Four Hours At The Capitol

Discussion in 'Politics 2.0' started by Moose, Oct 22, 2021.

  1. GoingDown

    GoingDown "The Stability"

    But most of that is your opinion. Of which likely 50% of Americans will disagree with. If we stick to the facts, we’ve just flipped the other way for the time being.

    I spent a bit of time in the States over the holiday period and it’d been my first time there since Biden had taken over and the pandemic began. It was interesting getting to talk to Americans from both sides. Those that had a reason to hate Biden and love Trump were mainly talking from a business point of view. Their businesses did better when the Republicans were in charge, they mostly conceded that it didn’t have to be Trump but just a Republican. The odd one loves Trump ‘because he wasn’t a normal politician’ - which in the end, he kind of was.

    People on the Democratic side mainly said anyone but Trump, that they were open to a more liberal Republican (if one ever came along) but that Biden had done a good enough job in the circumstances of the split houses.

    It particularly surprised me that the personality thing was more an issue to Democratic voters I spoke to. But really, that made sense. They really hated Trump whilst to Republicans, he was just a figurehead that was easily replaced by a similar style politician.
     
    HenryHooter likes this.
  2. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Again, you make some excellent points here, but I must point out that the oppressive things I listed are not a matter simply of my opinion, they are all demonstrable values and actions of this current Democrat party.

    If 50% of Americans would disagree that these things are happening, it is because they do not want to recognise the reality of what is happening, rather than because the things are not happening. That is my opinion, but it is based on the question. Those things are going on right now, so why would people deny it?

    Evil, as they say, does not like the sight of its own reflection. America has taken many steps along the path of nazi Germany already. CRT is, to all intents and purposes, a nazi doctrine; certainly, it is, at the very least, the very definition of racism. Censorship of peoples voices is not permitted to the US Government, but luckily Biden can openly call upon Twitter, etc., to do the job for him. Trump's last impeachment relied entirely on news headlines for 'evidence', much of it now debunked (don't believe me? Go back and watch it).

    When republicans do the same, I will call it out.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2022
  3. Davy Crockett

    Davy Crockett Reservist

    Not a Trump fan , FTR, but if the 4 hour at the Capitol mob had won then possibly ...
    No Afghan debacle or WW3 looming in Ukraine
    But if you want to have an opinion that OTHERS find acceptable then hey , Joe Biden, THE MAN!.
    Just for clarity Red or Blue they all hate you .
     
    dynamo380 and iamofwfc like this.
  4. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    There would certainly have been the Afghan debacle because the withdrawal was negotiated under Trump.
     
  5. Davy Crockett

    Davy Crockett Reservist

    So the War monger Trump wanted to negotiate peace then ?
    I thought , according to MSM, we were off to a War in a handcart under the Trumpeter?.
    Refugees welcome ?
    Here's your rifle
    Now charge that Russian machine gun nest unless you want to go home ?
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  6. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Utter joke. Trump's fazed withdrawal plan was cancelled by Biden, who literally just upped sticks and left, surrendering billions in cash, military eqipment, munitions and infrastructure, without notifying the Afghan government or allowing them to prepare or even take posession. Trump would not have done that, nor would he have left several hundred US nationals and allies stranded, and the whole world knows it.

    Biden's surrender of Ukraine, piecemeal, to Russia is exactly the same weakness and hapless "please don't hit me" pandering to scarey international powers.

    Trump, whatever else he may be, is well known for being a popularist and a patriot, and is very aware of what the public would think if he had done what Biden did.

    The Afghan debacle is entirely a Biden affair.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2022
    dynamo380 and iamofwfc like this.
  7. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Trump was, apparently, the first president in many years not to start a new war.

    Which enormous industrial complex, who are fully behind the peace loving but war mongering Democrats, do you think may have been a little upset by that?
     
    iamofwfc likes this.
  8. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    He wanted to get out of Afghanistan, which is fair enough. That’s not the same as promoting peace though.

    You’re having your cake and eating it here. If you want to support Trump, just do.
     
