where they lose their left base and have no ideas to implement, or moving left and losing half the voters in the center. Holding the line, maybe moving centrist a bit, is the recipe for long term success. It even holds out the prospect that Republicans alarmed by losing too much of the center, will split like they did in the "Progressive era."

Well you can guess who I support. Or maybe ... in a true multi-party system enabled by transferrable vote, I'd be a Green. In the system we've got, I have no choice but the Democrats.

 

[Perotista]

It could also be that more and more primaries are "semi open" meaning they allow Independents to vote. The right to vote in that party's primary is the only reason to register as a member of either party, and there are downsides like letting your boss know how you (probably) vote.

My view on primaries is that people should be allowed to vote in either R or D, but without having to register either way. Then the parties should arrange for their mutual benefit that each voter can only vote in one primary. Neither party has an interest in "false flag" primary voters trying to promote the easiest-to-beat candidate. Third parties could decide for themselves whether to enter that pact, and I think generally they would not. The only point at which I would apply a bit of law is in preventing the major parties from excluding anyone only for voting in a minor party primary.



Actually, you're blaming primary voters here. There are often free thinkers somewhere in the field, but a combination of lack-of-faith and distrust of the unknown, keeps them from surviving beyond New Hampshire.



I don't believe that. I think you're looking for strident dissent, theatrically crossing the floor, party splitting dissent. Maybe you're expecting dissenters to go as hard on their own party as all members go on opposing parties, but dissent is definitely there if you pay attention to the meaning of words rather than tone.



The graph in the first post seems accurate to me. The Republicans have moved away from the common center more than the Democrats have. In fact it's remarkable that the Democrats haven't chosen either of the poison chalices: centrism where they lose their left base and have no ideas to implement, or moving left and losing half the voters in the center. Holding the line, maybe moving centrist a bit, is the recipe for long term success. It even holds out the prospect that Republicans alarmed by losing too much of the center, will split like they did in the "Progressive era."

Well you can guess who I support. Or maybe ... in a true multi-party system enabled by transferrable vote, I'd be a Green. In the system we've got, I have no choice but the Democrats.

I leave who supports who up to each individual. In Georgia, one registers to vote with no party affiliation. Georgia is an open primary state. You can pick and choose which primary one wants to vote in. But you can’t switch party primaries if there is a runoff or if you vote in the presidential primary for one party, you must vote in that same party’s primary for statewide and local offices. No switching back and forth.

I used to think along your lines, that a movement of one party more toward the center would enable that party to recapture some of the moderates they lost over the years. But maybe it isn’t that simple. In research I’ve found a lot of independents are to the right of the Republicans Party or to the left of the Democratic Party. Then there are independents, the middle if you will that supports the Republicans on some issues, who also support the Democrats on other issues. An example of this would be myself, I’m pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment. Neither party wants me, not the Republicans because I’m pro-choice, not the Democrats because I’m pro-2nd amendment. There are other issues, but I don’t pass either Party’s litmus test. Quite a lot of independents who both parties call centrist fall into supporting and opposing both parties on different issues depending on the issue. There’s no consensus among independents. So, like me their votes are all over the place and even seem wild at times. Therefore for example in 2020 independents voted for Democrat Biden, but Republican down ballot. Biden won by 7 million plus votes, but the Democrats lost 13 house seats, a governorship and 2 state legislatures. All thanks to independents.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I leave who supports who up to each individual. In Georgia, one registers to vote with no party affiliation. Georgia is an open primary state. You can pick and choose which primary one wants to vote in. But you can’t switch party primaries if there is a runoff or if you vote in the presidential primary for one party, you must vote in that same party’s primary for statewide and local offices. No switching back and forth.

Ah Georgia. I didn't even know the state used runoffs until the double Senate runoffs last year.

Let's see if I have this straight: you don't register "as" one party, but there's some mechanism so you can't vote in both primaries? Is it an arrangement between the parties, or is state law involved?

I used to think along your lines, that a movement of one party more toward the center would enable that party to recapture some of the moderates they lost over the years. But maybe it isn’t that simple. In research I’ve found a lot of independents are to the right of the Republicans Party or to the left of the Democratic Party. Then there are independents, the middle if you will that supports the Republicans on some issues, who also support the Democrats on other issues. An example of this would be myself, I’m pro-choice and pro-2nd amendment. Neither party wants me, not the Republicans because I’m pro-choice, not the Democrats because I’m pro-2nd amendment. There are other issues, but I don’t pass either Party’s litmus test.

