Agee. I am in no way defending J6. It was a disgraceful act which can never again occur. My only contention is with the notion that these idiots almost overthrew the US government.
2024 Election prediction/discussion
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
And Israel.(Renovating the judges in charge and their powers.) Moves like this by Israel make them seem third world, and they want to think of themselves as first world. We didn't do much to question them on this, but supported them like they expected,(against Hamas) after they pulled this. We helped them to become a first world country, so we have the right to make stipulations that they act like one.
This was Netanyahu, not Israel that pulled this. We should have made Netanyahu make concessions before we gave them full support on this.(Like I will pull out of political life on such and such date. Or I will reinstate the old rules on judges/reinstate judges.)
Last edited:
In certain circles, I'm known for my third-grade level analysis. In all seriousness though, I think even a third-grader can recognize that the rules should be applied the same to both sides with no nuance needed.
But I'll go ahead and add some nuance. When Trump said ‘we have to fight’, there were bad actors either in the crowd or listening to him. Just as I’m positive there were bad actors in the crowd or listening to Harris say ‘the fight must continue’, and there have already been attempts on Trump’s life. So, again, if Trump was irresponsible for saying it, then so was Harris. To say otherwise is just showing a bias, IMO.
To not acknowledge key differences in the tones, the surrounding messages (a concession speech vs a non-concession speech), the events leading up to the speeches (multiple weeks of telling people the election was rigged) show immaturity. You only analyze the very surface of an issue.
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).
I agree that context matters in comparing the statements. But name calling is pointless. Maybe it makes YOU feel better or superior for a little while but accomplishes little else IMO.
I see little difference in someone calling a person's analysis biased vs. calling someone's analysis immature.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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
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.
Last edited:
Just like many congressmen would back Trump? You know, all the congressmen who supported Trump's claims for election fraud. With idiots like Flynn in the military, I'm not so sure there wouldn't be a battle between the higher ups, on what to do, if given that order. And I'm sure the Generals in charge will be changed by Trump in his purge, if that is possible.
When the Biden Admin sought to enforce the vaccine mandate for employers it was clear the vaccine failed to prevent the spread of Covid. When the New York State Supreme Court finds the actions of a Democratic Admin unconstitutional you know it is a gross violation of our constitutional rights. One of the reasons the Court found the mandate unconstitutional is the aforementioned reason. Yet there are those who still support an unconstitutional violation of our civil rights solely out of partisanship. This is what scares the hell out of me.
I can see what you are saying. But I have never, ever felt I had a side. I don't identify or feel any kinship with either party. None,
But I do have a good deal of confidence in science and expertise and don't like seeing it spit upon by ignorance.
Thankfully Generals aren’t political appointments. I haven’t seen much support for Trump in either the FBI or upper military brass. Which I submit is a good thing.
They got the decision wrong and went against 250 years of historical precedent, part of which helped us become a nation, and established by one of the most revered founding fathers. That's okay though. The conservative court can tell you all about which rulings previous courts got wrong. They're good at that.
PS.... there is no mention in the constitution anywhere about civil rights against vaccination. None. Nowhere. Nada. There's not even an amendment that kinda sorta covers it like how the 14th is used. The federal ban was struck down by the conservative dominated USSC on a technicality about OSHA's congressionally mandated authority, not because vaccine mandates violate civil rights.
Go propose an amendment if you feel it should be a civil right.
Last edited:
I guess they waited too long for the mandate. It was certainly an effective vaccine. Thank goodness we had heroes like Fauci working on behalf of the American people. And, strangely enough, Trump gets credit for his accelerated vaccine program.
Many people on the other hand were kind of nuts. It cost a good friend of mine his life, the crazy resistance to vaccination. Early 50s. A life wasted for no reason because of nutty fears and ideas.
I'm talking about those that are appointed to his cabinet. Security advisors and Secretary of Defense(as long as he is 10 off of active duty) can be formerly high up and very influential with the military brass. And I am sure that Trump will be very aware of this the second time around.
…and you still support enforcement of a vaccine mandate which failed to accomplish its stated objective….to insure workplace safety by stopping the spread of the virus. Amazing. Lack of independent thinking like this is what worries me. 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑
I’m counting on there being enough disdain for Trump at the highest level of the military that this won’t be an issue. Certainly seems to be the case based on comments made by military brass
God forbid we possibly trample on someone's rights in a time of emergency over irrational fears that the vaccine causes autism. But they have RFK Jr to stand up for those rights now. The vaccine was so bad for those that took it.
I support people working cooperatively to do whatever they can to mitigate the social impacts of the virus. Just because it didn't prevent the spread didn't mean that it didn't help mitigate symptoms. Maybe instead of putting a bunch of obese Americans in the hospital, the vaccine helped them only miss a week or so of work... therefore lessening the strain on our medical system, and increasing economic productivity. It is to society's benefit to have healthy people.
It doesn't HAVE to stop the spread to be a reasonable thing to do. Hypothetical: What if China had used the conditions as to their advantage and invaded Taiwan? Do you want a bunch of your potential servicemen to be at risk of severe (even if non-deadly) symptoms? Do you want your economy to lag because of the disease effecting factories' agility to build planes, tanks, and munitions?
Finally, I also see history where there were large scale riots throughout the 13 colonies about vaccines & inoculation for generations prior to independence....even though they worked.... there were still stupid people that thought they should have the right to be stupid, and that their independence was more important than the prosperity of their communities. I don't support the thoughts of those people. I support the thoughts of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, etc... who believed vaccines were to society's benefit and who imposed mandates and promoted them. In fact, I would argue that other than independence from the crown.... vaccines were one of the few things that many of the noteable founding fathers agreed upon.
Last edited:
If anything it seems like a minor overstep.
The federal government can’t prevent people from earning a living because they won’t submit to taking a drug which MIGHT lessen the severity of illness. What’s next….you can’t work if you fall under the guidelines of being obese? You can’t work if you use tobacco? You can’t work if you don’t exercise 10 hours a week? All of which might lessen the severity of most illnesses including Covid. Same logic.
Once the vaccine ceased to prevent the spread of Covid the reasoning for the mandate was no longer valid. Yet the Biden Admin still sought enforcement. Which is one of the reasons it failed
There was good evidence to suggest that it would lessen the severity. Obesity in itself is not taking people away from work. Covid was.
Slightly off topic, I do think that we see the government start to push some of the Ozempic-esque drugs when they become generics.... if nothing else than for national defense and national health costs. They could use more able bodies. Under normal conditions, I don't think it would ever be mandated because obesity is not transmissible and it's not a time priority. If we ever went into another global conflict I think it probably would be made mandatory for a multitude of reasons (artificially lower food consumption, increase general health, make people more fighting fit, increase labor productivity, etc...)
A country like China would absolutely do it because they saw the societal benefit.... but they probably wouldn't have allowed their population to get this fat in the first place.
Last edited:
Obesity certainly does take people away from work. Obese people are far more likely to have health issues which cause them to miss work. When they get sick the illness is likely to be more severe with the obese than people who eat right and exercise. Covid showed us as much. Same general argument for smokers.
Interesting thought on mandating Ozempic like drugs. Not sure I see us going there but it certainly makes for an interesting discussion. Especially when we consider the health care costs we all pay for the obese.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
📝 Larry Lewis Carrington thriving in bigger role for TU basketball- Latest: Larry Lewis
-
-
📝 Larry Lewis Braeden Carrington thriving in bigger role at Tulsa
- Latest: Larry Lewis
-
-