  9. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Some of us only supported Trump because the alternative was senile, racist, incompetent, serial liar Biden with his CRT obsessed Democrat party of racists and bigots; his crack head, under-aged-cousin-obsessed, corrupt and money laundering son; and seriously damaged daughter whose diary (confirmed by the FBI) mentions her father joining her for 'inappropriate showers' when she was a child.

    Told everyone this at the time, except his daughter's sad revelation.

    Trump's a d**k, but he was a far more competent and frankly more pallateable President than Biden.

    But the left have an ideology, and that is the priority, no matter how evil.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2022
    dynamo380 and iamofwfc like this.
  10. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Some may be interested to know that the Democrat leaning press have, to some extent, taken Biden, Harris and Psaki to task for their freely made comments implying that if, now because, their voting bill did not pass, then the the 2022 mid term elections, which they are seriously not looking forward to, may be considered illegitimate. Among many other things.

    Remember, this is CNN, not Fox.



    Very uncomfortable listening for anyone who voted Biden and actually gives a Hoot about the US. No one can say they were not warned.

    As the reporter notes, along with many of Biden's other disasters, this is exactly what Democrats were accusing Trump of for five years. Biden achieved it in one.

    Impressive.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2022
    iamofwfc likes this.
  11. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    Which reporter? Do you mean the Dubya-appointee talking head invited on presumably for balance? That alone shows it definitely isn’t Fox then.
     
  12. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    What is your point?

    How does it effect what I say? And why do YOU assume his report is less worthy because it differs from the narrative?

    And how often do I quote Fox and their opinions on here? That requires you to put down my post by associating my views with Fox. I don't watch Fox, I don't quote Fox, I don't like Fox.

    And if CNN is the station of balanced views, how come their viewers still think Rittenhaus crossed state line with a gun and randomly shot three innocent 'black' protesters. Your point regarding CNN's fair reporting of all the facts and opinions does not stand ip to any kind of scrutiny.

    Again. The quality of your debate has taken a tumble.

    Remember how important Trump teeing up illegitimate elections was at the last election? And now, when Biden and his entire team do the same, it is just some quota filler for news hour.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2022
  13. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    You don’t half go off like a rocket these days… it hardly encourages me to debate anything with you. But here goes:

    You literally compared it to Fox in your own post. I wasn’t putting you down or associating your views with anything. I was throwing a very gentle jab at Fox for not being balanced. If you look carefully I didn’t even comment on your views.

    More broadly, if you can’t see the difference between what the Biden administration is saying and why, and what Trump not only said but also did, I hold out little hope for a true debate. Biden - a disappointing President who will hopefully be shunted off the ticket for 2024 - is making his concerns known in context of the ongoing gerrymandered redistricting process and nearly every GOP state legislature passing legislation that would have handed Trump the presidency had the election taken place under those warped laws. And despite there being some Dem states that nobble their district maps to bake in their advantage, the vast vast majority are GOP states where the popular vote is close but districts are designed in a way to enable a GOP super-majority in the state legislature and/or their House seats. No self-respecting Democrat President couldn’t not call that out.

    In addition, the Biden administration followed due process and proposed federal legislation to address their concerns. Trump did nothing of the sort, because he’s not interested in due process and because his grievances were largely fabricated to feed his ‘them and us’ polemics. That’s nothing alike.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2022
  14. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    I came out like a rocket because your post ignored the point being made, that finally CNN were giving coverage to NEWS that it would otherwise not have covered, and allowed an expression of opinon that it has been reluctant to air previously, but rather attempted to smear me by associating me with Fox News propaganda.

    I did not compare it to Fox. I stated that it was CNN, a Democrat biased broadcaster, and not Fox, a Republican biased broadcaster. If you feel I am being disingenuous in this explanation, I would welcome you comments as to how.

    I see the difference between what the two political parties are saying. The difference is that previously it was the Republicans who were making their excuses in advance and this time it is the Republicans. This chap on CNN is not the only person calling it out, and Biden, Psaki and Harris have all been interrogated by the press on the subject. So your unfortunate dismissal of the points he was making are, I believe, miss-placed.