My sympathies! Libertarian would seem to fit you best, but of course that's just a wasted vote.

Quite a lot of independents who both parties call centrist fall into supporting and opposing both parties on different issues depending on the issue. There’s no consensus among independents. So, like me their votes are all over the place and even seem wild at times. Therefore for example in 2020 independents voted for Democrat Biden, but Republican down ballot. Biden won by 7 million plus votes, but the Democrats lost 13 house seats, a governorship and 2 state legislatures. All thanks to independents.

Well there's also the Trump factor. Michael Dukakis could have beaten Trump. Or Hillary Clinton, if she and Biden had swapped around. You could even say Biden didn't win so much, as Trump destroyed himself. The story of Trump is best shown by the realization that Trump wasn't playing a part for the campaign, he was "in character" and did not back off at all once the 2016 election was won. The only President in the history of polling to enter office with a negative Gallup approval rating! And he never cracked 50%.

I expect that view is familiar to you. I will comment that the House losses didn't really matter, and the DNC maybe can be credited with putting more into the Senate, where they got a surprisingly good result. Well thanks to Georgia and Trump's big mouth I guess.

 

[The Mark]

I"ve seen the typical republican bot talk when a newbie con drops in here and say, "I used to be a democrat but the party moved too radical..." blah blah blah. Pew kind of cleared that bullshit up.

​

Democrat party is currently center-right, trending left towards center and maybe even a hint of left in the newer members.
Republican party is currently right trending to far right.
There is no current viable left party in the USA. And by viable I mean capable of electing enough people to have an noticeable influence on things.

I'm using a more global definition of left and right, not the warped one often used in the USA currently, where we somehow assume that the center is somewhere between the democrats and the republicans.
The center is actually a bit to the left of the democratic party, as I see it.

 

[Perotista]

Ah Georgia. I didn't even know the state used runoffs until the double Senate runoffs last year.

Let's see if I have this straight: you don't register "as" one party, but there's some mechanism so you can't vote in both primaries? Is it an arrangement between the parties, or is state law involved?



My sympathies! Libertarian would seem to fit you best, but of course that's just a wasted vote.



Well there's also the Trump factor. Michael Dukakis could have beaten Trump. Or Hillary Clinton, if she and Biden had swapped around. You could even say Biden didn't win so much, as Trump destroyed himself. The story of Trump is best shown by the realization that Trump wasn't playing a part for the campaign, he was "in character" and did not back off at all once the 2016 election was won. The only President in the history of polling to enter office with a negative Gallup approval rating! And he never cracked 50%.

I expect that view is familiar to you. I will comment that the House losses didn't really matter, and the DNC maybe can be credited with putting more into the Senate, where they got a surprisingly good result. Well thanks to Georgia and Trump's big mouth I guess.

You register to vote, period. As for primaries, when the first one rolls around you can choose either the Republican or the Democratic primary. But you must continue to vote in the primary of the party you chose. There’s no switching back and forth for that year. If you vote in the Democratic presidential primary, you must vote in the Democratic state and local primaries and if there is a runoff, it must be in the Democratic runoff election. If only the Republicans had a runoff, you can’t vote in that runoff. At no point can you switch over to the Republican primaries.



Of course, in two years for the next round of primaries, you can once again choose which party primaries you’ll vote in. I’ve switched election year to election year numerous times depending on which candidates I want to win or lose in the primaries. But in any one year, I must continue to vote in the primaries of the first one I choose.



I’ve never belonged to any major party, although I was a member of Ross Perot’s Reform Party and when asked, at times I still say Reform is my party. Although it is active in just 3 or 4 states. Not in Georgia. As for a wasted vote, I don’t consider my vote for a third-party candidate as wasted. I voted for Johnson in 2016 due to my disdain for both major party candidates. I didn’t care who won, I wanted both to lose. I wanted my vote officially registered as being against both. I wasn’t alone as 12% of all independents voted third party against both Trump and Clinton which amounted to 6% of the nationwide vote. I then voted for Biden, a good alternative to Trump just to get rid of Trump. Not a vote for Biden per se. But once again a vote against Trump. Then I voted Republican for senate and Democratic for congress. I’m a big fan of divided government as I don’t like one’s party agenda being forced on the rest of America. That usually leads to being voted in one election, then being voted out the next as independents rebel.

