Election Challenges, Protests, Conspiracy Theories, and Moral Panics

[Dill]

(01-21-2021, 02:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, that pesky Bill of Rights, always getting in the way of the "progressive" wish list.

Of course you have, you're in that "progressive" camp.  Trading liberty for safety is fine with you as long as the right party is doing it.

Yes that is one of Tucker's talking points. Seems like you know them ahead of time. 

Another way to say this is that it's fine to trade safety for liberty, as long as the right party is doing it.

(01-21-2021, 02:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Everyone has free speech rights, even loons who will buy into the cons and lies of others, who also have free speech rights.  I do appreciate you illustrating in person the desire to limit our rights coming from the "progressive" left.  Always in the name of public safety.  

I thought I was correcting your presentation of AOC and "illustrating" Tucker Carlson's response--he is now, day by day, updating and adapting anti-communism to the post-Trump era. 

Focusing on "white supremacy" is part of that effort--claiming the left/BLM accuse all Trump supporters/defenders of being white supremacists.
This connects to "censorship" and cancel culture, also bad when the other party does it. Maria Baritoromo takes it a step further: the MSM now function as official state media. Totalitarianism is upon us; eliminating ALL our "freedoms" is the goal.


I am thinking of starting a thread on the right's negotiation of the election loss. If I do, your input will be. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-22-2021, 11:48 AM)Dill Wrote: Yes that is one of Tucker's talking points. Seems like you know them ahead of time. 

Another way to say this is that it's fine to trade safety for liberty, as long as the right party is doing it.

Yes, it's easy to predict the response of partisan hacks such as Tucker and yourself.

Quote:I thought I was correcting your presentation of AOC and "illustrating" Tucker Carlson's response--he is now, day by day, updating and adapting anti-communism to the post-Trump era. 

Focusing on "white supremacy" is part of that effort--claiming the left/BLM accuse all Trump supporters/defenders of being white supremacists.
This connects to "censorship" and cancel culture, also bad when the other party does it. Maria Baritoromo takes it a step further: the MSM now function as official state media. Totalitarianism is upon us; eliminating ALL our "freedoms" is the goal.

All?  I doubt that, just the inconvenient ones.  The left has clearly been gunning (no pun intended) for the 2nd Amendment for years, this isn't even debatable.  To claim the 1st is not now under assault when the evidence of it lies all around you speaks to me of willful blindness on your part.

Quote:I am thinking of starting a thread on the right's negotiation of the election loss. If I do, your input will be. 

Be what?  Don't leave me with this cliff hanger!!!!!

But seriously folks, if I'm right wing on the political scale then you and your "progressive" pals are literally Stalin.  Comfortable with that?

[Dill]

(01-22-2021, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, it's easy to predict the response of partisan hacks such as Tucker and yourself.

All?  I doubt that, just the inconvenient ones.  The left has clearly been gunning (no pun intended) for the 2nd Amendment for years, this isn't even debatable.  To claim the 1st is not now under assault when the evidence of it lies all around you speaks to me of willful blindness on your part.

Be what?  Don't leave me with this cliff hanger!!!!!

But seriously folks, if I'm right wing on the political scale then you and your "progressive" pals are literally Stalin.  Comfortable with that?

I'm not seeing much difference between your views and "partisan hack' Tucker's. And then you respond to a post remarking on the right's adaptation of anti-communism to the post-Trump era by affiliating me and my "progressive friends" with Stalinism. Could anyone extract a consistent definition of "partisan hack" from your posts here?

Sure, the 1st is "under assault" a little bit because some are concerned that others use their right to speech to incite violent insurrection.

I was in a rush while inviting you to contribute to my upcoming thread. But I think I'll wait till Monday to start it, hoping the weekend provides more substance. I want to look more closely at how MAGA world is adjusting to the loss and damage to the great leader.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-22-2021, 06:44 PM)Dill Wrote: I doubt anyone could extract a consistent definition of "partisan hack" from your posts in this thread.

Do you?  Do you really?

Quote:Sure, the 1st is "under assault" a little bit because some are concerned that some use their right to speech to incite violence.

Heh, a little bit. Inciting violence is already not covered by the 1st, no further action needed in that regard.

Quote:I was in a rush while inviting you to contribute to my upcoming thread. But I think I'll wait till Monday, hoping the weekend provides more substance. I want to look more closely at how MAGA world is adjusting to the loss and damage to the great leader.

Not sure why you're looking to me then, except your engaging in yet another sad attempt to label me a far right Trump supporter.

