lawpoke87 said:

I would add to your list:

1). We saw a significant portion of Americans who supported the government censoring and silencing those who dissented from government policies or speech which simply painted a family member in a poor light. I never dreamed Americans would so easily disregard the fundamental right of free speech .

2). We saw a significant portion of Americans who supported the unconstitutional firing of hundreds of thousands of Americans from their jobs due to refusing to take a “vaccine” which did not prevent the spread of the virus it was designed to stop.

These were two instances over the last 3 years which opened my eyes to how fragile our freedoms can be when Americans will support such actions solely due to their political ideology.

Your examples added to mine demonstrate just how fragile our democracy and associated freedoms can be due to blind partisanship on both sides

Click to expand...

At the time the vaccine mandate was in effect we did not have definitive information that it did not prevent transmission, but we did have good evidence that it helped mitigate symptoms like most vaccines do. Ask yourself, if the vaccine had actually prevented transmission would it have been okay to mandate it?

PS... There is already long historical precedent for this case. Washington mandated the smallpox vaccine for his troops in 1777 and that all new recruits be inoculated immediately upon enlistment. Of course, this was after a long fight with a-hole puritan ministers who argue that smallpox was God's punishment for sin. Remind you of anyone? Final fun fact... you know who wasn't a fan of inoculation? Benedict Arnold. The lack of smallpox inoculation in certain continental forces prior to 1777 is partly why Quebec isn't American right now. Also, the inoculations in the 1700's didn't fully prevent smallpox transmission or symptoms either. 2% of those inoculated and infected died in the early days when pandemics swept through the country, but 14% of those not inoculated who got it died.

PPS.... most people weren't refusing to take it because they thought it didn't prevent transmission. People were incorrectly afraid of non-existent side effects. The anti-vaxxers weren't after it because of its lack of transmission prevention... they had no problem taking bogus over the prescription meds that were terrible for them though.

Let’s beat oru ! Please!

drboobay said:

I guess so. I thought people would pull together to help the most vulnerable. Trust the judgment of our authorities and experts in a crisis. Give them slack in a situation moving fast.

In other words, I did not conceive that mandates would even be needed. I had in my mind that we would act collectively with no need of mandates to help the most vulnerable.

Instead a significant portion were going out of their way to show their disdain for supporting one another.

It was a real eye opener. I should have known better.

Click to expand...

I’m convinced a significant portion of Americans will support almost anything “their side” instituted simply due to partisanship and/or hate for the other side. Empathy for those who disagree political with us is nonexistent in 2024

lawpoke87 said:

1). He didn’t order them to intervene

2). I’m certain the national guard, FBI, CIA, military brass all tell Trump to jump in a lake if he asks them to circumvent the election results.

Click to expand...

He didn't because doing so wouldn't have accomplished anything. The objective had flown the coop.

Why do you honestly think he waited as long as he did to do what he was constitutionally expected to do? He could have acted as soon as he knew congress' session had ended and he knew belligerents had breached the capitol. He took swifter action against a bunch of BLM protestors.

If he doesn't think that he had a chance to actually sway the election, he doesn't wait.

lawpoke87 said:

I would add to your list:

1). We saw a significant portion of Americans who supported the government censoring and silencing those who dissented from government policies or speech which simply painted a family member in a poor light. I never dreamed Americans would so easily disregard the fundamental right of free speech .

2). We saw a significant portion of Americans who supported the unconstitutional firing of hundreds of thousands of Americans from their jobs due to refusing to take a “vaccine” which did not prevent the spread of the virus it was designed to stop.

These were two instances over the last 3 years which opened my eyes to how fragile our freedoms can be when Americans will support such actions solely due to their political ideology.

Your examples added to mine demonstrate just how fragile our democracy and associated freedoms can be due to blind partisanship on both sides

Click to expand...

I guess so. I thought people would pull together to help the most vulnerable. Trust the judgment of our authorities and experts in a crisis. Give them slack in a situation moving fast.

In other words, I did not conceive that mandates would even be needed. I had in my mind that we would act collectively with no need of mandates to help the most vulnerable.

Instead a significant portion were going out of their way to show their disdain for supporting one another.

It was a real eye opener. I should have known better.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

drboobay said:

I guess that I have lived a sheltered life. Or a blessed life.

I will give the prior Trump administration credit for teaching me a lot about people, like

1. People would vote a man who made fun of disabled people into office.
2. No, people will not pull together for the greater good in the face of a pandemic.
3. A candidate who bragged about grabbing female genitals was just fine to most voters.

I could go on and on with things like this I learned that I never considered possible. Let me add a new one from last week.

4. Voters will put an election denier who stoked anti-government sentiment back in power.

I never, ever thought these and many other things I could list could happen.

It makes me much less confident about my fellow Americans and the dark things they might do or accept. So it does not seem far fetched that we could lose our beloved system as we know it.

Click to expand...

I would add to your list:

1). We saw a significant portion of Americans who supported the government censoring and silencing those who dissented from government policies or speech which simply painted a family member in a poor light. I never dreamed Americans would so easily disregard the fundamental right of free speech .

2). We saw a significant portion of Americans who supported the unconstitutional firing of hundreds of thousands of Americans from their jobs due to refusing to take a “vaccine” which did not prevent the spread of the virus it was designed to stop.

These were two instances over the last 3 years which opened my eyes to how fragile our freedoms can be when Americans will support such actions solely due to their political ideology.