    How do you think the Republican legislation will hand them the 2022 election? What is warped about the laws. I would appreciate your comments on that. I, personally, would say that requirement of an ID (I understand that the new laws allow virually any form of ID, just like when a person, in the US, goes out for a drink, or gets in their car, or obtains prescription drugs). Do you have any comments on Democrat states, such as New York, who have harsher elements in their laws than the new Republican laws?

    For you to say that these new laws would have handed Trump the election is moot anyway. Certainly, if Trump had access to the laws in the rejected bill, permitting Federal control of state elections, then he unquestionably would have been handed the election. Just as Democrats believe they will be able, despite their dreadful first year, to be elected again.

    People's rights to vote are protected by the Voting Rights Act 1965. No Republican can, or has even attempted, to redact anything in that act. If it had, it would be challenged and crushed in the courts. That, or spark a genuine civil rights protest that everyone would get behind.

    Yeah. Some Dem states gerrymander, but more Republican states do. Yeah. Not a very impressive argument I am afraid, no matter how much it is a reality. A person, possibly tens of thousands of persons, being able to vote multiple times in multiple states with multiple names without having to prove their ID is equally a problem, and when you add to that partisan vote harvesting and low level voter fraud on a grand scale, I think the voter ID argument is a fair counter to be made, and one on which a state should be able to make up its own mind. If any individual, or group, is practically discriminated against, the 1965 Act still exists to protect them. Problem is, it is not being breached by the new rules. Instead, the Democrats are trying to persuade minorities in the states that they are too thick, or too yokel to obtain an ID.

    If Republicans get a super majority, it will be because Biden is so much worse than a "disappointing President".

    Trump followed due process, relying on a process that the Democrats themselves attempted to employ on Jan 6 the previous years.

    A literal handful of his supporters demonstrated against the fact that Pence, quite fairly, did not choose to make a decision that he was entitled to make. How did 700 unarmed people manage to force their way into the Capitol? Seriously, the Capitol, on a day of protesting that EVERYRONE was warning of for weeks. The answer is they didn't have to, though some certainly tried. When people didn't advance, they were ushered in. When it didn't spark off big time, a person got shot without warning for climbing through a window - but even that did not incite the crowd, which is the only thing, during a "bloody insurrection" that anyone would have expected to happen in such a 'highly charged' situation (see Bloody Sunday, etc.). The most prominent people egging them on were 1. (John Sullivan) an antifa activist, and 2. Ray Epps, one of the only people actually filmed telling people to go into the Capitol, who has not been charged and who has been defended as innocent by Democrats. It's all on camera and its all on record.

    Biden attempted it by legislation, because on paper he could get away with it, but it turned out that two Democrats did not think that voter ID was an unreasonable expectancy in a country that requires ID for virtually every thing else.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2022
  15. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    Slightly bemusing that you seem to think the whole thing is about voter ID.

    And given your closing remark I assume you missed Sinema and Manchin both voting in favour of the proposed voting rights legislation?

    There's plenty of information out there about the hurdles being put in place by GOP state legislatures to make voting harder. I'm not doing your homework for you.

    And it's funny you mention the 1965 VRA but ignore the impact the partisan (GOP) Supreme Court have had in gutting it. Makes a lie of your comment that "No Republican can, or has even attempted, to redact anything in that act". The GOP are bringing more cases to strip away more of its protections too:

    https://publicintegrity.org/inside-...hallenges-to-voting-rights-act-far-from-over/

    America has now reached a point where highly partisan judges on the Supreme Court openly invite the legal challenges they want those on their own side to bring, so they have reason to overturn decades of consitutional jurisprudence. Roberts is something of a stickler for precedent but since Barratt arrived he can be outvoted.
     
  16. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    You should have no problem describing the issues then, or of explaining why some Democrat states have voting restriction even harsher than some of the new Republican voting rules.