I also believe that almost any other Democrat, alive or dead other than Hillary Clinton would have beaten Trump in 2016. Independents decided that election. 57% of independents disliked Trump, but 70% disliked Hillary. Questions 10 and 11. The Democrats chose in my opinion, the only candidate that could have lost to Trump. Her inept campaign helped. The most inept campaign I seen since 1992 G.H.W. Bush’s who until the last two weeks of that campaign exhibited a feeling he didn’t care if he won or lost.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

 

[Ug make hammer]

I’ve never belonged to any major party, although I was a member of Ross Perot’s Reform Party and when asked, at times I still say Reform is my party. Although it is active in just 3 or 4 states. Not in Georgia. As for a wasted vote, I don’t consider my vote for a third-party candidate as wasted. I voted for Johnson in 2016 due to my disdain for both major party candidates. I didn’t care who won, I wanted both to lose. I wanted my vote officially registered as being against both. I wasn’t alone as 12% of all independents voted third party against both Trump and Clinton which amounted to 6% of the nationwide vote. I then voted for Biden, a good alternative to Trump just to get rid of Trump. Not a vote for Biden per se. But once again a vote against Trump. Then I voted Republican for senate and Democratic for congress. I’m a big fan of divided government as I don’t like one’s party agenda being forced on the rest of America. That usually leads to being voted in one election, then being voted out the next as independents rebel.

I hate divided government, because good things (from the point of view of those who elected the government) do not get done. Instead of two big parties seismically stuck (and only releasing suddenly with botched legislation like Obamacare,) what America needs is easement from third and fourth parties. Frack those big parties, with lateral solutions offered take it or leave it, by separate parties (NOT factions) holding the balance of power. The reason factions do not properly fill this function, despite sometimes holding the balance of power (Manchin, Sinema, and whoever else they have in the bullpen) is they do not have a party machine to get them re-elected so they're not very independent after all, but also they do not have voters dedicated to their party agenda. They just have whatever is available in their district/state.

You can probably see where I'm going with this. Proportional representation is how you get governments formed of a coalition of parties.

However I know the concept of having to do math before deciding how to vote will never go down well in the US, so there's a weaker alternative that is still better than the current system. Instant Runoff is a form of ranked choice voting suited for filling single offices. It doesn't make a huge difference electorally, though it might in the US where dissatisfaction with both major parties is so rife. And it will probably help that states like Georgia already use traditional runoffs (for all statewide offices isn't it?) so Instant Runoff will not be dismissed as foreign.

I also believe that almost any other Democrat, alive or dead other than Hillary Clinton would have beaten Trump in 2016.

Well we don't agree on that. Other white women voted against her, to me showing that the biggest strike against her was "sleeping her way to the top" but I think white women were just plain wrong about that. She was unlikeable, she came across as fake, but see that's a sexist double standard. Look at the lying asshole who beat her: being unlikeable seems to be an advantage if you're a man!

The other thing is that she and her campaign successfully won the plurality of the vote, they just didn't win it in the right states. That's a strategic failure, not Hillary's failure as a candidate.

Independents decided that election. 57% of independents disliked Trump, but 70% disliked Hillary. Questions 10 and 11. The Democrats chose in my opinion, the only candidate that could have lost to Trump. Her inept campaign helped. The most inept campaign I seen since 1992 G.H.W. Bush’s who until the last two weeks of that campaign exhibited a feeling he didn’t care if he won or lost.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

If Bernie hadn't run at all, the whole narrative about the DNC cheating to favor Clinton would never have got off the ground ... which isn't to say they wouldn't have favored her, the DNC is a divided body half appointed by the last election's winner and half appointed by state branches, it would be absurd to expect it to behave apolitically. But the narrative of the DNC conspiring against poor harmless old Bernie would not have gotten traction with general voters. Podesta who? Why should I care?

Well in an election that close there are a dozen things I could point to, which made the difference. However I'll stick with those two: women being held to a standard of 'likeability' which men are not, and that fool for lost causes Bernie Sanders.

(Feel free to snip parts of my post to get under the 5000 character limit)

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I could be wrong but seems like it started with Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
Here's an eye-opener >>>
.
View attachment 67379952

You are NOT "better off now than you were" either (a) four years ago OR (b) THIRTY-FIVE years ago.
You were better off FORTY years ago when we were still enjoying what was the tail end of the New Deal era. And YES, the New Deal's
"era" ended earlier HOWEVER the GIFTS it gave us lasted all the way until the Reagan Revolution gutted all of it.

