07-29-2021, 07:01 PM
(07-29-2021, 01:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: No F-15, sure. But people were storming the Capitol with the clear goal of preventing the certification of an election to put the loser in power instead. Some additionally wanted to hang Mike Pence and probably some more. Imho, a Capitol storming with these intentions and a noose are enough to justify the term insurrection.
The event probably wasn't a real threat to democracy. But hearing all those Republicans calling it just fine and a tourist visit imho adds some danger to it after the deed.
Yes, I agree that many in the GOP are minimizing far beyond the level of even basic common sense. Much like Pelosi, they realize how politically damaging the perception of the GOP fomenting an "insurrection" would be.
Quote:As for the rest and your overall comments about police and rhetorics, I more and more sympathize with your stance on this one. (I'm not touching the gun issue :) )
Completely understandable. I would ask why you find my position on this more sympathetic as time goes on? As someone living in Europe I'd be very interested in your take on that topic.
Quote:Just curious, would that include Donald Trump?
Absolutely, with one caveat. To hold Trump responsible in any meaningful way would take an absolute smoking gun. I don't mean this in the way of assigning blame, I'm talking about meaningful consequences. The reason being is that without a smoking gun you're going to stir up a huge backlash, and it could very well be far worse than what we saw on 01/06 (06/01 for you ;P). There are certainly hard core Trump supporters who won't believe any evidence provided that implicates Trump. But there is a far larger group that could be swayed by such irrefutable evidence. However, without that evidence you're opening a Pandora's box that I don't think could be closed.
Quote:Well, Pelosi is not above party lines and I wouldn't expect her to be. That's not how her role is defined; she's a democrat leader, after all, she's bound to look for her own party's best interests. In her defense, she did also try to go another route first, it were Republicans that refused bipartisanship in the first place. Hence the less bipartisan way with these hearings (or committee or whatever that now is). The only other thing she could have done would have been letting the issue go completely, and that imho would be a very wrong way to go about this. I also would not hold the appointment of Cheney and this Adam Whatshisname guy against her in any way. It's the most bipartisan thing she could do. Appointing other Republicans who are (as far as I can tell) all fully committed to Trump, even while said Trump is fully committed to feeling the love of the Capitol stormers, would be pointless.
You give Pelosi far more benefit of the doubt than I ever would, but I understand your point.
(07-29-2021, 02:52 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Apologies, reread and get it now.
No apologies necessary, I reread it as well and in text it's not as clear as if I was vocalizing the point.
Quote:I still think saying that "At the county and city level the Democratic party 100% embraced the "defund the police" movement and in many places continue to do so." is hyperbolic. The 20 or so cities encompassed in your citations are not "100%", and many of those cities are not 'defunding the police', but incorporating mental health and other services into responses.
Yes, I have to remind myself not to deal in absolutes, it's far harder on the internet than in real life. That being said, I think you are drastically understating the prevalence of this sentiment in many/most Dem lead cities. You are also giving far more credence to this "shifting" of funds then I think should be done. I've experienced the rhetoric first hand. I have friends in Seattle, Portland, the bay area and Austin who have experienced the same thing. You are also minimizing, though I believe unintentionally, the real vilification of law enforcement from these same groups. You don't have to take away our funding to make us miserable. The atmosphere these politicians have helped foster is toxic beyond anything I thought possible. Although I'm sure my brethren from the 60's would have a thing or two to talk to me about on that subject.
Quote:I get why this topic 'rankles' you (great use btw), but there are many on the left that abhor the the term 'defund the police' and merely want an expansion of social services and programs that have been decimated by tax cuts over the years.
Many? I'll allow for that, but they don't seem to be very vocal, at least not on a level that makes any difference. Trust me, LEO's are all for social services, 100% of them (absolutes again
) would prefer to never answer a DV service call again in their life. But, as stated above, calls for defunding have gone hand in hand with vilification. Honestly, I'd love to take you out into the field and experience the current atmosphere first hand. I can virtually guarantee you that you'd be aghast at the shit LEO's have to deal with now.