    I’d appreciate some explanation too of why ‘black’ Americans are more affected by the laws than any other Americans. Try to do it without implying that ‘black’ Americans are can not organise an ID like they would to buy a drink, drive a car, get insurance, receive medical treatment, etc.

    The other issues brought up by Democrats are vote by mail restrictions. The risk to integrity of vote by mail was identified by former Democrat President Jimmy Carter himself, but at the last election, rules were thrown aside to enable mass mailing out of postal votes with no consideration of whether people were dead, moved away, or would be voting in other areas, inviting mass low level fraud on an unprecedented scale. That seems like a good reason to shore up the rules on that. And still, anyone who can justifiably request a mail in vote can get one. So again, the argument seems to be that ‘black’ voters are incapable of sorting themselves out, compared to every other voter.

    Next is the handing out of water to people in voting queues. Sounds absolutely brutal doesn’t’t it. But it is not what is being described. The ban is on politicos campaigning to queuing voters whilst handing out water. It does not mean people in queues will not be able to get water, or even buy water in the queue. It just means they won’t have people handing water to them for their vote. It is an extension people not being allowed to hand out free gifts for being allowed to canvas a vote.

    The article you linked to is very convoluted, unclear as to what exactly is being mooted, and is full of opinions, published on an independent but left leaning website.

    The gist I get is that Texas Lawyers are seeking to prevent private cases under section 2 where a challenge is being made to a law, not where a person’s rights under section 2 are being affected by that law. That is, Texas is saying it is for government to challenge the law, not the individual. But it does not prevent an individual whose rights have been violated from taking the state to court.

    You know, like around the last election. You can’t sue until you have been affected. If the Republicans resort to the same disgusting tactics of then saying that you can’t complain now because you didn’t complain earlier, then I will be just as angry with them as I was the Democrats. I wonder if your attitude to such usage of the law will change?
     
    UEA_Hornet likes this.
  17. Moose

    Moose First Team Captain

    wfcmoog and sydney_horn like this.
  18. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Very strange to extrapolate that from this article.

    The antifa chap, absolutely confirmed and undenied, who was standing next to the woman who was shot dead without warning by a security guard, urging her and others on and who got paid around $60,000 for the video he took of it, including evidence of his own involvement as a rioter, is already walking free today, unlike those who he was goading on (they are held on less evidence than his video provided of his own involvment).

    And Ray Epps and others, accused even before the event of being Fed prococateurs, have been identified, exposed in evidence for their actions, and defended by Democrats as wholly innocent on the grounds that 'they said they were not involved'.

    The above is a ridiculous and illogical extrapolation. The antifa types and 'wider left', which I must assume, mean the FBI, DOJ and Government 'conspiracists', who's peculiar and in some cases insurrectionist behaviour (if you are in a crowd, that are accused of such, egging them on and doing what they are doing, then you are equally guilty) is not being examined and those involved have not been called or arrested.

    The antifa types and 'wider left' establishment have alreadey been pardoned.

    But it is a very interesting thing he has done.

    The suspension of belief, that these people were all insurrectionists bent on overthrowing the US government with their sticks and loud shouting (no guns, no fire, no industrial fireworks, no tactics, etc.), which has NO credibility outside of the USA, in government circles.

    Trump, if he runs, will present an opportunity for Americans to mark this out as BS. Who is going to vote for a guy that will release such dangerous terrorists? Or will people look at the antifa types and 'wider left', and see the billions of dollars in destruction they caused, see court houses and police precincts burned down (obstructing the course of government in its business) knowing that the majority involved were not arrested and held for over a year (even for non-violent crime), or were bailed out on funds raised in part by senior Democrat representatives, and egged on by Nancy Pelosi and her ilk.
     
    UEA_Hornet and iamofwfc like this.
  19. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Anyone else seen this unflinching compilation of Democrats (supporters, members and officials as well as their media allies) calling for people to fight and riot in the streets, and excusing their behaviour as 'peaceful protest', inter-twined with the fruits of their exhortations?

    It seems that, instead of being 'shocking', this 'documentary' is a heart warming reaffirmation of Truth, Justice and the America Way.