 

[Ug make hammer]

You are NOT "better off now than you were" either (a) four years ago OR (b) THIRTY-FIVE years ago.
You were better off FORTY years ago when we were still enjoying what was the tail end of the New Deal era. And YES, the New Deal's
"era" ended earlier HOWEVER the GIFTS it gave us lasted all the way until the Reagan Revolution gutted all of it.

Yeah well I was just leaving that graphic there for people who need pictures. It's not properly sourced, which makes it hardly better than a "meme".

And let's be honest, a core part of the New Deal was the social security Trust Fund, which was supposed to earn interest by being invested, but since 1969 (well before Reagan) has been "on-budget" meaning that the supposed earnings come out of taxes and borrowing. I'm no deficit hawk, but there has to be some limit to the US government resting on assets like federal lands or the taxing power, to borrow money on favorable terms. We have to get used to taxes again, because short of an amendment to empower the Federal government to declare bankruptcy, there is no other way out of interest payments which will take up more and more of the budget.

Last year, Federal interest expense was $562 billion.

In short, the Trust Fund was an idealistic attempt to make government an investor and to earn money that way instead of taxation. China effectively does that by taking a stake in most companies there, but the US can't even dream of it until the mountain of debt is gone.

And on the bright side, a decade of high inflation would help tremendously, in two ways. Most of the debt only has to be repayed in dollars (it's not inflation adjusted), and also the Federal borrowing rate must rise if inflation continues. That will put political pressure on government to fund its own spending other than by borrowing.

 

[code1211]

I think both major parties have become too radical if that’s the right word. Too many litmus tests must be passed to become a member of either party. They’re in the process of becoming pure ideologist, leaving more and more Americans without a party to call home. I think this is the reason both major parties are shrinking, that in a few years, independents will move from a plurality of the electorate to a majority. In 2006, independents made up 30% of the electorate, Democrats 35%, Republicans 30%. Today, independents make up 42%, Democrats 29%, Republicans 26%.

Both parties want mindless robots to follow the dictates of their party leaders, they don’t want free thinkers or those who are willing to make up their own minds on the issues. Dissent isn’t allowed within either party. Both major parties have become radicalized with neither willing to compromise or move toward a more middle or moderate view that most Americans support and are. Both will continue to shrink, but they hold a monopoly on our two-party electoral systems. By eliminating the more moderate, non-radical portions, factions of each party, they become more entrenched and powerful.

I wish that one party would espouse and enact policies of reduced Federal government and the return of power to the States, the Localities and the People.

Neither one does.

What we have is a uni-party comprised of lying thieves that pretend to fight over "issues" that are so ridiculous that only fools entertain those issues.

The real issue is that the lying thieves are lying to hide the outrageous theft they are committing.

I don't care who you are. $30 Trillion dollars of debt that's rising with a bullet just has just got to impress you.

 

[Ug make hammer]

The real issue is that the lying thieves are lying to hide the outrageous theft they are committing.

Oh I remember you! It's the crazy-eyed "taxation is theft" guy!

Never change man. You're a classic.

 

[code1211]

No fires, murders or extensive damage are required to establish the crime of BREAK AND ENTER. None of the protesters who entered the building past a broken-in door could possibly have been unaware that they were illegally entering, and as you've no doubt heard "ignorance of the law is no defense."

If that was private home, you would defend the right of the occupants to open fire with everything they had. But you have this quaint idea that because the public are admitted to the Capitol for tours, therefore anyone however threatening and unruly should be allowed in on the day Congress has constitutionally mandated work to do. It's you whose view is hopelessly skewed by partisanship, not me.

As to the riots of the year before last, I feel no compunction to comment. Worse crimes being committed by someone else, don't magically make it all right to commit lesser crimes. If that was so, there would be no food on the shelves in any supermarket because shoplifters would have taken it all.

There is video of the Capitol Police inviting people to pass the barriers and to enter the Capitol. Only mentioning this to provide a more well rounded presentation of what actually happened and the confusion rampant on the day.

Of course illegal entry is illegal. This is obvious. Obvious in the same way that illegal entry into the country by undocumented aliens is illegal.