Quote:Identifying me and my "progressive pals" with Stalin falls very much in line with Tucker and Maria's comments, and doesn't much refute my observation about the adaptation of anti-communism to post-Trump pushback on Trump excesses.  

I didn't, you did.  By attempting to identify me as a "right winger" you automatically label yourself as a far left Stalin type.  See how that works?

[Dill]

(01-22-2021, 06:56 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Do you?  Do you really?

Heh, a little bit. Inciting violence is already not covered by the 1st, no further action needed in that regard.

Not sure why you're looking to me then, except your engaging in yet another sad attempt to label me a far right Trump supporter.

I didn't, you did.  By attempting to identify me as a "right winger" you automatically label yourself as a far left Stalin type.  See how that works?

No. I don't "see how that works."  

I clarified AOC's position and then described Tucker's, all with no mention of you at all.

You chose then to respond to comments about AOC and Tucker by accusing me of "illustrating" far left something or other and being a "partisan hack." 

In the blink of an eye it's claimed I'm a Stalinist labelling you a Trump supporter.  

Difficult to discuss politics with someone who constantly shifts the topic from public issues to the character of individual forum posters. 

Also, identifying you as a "right winger" based upon beliefs you state and positions you take would not automatically make anyone a "Stalinist." Only espousing Stalinist views and goals could make one a Stalinist. Don't "partisan hacks" substitute persons for issues with extreme labeling like that?

If you do join my upcoming thread, I'm hoping you'll keep focused on the issues, and if you must label folks then try to do so consistently and responsibly, not as unthinking reaction.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-22-2021, 07:18 PM)Dill Wrote: No. I don't "see how that works."  

I clarified AOC's position and then described Tucker's, all with no mention of you at all.

You chose then to respond to comments about AOC and Tucker by accusing me of "illustrating" far left something or other and being a "partisan hack." 

In the blink of an eye it's claimed I'm a Stalinist labelling you a Trump supporter.  

Difficult to discuss politics with someone who constantly shifts the topic from public issues to the character of individual forum posters. 

Also, identifying you as a "right winger" based upon beliefs you state and positions you take would not automatically make anyone a "Stalinist." Only espousing Stalinist views and goals could make one a Stalinist. Don't "partisan hacks" substitute persons for issues with extreme labeling like that?

If you do join my upcoming thread, I'm hoping you'll keep focused on the issues, and if you must label folks then try to do so consistently and responsibly, not as unthinking reaction.

I'll respond to your point in general.  If you wish to engage with someone in an honest manner don't engage in double talk or subterfuge and absolutely don't twist their statements into something you know they weren't saying.  Also, refrain from labeling them, especially if they have rejected said label in the past.  If you refrain from that, as the vast majority of posters here do, then we will have zero problems.

[Belsnickel]

Christ on a cracker. You two are the most bickering duo on this board.

[Dill]

(01-22-2021, 09:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll respond to your point in general.  If you wish to engage with someone in an honest manner don't engage in double talk or subterfuge and absolutely don't twist their statements into something you know they weren't saying.  Also, refrain from labeling them, especially if they have rejected said label in the past.  If you refrain from that, as the vast majority of posters here do, then we will have zero problems.

What statements have I "twisted" into something I knew you were not saying"?  None you can specify.
Yet you attribute to me a "desire to limit our rights." 

It's there in black and white, post # 602: you turned from discussing issues and public figures, to personal attack and, yes, labeling.

Yet after calling me a "partisan hack" and a willfully blind "Stalinist," you now demand that I should refrain from "labeling."

But can you point out anywhere I have labeled you? Of course--where I invited you to participate in a future thread on Maga issues.


Looks like angry projection turns any observation or analysis you don't like into "double talk," "subterfuge" and "labeling."

If you keep your focus on issues and public figures, as the majority of posters here do, then we will have zero problems.

But can you?


Keeper.

[BmorePat87]

I was annoyed by AOC's post responding to criticism of her comments because she said "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater". You absolutely can.

The line comes from the opinion from Schenck, the 1st Amendment case that upheld the government right to censor speech critical of military drafts during WWI. It was rightfully overturned in Brandenburg in 1969 which set far higher standards for protected speech with regards to inciting violence or harm.

As a government teacher, I HATE when people misuse that line. Seeing it from an elected official is super frustrating.

[Au165]

Did anyone see the MyPillow guy get wrecked on NewsMax? Dude went off the rails and the anchor started reading a legal disclaimer while the guy was talking about how there was no fraud and NewsMax does not agree with the idea of fraud. The anchor ended up walking off the interview.