    Compare it to the video in the original post on this thread. Decide for yourself what is protest, what is rioting and what is insurrection, remembering that police stations and court houses are equally as much a part of government as the Capitol building. And compare also the damage done by the different sides.

    Make up your own mind why people want to talk about one, clearly the lesser, and not the other, and why they seem allergic to comparison of the ONE right wing event, with the Summer of rioting carried out by antifa types and the 'wider left'.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2022
    UEA_Hornet and iamofwfc like this.
  20. Arakel

    Arakel First Team

  21. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Guilty of trespass? I don't think there are many of them that will argue with that. In fact, if the Government were not trying to prove that they were all insurrectionists set on brushing Capitol security aside with their sticks and bag ties, so they could overthrow the Government, then the people they have been holding for over a year now could all go home.

    How did a handful of idiots seriously think they were going to take over even the front door of the Capitol without weapons?

    Yeah. They did get through the doors. But as the videos show, they were ushered in by security gaurds and policemen, which even makes the trespass charge moot. Only one shot was fired in the Capitol on the day, and that is the one that killed, without warning, Ashli Babbit.

    This is a comedy moment in history that is going to be looked back at as the worst excesses of a corrupt government gone mad. The Dems are driving themselves on to despotism, because that is the only way they can maintain the craziness they have created.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2022
    UEA_Hornet and iamofwfc like this.
  22. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    You know clearly know exactly what the issues are.

    If you’re right that some Democrat states have harsher rules than some Republican states - though I doubt any of them are genuinely competitive states electorally - the reason is because the Supreme Court gave the green light for gerrymandering and gutted the VRA. Fact is only one side can’t win the popular vote and probably won’t ever again… and it’s not the Democrats. And there’s only one party proposing to outlaw such behaviour at a federal level… and its not the Republicans.

    I like the idea that ‘anyone who can justifiably request a mail in vote can get one’. Tell that to people in Texas, who thanks to a bogus Republican election security law can only get a mail in ballot if they can remember the identification number they registered to vote with, potentially decades ago:

    https://people.com/politics/mail-in-ballot-application-rejected-veteran-95-texas-voting-law-sb1/

    Your ‘water in the queues’ argument is rather disingenuous too. There shouldn’t be meaningful queues at polling stations in the first place. People shouldn’t be having to stand in queues in hot weather for 3-4 hours to vote. What’s the longest you’ve queued in this country to vote? I reckon for me the most ever is less than 5 minutes. Most of the time there’s no queuing time. Yet in some states, they’ve reduced polling places ever since the Supreme Court gutted the VRA. In Georgia the voting roll has increased by 2 million, mainly in Democrat communities, yet polling places have been cut by 10%. Still, maybe the queues are just made up of the same 20 people voting time and time again, right?
     
    wfcmoog likes this.
  23. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    Oh, oh, oh… I know, I know!

    Is it because the ‘ONE right wing event’ took place in the US capital city at the building housing the national legislature at the exact time those inside were due to carry out their constitutional duty to validate the results of the electoral college and thereby mark the peaceful transfer of power between presidents?
     
    wfcmoog likes this.
  24. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Are you aware that the guy in the article sorted his registration out?

    Didn't think so. He was able to do so, despite having been confused by the new law. That happens when new laws to secure elections come in.

    New York for one has harsher voting requirements, but its OK, it'll never turn red. Couldn't possibly, so, as you imply, why bother? Some double standards for you right there.
     
    UEA_Hornet likes this.
  25. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Government is government. Your attitudetowards, or rather complete dismissal of local governance is noted, but I can't help feel that if Trump supporters had done the same, you wod be up in arms talking of insurrection, along with the Democrats who spurred on antifa and BLM, and raisrd funds to bail them out so they could move on to their next target. Billions of dollars of damage and thousands of injurred policemen, but its OK, it was only local government.

    Seriously. Listen to yourself.

     
    UEA_Hornet likes this.
  26. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    Of course I’m aware. I read the article. What a load of stupid and completely illogical hurdle jumping it required though, plus the help of a younger relative which quite obviously some people won’t have the benefit of. Indefensible.