Your examples added to mine demonstrate just how fragile our democracy and associated freedoms can be due to blind partisanship on both sides

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

astonmartin708 said:

What if Trump ordered the National Guard to not intervene, or worse to protect the protestors? You imagine that these assets of democracy would act against the direct orders of their acting commander in chief?

Click to expand...

1). He didn’t order them to intervene

2). I’m certain the national guard, FBI, CIA, military brass all tell Trump to jump in a lake if he asks them to circumvent the election results.

I guess that I have lived a sheltered life. Or a blessed life.

I will give the prior Trump administration credit for teaching me a lot about people, like

1. People would vote a man who made fun of disabled people into office.
2. No, people will not pull together for the greater good in the face of a pandemic.
3. A candidate who bragged about grabbing female genitals was just fine to most voters.

I could go on and on with things like this I learned that I never considered possible. Let me add a new one from last week.

4. Voters will put an election denier who stoked anti-government sentiment back in power.

I never, ever thought these and many other things I could list could happen.

It makes me much less confident about my fellow Americans and the dark things they might do or accept. So it does not seem far fetched that we could lose our beloved system as we know it.

drboobay said:

It was also to pressure Pence.

Would Vance act as bravely as Pence?

Click to expand...

Pence was never going to back Trump. No clue as to Vance. Suppose we will see. Trump is a lame duck President from day 1. Assume Vance will do what he believes will further his political career regardless of Trump.

drboobay said:

Another way to look at it is reading situations different ways.

Honestly my read is pretty much like yours. The context matters a lot and makes it pretty clear to me what was a political statement and what was an incitement.

But I guess others read it differently. I don't get it. But that's just how it is. No point calling people names IMO.

Click to expand...

For some reason this reminds me of:

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

drboobay said:

It was also to pressure Pence.

Would Vance act as bravely as Pence?

Click to expand...

Vance doesn't have a bone of conviction in his body. Evidence is his flip flopping on calling his new boss Hitler.

That's why he was hired to the position that he was.

lawpoke87 said:

Taking Pence and/Pelosi hostage only strengthens the cause for those who support democracy and paints the J6 actors in even a worse light. You would have a hundreds if not thousands of FBI agents not to mention possible military assets acting to rescue the VP and Speaker while taking out the bad guys. Again….without the FBI, CIA, and top military brass the attempt to overthrow the democratic process was doomed from the beginning. A few hundred unarmed idiots had zero chance

Click to expand...

What if Trump ordered the National Guard to not intervene, or worse to protect the protestors? You imagine that these assets of democracy would act against the direct orders of their acting commander in chief?

lawpoke87 said:

Taking Pence and/Pelosi hostage only strengthens the cause for those who support democracy and paints the J6 actors in even a worse light. You would have a hundreds if not thousands of FBI agents not to mention possible military assets acting to rescue the VP and Speaker while taking out the bad guys. Again….without the FBI, CIA, and top military brass the attempt to overthrow the democratic process was doomed from the beginning. A few hundred unarmed idiots had zero chance

Click to expand...

It was also to pressure Pence.

Would Vance act as bravely as Pence?

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

astonmartin708 said:

Hypothetical hat happens if they seize Pence, or Pelosi, or other heads of state? Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe Trump didn't act in a timely manner because he was waiting for a certain outcome?

There was a distinct possibility that day that Trump could have further supported the rioters (like he soon will by pardoning them).

Click to expand...

Taking Pence and/Pelosi hostage only strengthens the cause for those who support democracy and paints the J6 actors in even a worse light. You would have a hundreds if not thousands of FBI agents not to mention possible military assets acting to rescue the VP and Speaker while taking out the bad guys. Again….without the FBI, CIA, and top military brass the attempt to overthrow the democratic process was doomed from the beginning. A few hundred unarmed idiots had zero chance

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

astonmartin708 said:

When you don’t account for the details or nuances of a situation you make Robin Hood the equivalent Bernie Madoff or vice versa. You claim other people show bias, but equivocating two things that are not equal shows far more bias.

Click to expand...

Another way to look at it is reading situations different ways.

Honestly my read is pretty much like yours. The context matters a lot and makes it pretty clear to me what was a political statement and what was an incitement.

But I guess others read it differently. I don't get it. But that's just how it is. No point calling people names IMO.

Chris Harmon said:

It is completely clear that what I'm analyzing are the statements that were made...the words that were used....and that the audience can take those words in a number of ways...some rational and some irrational. Obviously, candidates should be very careful about what they say, and I think both campaigns did a poor job in that area this time around. That was my point from the beginning. And it cannot be okay for one party to use certain phrases, regardless of tone or situation, yet completely wrong for another party to use those phrases.

If a person feels that something is good when their preferred party does it, but also feels the same thing is bad when the opposing party does it, I'm not sure what other term to use than bias.

IMO, it's these types of conversations that keep moderates from speaking up. Topics always get tied up with semantics, and then it goes in circles forever. It's why I rarely post in Crossfire. I'll check back in about 6 months.

Click to expand...

When you don’t account for the details or nuances of a situation you make Robin Hood the equivalent Bernie Madoff or vice versa. You claim other people show bias, but equivocating two things that are not equal shows far more bias. It’s essentially putting your thumb on the scales.

I’m reminded of calculus they warn you about this type of thinking, that’s why we add a constant “C” after integrating an undefined function. You have to account for the details, if you don’t your answer will often be wrong.

Hopefully Hadley is back soon.