The real irony is they brought dude in to talk about how he was “censored” by Twitter only to have to censor him themselves haha.

[BmorePat87]

(02-02-2021, 08:29 PM)Au165 Wrote: Did anyone see the MyPillow guy get wrecked on NewsMax? Dude went off the rails and the anchor started reading a legal disclaimer while the guy was talking about how there was no fraud and NewsMax does not agree with the idea of fraud. The anchor ended up walking off the interview.

The real irony is they brought dude in to talk about how he was “censored” by Twitter only to have to censor him themselves haha.

what a train wreck

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2021, 08:49 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I was annoyed by AOC's post responding to criticism of her comments because she said "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater". You absolutely can.

The line comes from the opinion from Schenck, the 1st Amendment case that upheld the government right to censor speech critical of military drafts during WWI. It was rightfully overturned in Brandenburg in 1969 which set far higher standards for protected speech with regards to inciting violence or harm.

As a government teacher, I HATE when people misuse that line. Seeing it from an elected official is super frustrating.

AOC is emblematic of a far larger problem in our society, the uniformed layman who thinks they know far more than they do.  She's not particularly intelligent or informed, but she's not aware of either of these things.  That she's the darling of the far left is rather telling.  

[Au165]

(02-03-2021, 02:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: AOC is emblematic of a far larger problem in our society, the uniformed layman who thinks they know far more than they do.  She's not particularly intelligent or informed, but she's not aware of either of these things.  That she's the darling of the far left is rather telling.  

She graduated cum laude from Boston University (A good school) with degrees in Economics and International relations. I'd argue the narrative of her not being "particularly intelligent" is more of a political narrative rather than a true statement. 

[GMDino]

(02-03-2021, 09:53 AM)Au165 Wrote: She graduated cum laude from Boston University (A good school) with degrees in Economics and International relations. I'd argue the narrative of her not being "particularly intelligent" is more of a political narrative rather than a true statement. 

AOC says some dumb things.  Most everyone does at one time or another.  Folks to the right of her want the public to think that makes her "uninformed" rather than just debate the policy.

Greene actually believes Secret Jewish Space Lasers started the California forest fires and the right will try to say AOC is "just as bad".

It's sad to watch, primarily because after four years of Trump trying to divide the nation further and further we HAVE a chance to be less partisan and the right continues to sink their hooks into the furthest right as long as Trump supports them because they are STILL afraid of Trump.

[Au165]

(02-03-2021, 10:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: AOC says some dumb things.  Most everyone does at one time or another.  Folks to the right of her want the public to think that makes her "uninformed" rather than just debate the policy.

Greene actually believes Secret Jewish Space Lasers started the California forest fires and the right will try to say AOC is "just as bad".

It's sad to watch, primarily because after four years of Trump trying to divide the nation further and further we HAVE a chance to be less partisan and the right continues to sink their hooks into the furthest right as long as Trump supports them because they are STILL afraid of Trump.

Saying dumb things is kind of a trademark of being in politics. Name someone in congress and I can find some truly idiotic statements. Hell, any Republican who has ever argued for trickle-down economics could be included in this as it is a lie that studies show doesn't work yet they still push it, which I guess would make them "uninformed".

[GMDino]

(02-03-2021, 10:16 AM)Au165 Wrote: Saying dumb things is kind of a trademark of being in politics. Name someone in congress and I can find some truly idiotic statements. Hell, any Republican who has ever argued for trickle-down economics could be included in this as it is a lie that studies show doesn't work yet they still push it, which I guess would make them "uninformed".

Exactly.  But AOC is living rent free in the right's collective heads for some reason that I am SURE is not that she is a minority, a female, smart, confident, etc.

Totally sure those aren't the reasons.

But all seriousness aside I made fun of Trump saying dumb things because people believed he was right.  I see the same thing happening with Greene and a GOP without the backbone to say anything publicly about it.

[GMDino]

I mean these people win elections.  A majority of republicans vote for these people.