    And your point re: New York isn’t what I’m implying at all. I think it should be stopped across the board. But the simple fact is Republicans consistently do it in marginal or ‘purple’ states. I’m not sure there’s a Democrat equivalent.
     
  27. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Sorry, but I can't take you seriously. A new security measure is introduced for elections, and you are upset that some people need help sorting it out.

    You believe what you like on this one, and I will do the same. Election integrity is important, and all the guy had to do was provide a new form of ID from either his driving license or social security number. That is what was described in the article. It was an issue and it got sorted. What is the problem?

    If you think that is oppressive, I am afraid you are not living in the real world, where I have to go round my mothers house everytime her banks home page changes background pictures.

    I suppose you would believe it is better that 100 fraudulent votes were cast rather than one real vote possibly get missed.

    Give people credit. Providing ID is not that diffivult, even if it may confuse, but not prevent from voting, a war veteren in his 90s.

    If he can get it sorted, and that new site can't find a person who will be denied a vote by the laws, then I think you should be reassured.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2022
    UEA_Hornet likes this.
  28. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    I can’t believe you think the elections in Texas lacked integrity last time out. Goodness, they better remove all those illegitimate Republicans who were allegedly elected from office immediately!
     
  29. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Are you expecting a massive swing to the Democrats in Texas after Biden's inflation busting, surrender monkey, oil price inflating, pipeline cancelling first year in power?

    I think it is a good idea to ensure the integrity of an election.

    I can understand yourself and the Dems wanting to keep things as they are until they get a foothold on power.

    Don't forget, if Trump had had the poers Biden was trying to give himself under the new voting bill, he would almost certainly have been able to brush aside the results and carry out investigations into alleged fraud.

    Biden's bill could have handed Trump the election. Presumably the intention was to do the same for Democrats.
     
    UEA_Hornet likes this.
  30. UEA_Hornet

    UEA_Hornet First Team Captain

    Let’s zoom out a bit here, as I find this sort of argument pretty odd. I’m not American and in looking at the Democrats I see a party that if they ran on the same ticket in this country their closest match would be the Conservative Party. And I’m no great fan of them. What I can’t figure out is if you genuinely like the current Republican Party or it’s just a proxy for the right v left thing and so a means to an end to continue the oldest type of debate on here?

    My main interest is seeing free and fair elections, whoever wins, and, the more I’ve read into it over the past 5 years, the clearer it becomes that America is far behind many other democratic nations in that regard. They jumped the shark in 2000 and have slowly floated off into a world of their own. They have a bonkers system where a clear majority of the popular vote is for one side (the Democrats) but the other side can write the rules to enable them to win a super-majority at state level based on the last set of rules that they also wrote. It can’t be denied; despite the need for broadly equal-sized districts, and the overall electorate being more Democrat, the bias built into the House apportionment is heavily Republican. And that all comes from partisan local (re)districting efforts which tilt it that way against the popular trend.

    The truth is the Republicans have been far more ruthless than the Democrats over the past couple of decades. While the latter sat around navel gazing and in-fighting, the Republicans got on with tilting the table in their direction.

    Plus I’ve no idea how you think Trump could have used the election laws proposed by Biden to win if the roles were reversed. The vast majority of the proposals reinstated things that were in existence as recently as the early 2000s but then eradicated by partisan federal courts. Or sought to outlaws things like gerrymandering or closing polling stations in unfriendly districts that yes, both sides use, but the Republicans benefit far more from.

    I also notice whenever I equate the measures imposed by Republicans to our electoral system, something I’ve done several times, you never deny you’d oppose them if implemented over here. I doubt you’d be happy queuing for 11 hours to vote, or finding out one year you were in the South West Herts constituency but two years later had been shunted into Watford to enable the party that drew the boundaries to retain power. Oh and then in a few more years time you’ve been bolted on to Hemel Hempstead instead because, y’know, election integrity…
     
  31. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    The US is not strictly a democracy, and the very Democrat argument that a popular vote is appropriate for a collection of self governing states is a ludicrous canard. If the bigger, Democrat states do not like the situation, which allows each member state to have the same voice in federal government, and presidential elections, as every other, they may, if they wish, look into a process that would allow them to secede from the Union.