Regarding the crimes committed in the Summer of 2020 and on January 6, there were two types of victimization rising from these crimes: The direct victims of illegal actions and the victims of propagandistic deceptions.

Comparison of the crimes of the January 6 rioters to the crimes of the Summer of 2020 rioters is incomplete without the considerations of the propagandistic coverages provided by the lying propagandists.

The rioters of the Summer of 2020 were characterized as holy crusaders and the cops attempting to constrain the destruction, violence and mayhem were characterized as heavy handed, wrong minded, brutalizing authoritarians.

The rioters of January 6 were characterized as hysterical social misfits and the cops attempting to constrain the destruction, violence and mayhem were characterized as well trained, even noble professionals in very difficult situations.

What is important in the descriptions of all of these events is that there were people braking the law and cops trying to maintain order. Cops were portrayed as evil in the Summer and heroes on January 6. WTF?

If you failed to notice the propagandistic treatment of these events, you are self-blinded in many ways and really need to open your eyes.

Asking this question is helpful: "If this is true, what else must be true?"

 

[Ug make hammer]

There is video of the Capitol Police inviting people to pass the barriers and to enter the Capitol. Only mentioning this to provide a more well rounded presentation of what actually happened and the confusion rampant on the day.

Of course illegal entry is illegal. This is obvious. Obvious in the same way that illegal entry into the country by undocumented aliens is illegal.

Regarding the crimes committed in the Summer of 2020 and on January 6, there were two types of victimization rising from these crimes: The direct victims of illegal actions and the victims of propagandistic deceptions.

Comparison of the crimes of the January 6 rioters to the crimes of the Summer of 2020 rioters is incomplete without the considerations of the propagandistic coverages provided by the lying propagandists.

The rioters of the Summer of 2020 were characterized as holy crusaders and the cops attempting to constrain the destruction, violence and mayhem were characterized as heavy handed, wrong minded, brutalizing authoritarians.

The rioters of January 6 were characterized as hysterical social misfits and the cops attempting to constrain the destruction, violence and mayhem were characterized as well trained, even noble professionals in very difficult situations.

What is important in the descriptions of all of these events is that there were people braking the law and cops trying to maintain order. Cops were portrayed as evil in the Summer and heroes on January 6. WTF?

If you failed to notice the propagandistic treatment of these events, you are self-blinded in many ways and really need to open your eyes.

Asking this question is helpful: "If this is true, what else must be true?"

Maybe I pay less attention to coverage of events than you do. All I really care about are the facts, which typically only emerge days or weeks later and come into full and final view with criminal trials. So I don't really care what spin any of the outlets put on it, they all have their unique audiences they are playing too and I'm not in any of those audiences.

I do note though, that you've backed away from the claim that Capitol invaders didn't do anything serious. Perhaps the capitalization "BREAK AND ENTER" got through to you? Or was it the analogy with invasion of an occupied private home, which rang your bell?

2020 rioters who were foolish enough to enter occupied private property were met with gunfire, and it's tragic that a retired cop died tried trying to defend the occupied business/home of his friend. That incident stands out for me, as the worst moment of all those riots. Threats to life COMBINED with invasion of property, make all the car yards and megastores destroyed quite insignificant. Even murders on the street are less significant. And now maybe you can see why the presumption of threat to congresspeople's lives, combined with forceful invasion of their place of work, is such a serious matter.

I still resist comparison between the two events. I am all too familiar with the argument that rioters in 2020 represent the "real" BLM, despite them being such a small minority of all protesters, and far too wary of false flag actors (or as we called them in my day "agents provocateur".) Unless you're going to claim that the Capitol invaders included false flag actors, or that the mostly innocent protesters who remained outside the Capitol vastly outnumbered those those who participated in the crime of break and enter, then it is futile to compare the two "movements".

I could say that of BLM protesters, a tiny minority committed serious crimes. But then you would say, that the sum total of serious crimes was greater. This is what I mean by "they are not comparable". There is no agreed scale by which we could compare them.

 

[code1211]

Oh I remember you! It's the crazy-eyed "taxation is theft" guy!

Never change man. You're a classic.

Please link to the quote of me saying that.

Why do you have opinions that are so certain based on an understanding that is so flawed?

 

[code1211]

Maybe I pay less attention to coverage of events than you do. All I really care about are the facts, which typically only emerge days or weeks later and come into full and final view with criminal trials. So I don't really care what spin any of the outlets put on it, they all have their unique audiences they are playing too and I'm not in any of those audiences.