I'd say they get what they deserve but they are on the national level and affecting us all.

https://www.businessinsider.com/tommy-tuberville-says-he-cant-comment-marjorie-taylor-greene-weather-2021-2

Quote:GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville says he doesn't know anything about Marjorie Taylor Greene because bad weather has prevented him from reading the news
Sonam Sheth and Eliza Relman 
18 hours ago

[/url][url=https://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Ftommy-tuberville-says-he-cant-comment-marjorie-taylor-greene-weather-2021-2&title=GOP%20Sen.%20Tommy%20Tuberville%20says%20he%20doesn%27t%20know%20anything%20about%20Marjorie%20Taylor%20Greene%20because%20bad%20weather%20has%20prevented%20him%20from%20reading%20the%20news&summary=%22Travel%20in%20this%20weather%20it%27s%20been%20a%20little%20rough%20looking%20at%20any%20news%20or%20whatever%2C%22%20the%20Alabama%20senator%20said%20Tuesday.&mini=true&utmSource=linkedIn&utmContent=referral&utmTerm=topbar&referrer=linkedIn][/url]
[url=https://www.businessinsider.com/tommy-tuberville-says-he-cant-comment-marjorie-taylor-greene-weather-2021-2]




Sen. Tuberville. AP Photo/John Minchillo, File

• Sen. Tommy Tuberville said on Tuesday that he can't comment on allegations about Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
• "I haven't even looked at what all she's done," he said. "Travel in this weather it's been a little rough looking at any news or whatever."
• Greene drew backlash for her support of conspiracy theories and may be stripped of committee assignments.
• Visit the Business section of Insider for more stories.
  

Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama said Tuesday that he can't comment on allegations against Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene because bad weather has prevented him from reading the news.


"I haven't even looked at what all she's done," he told the CNN producer Ted Barrett. "I'd have to hold back a statement on that. Travel in this weather it's been a little rough looking at any news or whatever."

Tuberville, who ousted former Democratic Sen. Doug Jones last year, appeared to be referring to the snow Washington has gotten over the last few days.

The newly sworn-in senator, who was previously a career college football coach, recently denied attending a meeting at the Trump International Hotel in Washington with members of then-President Donald Trump's inner circle to discuss how to overturn the 2020 election results on January 5, the day before the Capitol insurrection. But photos posted on social media appear to show him at the hotel that day. 

Greene, a far-right freshman member from Georgia, has drawn sharp backlash in recent weeks for embracing wild conspiracy theories and aggressively promoting former President Donald Trump's lies about the election. But Greene made headlines for months before she was sworn in, as reporters dug into her support for the pro-Trump QAnon conspiracy theory and the slew of racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Semitic statements she made. 

On Monday, Politico reported that House Democrats are preparing to strip Greene of her committee assignments if Republicans don't take action.

The report came after a video surfaced showing Greene harassing a Parkland school shooting survivor and claiming the tragedy was a false-flag operation. CNN also uncovered Facebook posts in which Greene expressed support for assassinating top Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former President Barack Obama, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The left-leaning outlet Media Matters for America later found additional social media posts where Greene amplified an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory claiming that a space laser linked to Rothschild Inc. was responsible for the deadly California wildfires in 2018.

Some Republican lawmakers have since tried to distance themselves and the party from Greene. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell skewered the congresswoman's "loony lies," and Utah Sen. Mitt Romney called her a "wacky weed" and a "kook."

Greene shrugged off the criticism, tweeting, "Too bad a few Republican Senators are obsessing over me, instead of preparing to defend President Trump from the rabid radical left. Focus on ending the witch hunt. Do your job!"
Tuberville's aides didn't immediately respond to Insider's request for comment. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-03-2021, 09:53 AM)Au165 Wrote: She graduated cum laude from Boston University (A good school) with degrees in Economics and International relations. I'd argue the narrative of her not being "particularly intelligent" is more of a political narrative rather than a true statement. 

One of the dumbest people I know graduated top of their class from USC law school.  Don't confuse an education with being intelligent, they're not the same thing.  

[BmorePat87]

(02-03-2021, 02:54 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: AOC is emblematic of a far larger problem in our society, the uniformed layman who thinks they know far more than they do.  She's not particularly intelligent or informed, but she's not aware of either of these things.  That she's the darling of the far left is rather telling.  

(02-03-2021, 09:53 AM)Au165 Wrote: She graduated cum laude from Boston University (A good school) with degrees in Economics and International relations. I'd argue the narrative of her not being "particularly intelligent" is more of a political narrative rather than a true statement. 

I don't think it's that she is uninformed (though she may be uniformed   ), it's that she's absolutely as much of a politician as anyone else. With her economics background, she knew it was horse shit when she went on during the spring about how the Fed could give out X amount of money in loans when we could have paid off student debt with that.

She knows how the Fed works. She knows what she said makes no sense. But she also knows the average voter doesn't know that. 

[Au165]

(02-03-2021, 12:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: One of the dumbest people I know graduated top of their class from USC law school.  Don't confuse an education with being intelligent, they're not the same thing.  

...so basically people are dumb because you say they are dumb.