    I think the state veto in the EU, and other arrangements, are somewhat parallel with the US, though more aggressively protective of state autonomy whilst it remains an issue for members. I imagine, if presidency of the EU ever becames an serious electoral prospect (it currently being a mokery of electoral policy, whereby candidates, or a candidate is chosen, and MEPs rubber stamp it), it too will adopt a system whereby it is the states (guided by it's people), and not the collective people, who elect the president, I am sure.

    It is difficult for me to get my head around the idea that there are Americans who do not appreciate or sympathise with such a system. I think, perhaps, that people have forgotten that each state governs itself, and I suppose your devaluing of local government, its properties and processes compared to federal government is an indicator of that.

    Eleven hour queues? Is that the reason why polling days have been extended by these new republican laws? Why people are queuing for eleven hours in states where they are permitted to vote over periods of weeks I do not know. Could it be that their communities do not encourage them to spread their voting out, so as to create the illusion of a problem? I think it could be, because extending the number of days allowed for voting would seem to be an amicable resolution, yet democrats have complained about it as much as they have the use of IDs and the removing of dead people from the voting lists, which is yet another of the 'unreasonable' new Republican laws.

    Republicans have been criticised for writing into law the use of drop boxes. They were introduced as an emergency measure during COVID, but their reasonable and more easily overseen use has now been included in the republican laws. The criticism is that there are not as many permitted as there were for the pa, because the pandemic has, effectively, passed. Prior to the pandemic, in Georgia at least, there were no drop boxes.

    Here is a BBC fact checker...

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56650565.amp

    So even the BBC is recognising that many of the criticisms are not merited. The fact that the all star baseball game was moved from Georgia because of the new laws, and ended up in a state with even less favourable and more restrictive laws, so I understand. So it seems, if the information is good, simply to be a typical piece of poorly thought out politicking, where the assumption that, "they are republicans, they must be worse than us" so often comes back to bite people on the bottom.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2022
    UEA_Hornet likes this.
  32. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    I do not condemn the laws of another country because that country and its own people have their own ideas of what the law should be, so when I discuss America, it is not from the subjective point of view of my own defences, but from the empathic view of this is what they have, that is my starting point.

    I despise the simbiosis of Americans and guns, but to judge the behaviour of an American based on UK law is futile, and unfair to a person who has lived every day of their life with a completely different outlook on guns and a set of laws that horrify me. But that is what America was built on, and it’s laws are no surprise to Democrats, many of whom are enthusiastic gun owners.

    Expecting me to judge what goes on in American elections based on UK customs is absurd, and anyone who attempts to do so, as you appear to think I should, would expose their ignorance very quickly and find themselves spouting absolute rubbish based on total misconceptions. So forgive me if I don’t consider America based on my experience of the UK; I would rather do so based on my understanding of US law, customs and practices.

    And no, I do not like the Republican Party and I side more with the moderate libertarians in the US, who are a conglomerate of left leaning, but socially rejected, individuals through to right wing candidates without the racism or authoritarianism. They tend to be anti woke (nothing wrong with being woke, only now a days, like cancer, woke doesn’t know when it has done it’s job, and continues to try to out woke itself), are colour blind, rather than racist CRT embracers, and they are anti elitist and anti establishment. They talk more broadly on subjects than the left, take pride in knowing and understanding the arguments of the left, occasionally agree with some of them, and when they make their mind up about a court case, they seek out the evidence and make sure they understand it. The left don’t even know what is going on, and the opinions they express are straight from CNN and MSNBC, even to the turn of phrase they use, misquotes, and fake explanations. Rittenhouse made that abundantly clear.