I do note though, that you've backed away from the claim that Capitol invaders didn't do anything serious. Perhaps the capitalization "BREAK AND ENTER" got through to you? Or was it the analogy with invasion of an occupied private home, which rang your bell?

2020 rioters who were foolish enough to enter occupied private property were met with gunfire, and it's tragic that a retired cop died tried trying to defend the occupied business/home of his friend. That incident stands out for me, as the worst moment of all those riots. Threats to life COMBINED with invasion of property, make all the car yards and megastores destroyed quite insignificant. Even murders on the street are less significant. And now maybe you can see why the presumption of threat to congresspeople's lives, combined with forceful invasion of their place of work, is such a serious matter.

I still resist comparison between the two events. I am all too familiar with the argument that rioters in 2020 represent the "real" BLM, despite them being such a small minority of all protesters, and far too wary of false flag actors (or as we called them in my day "agents provocateur".) Unless you're going to claim that the Capitol invaders included false flag actors, or that the mostly innocent protesters who remained outside the Capitol vastly outnumbered those those who participated in the crime of break and enter, then it is futile to compare the two "movements".

I could say that of BLM protesters, a tiny minority committed serious crimes. But then you would say, that the sum total of serious crimes was greater. This is what I mean by "they are not comparable". There is no agreed scale by which we could compare them.

You seem to enjoy arguing points that I never brought up that you wish that I had brought up.

I am not asserting that the rioters of January 6 or of the Summer of 2020 were of any particular movement.

I am not asserting that the crimes committed by the rioters in any riot are not crimes.

I am not backing away from the FACT that the damages done to the Capitol were very slight. According to posters of your mindset, three broken windows, a scratched door and a hunter's chemical sprayed on stone statures. Also littering.

It would be nice if you could discuss reality instead of screaming and raving from atop your imagined soap box.

 

[Ug make hammer]

You seem to enjoy arguing points that I never brought up that you wish that I had brought up.

No, I'm just sticking to my claim that hundreds of "protesters" committed the crime of break and enter, on 1/6/2001

I am not asserting that the rioters of January 6 or of the Summer of 2020 were of any particular movement.

I am not asserting that the crimes committed by the rioters in any riot are not crimes.

I am not backing away from the FACT that the damages done to the Capitol were very slight. According to posters of your mindset, three broken windows, a scratched door and a hunter's chemical sprayed on stone statures. Also littering.

It would be nice if you could discuss reality instead of screaming and raving from atop your imagined soap box.

The crime of break and enter does not require that damage be done. In fact, if you pick a lock (causing no damage at all) to obtain entry, you have committed that crime. And relevantly, if you pick the lock then go wait in the car while your accomplices enter the property, all of you are guilty of break-and-enter.

It's you who is seeking to minimize the crimes done, by saying they're not other crimes.

 

[braindrain]

Democrat party is currently center-right, trending left towards center and maybe even a hint of left in the newer members.
Republican party is currently right trending to far right.
There is no current viable left party in the USA. And by viable I mean capable of electing enough people to have an noticeable influence on things.

I'm using a more global definition of left and right, not the warped one often used in the USA currently, where we somehow assume that the center is somewhere between the democrats and the republicans.
The center is actually a bit to the left of the democratic party, as I see it.

Just because you are far left of most Americans does not mean the center is further left then where it is right now. Nor does it mean the right is further right then they actually are.
You are simply taking what you beliefs are and pretending that is the center for America. That’s not reality.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Just because you are far left of most Americans does not mean the center is further left then where it is right now. Nor does it mean the right is further right then they actually are.
You are simply taking what you beliefs are and pretending that is the center for America. That’s not reality.

Applying a European standard and declaring it to be global is pretty suspect too. The global average is probably nearer Easter Europe than Western Europe, particularly on the social issues.

 

[The Mark]

Just because you are far left of most Americans does not mean the center is further left then where it is right now. Nor does it mean the right is further right then they actually are.
You are simply taking what you beliefs are and pretending that is the center for America. That’s not reality.

I'm to the left of the center I described.

 

[Schism]

I think the left need to become even more radical, especially between now and November.

When Dems lose the House and Senate, the only possible response is to intensify the radical rhetoric and behavior.

If that fails, I say go bonkers and show the world just how much radical they've been holding back. really let go man.