    People like Candace Owens, Charlie Kirk and other, slick Republican electoral wannabes posing as political commentators do not impress me. Their arguments are often excellent, but I do not trust their ambitions, and see them as the future Republican establishment, using the situation to build their own political power. They are useful idiots, and I hope they are shed aside by the grass roots movement, because they will manipulate the right, in the long run, in the same way Pelosi et al have manipulated the left. The only refreshing thing about them is that they are anti racist, and know that not to be would be the end of them.

    I feel similarly about Carl Benjamin, who is intelligent, articulate, very keen on fully understanding the facts, but I can’t help feeling that he is just the mirror image of extremists on the left.

    I tend to listen to black conservatives, as they refer to themselves, who get called uncle Toms and house n*****s by the totally non-racist Democrats. They are growing in number, and some former Biden supporters are expressing concerns about Biden, some even asking where Trump is when they need him.

    When I got into this, it was because I was asking how a man, Trump, that was such a racist could become President. The fact is, his critics were talking predominantly BS about him, and I could no supporting evidence for their claims, which have pretty much all been shown to be rubbish since. Rather than go with what I was told, I looked into the evidence for it, and found none.

    There is no question that Trump was a better President than Biden is. There is little question that the US would be in a better position under Trump if he had been re-elected. Those are the reasons I backed Trump, along with the fact he is not a racist and does not promote racist ideologies. He may be a d**k, but he is many times the better man than Biden and Harris put together.
     
    UEA_Hornet likes this.
  33. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    For clarification...

    "Another thing we'll do, and so many people have been asking me about it, if I run and if I win, we will treat those people from Jan. 6 fairly. We will treat them fairly. And if it requires pardons we will give them pardons. Because they are being treated so unfairly."

    So, not simply to pardon them, but also, entirely reasonably, to treat them fairly, because guilty or innocent, they are not currently being treated fairly. They are being held on trespass charges, some for over a year. And there is clear indication that many were drawn into involvement by people who have already been 'pardoned'.

    So Trump gets condemned for threatening to treat people fairly, when it is clear that the government is not doing so right now.

    My money would also be on anyone who acted riotously on the day, and for whom there is proof that they caused damage, or assaulted guards and police, will still be prosecuted, and if a few of those people who were involved in inciting the crowd, such as John Sullivan (antifa) and Ray Epps (likely a fed) get called back in, then all the better for it.

    Anyone in America who has a problem with words like that can hardly be considered reasonable, or even particularly sane for that matter.

    Or is it tyranical to treat people fairly these days.

    Gees. There is no sleep walking here. Democrats are wontonly striding into fascism with their arms spread wide open to embrace it. History is not going to look kindly on them and what they are doing. In a year or two's time, 'woke' is going to mean all the people who finally start acknowledging two sides of the story, and it is going to be a bitter pill.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2022
    UEA_Hornet and iamofwfc like this.
  34. Bwood_Horn

    Bwood_Horn Squad Player

    Careful what you wish for. The boundary changes are supposed to be announced/finalised by July next year.

    NB. Hertsmere was the safe seat constituency first offered to De Pfeffel...
     
  35. HenryHooter

    HenryHooter Reservist

    Sorry, missed this one.

    The bill would place substantial elements of election law under federal control. If you think Trump would not have used that to push for greater scrutiny over the elections at state level, which was not possible in 2020 (see the supreme Court findings) I would have to disagree with you.

    Likewise, if you think Biden wouldn't use it to smear states as racist and corrupt, and use it to disrupt, then I would also have to disagree with you. They are already doing those things anyway, so why would they not do so even more if handed powers to do so 'officially'.

    Please note, I am criticising both parties of being capable of using the law underhandedly. I am neither criticising nor supporting the bill itself, which contains some very good things. a fact that is recognised by many of the conservative Americans I listen to. It's predominantly the reduction of state powers that they dislike, and if you know Republicans at all, that is a guaranteed red flag before the substance of the actual changes is even considered, good or bad.

    And I wouldn't trust Biden to administer the federal role without partisan politicking any more than you would expect Trump or the Republicans to do so.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2022
    UEA_Hornet and iamofwfc like this.

Share This Page