|
SubG posted:Out of curiosity, what currently does count as a "big deal" by this standard? I listed in the very next post what actions the Democrats could have taken to convince me they believe it is a big deal. Those other issues I absolutely believe the Democrats also do not consider those to be a big deal. The difference that makes me believe them to be a big deal is their material impact on the people, an aspect Jan 6 utterly lacks from my perspective
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Things that could have convinced me that Jan. 6 was a big deal: quote:-purging/punishing the negligent actions of the police involved quote:-directing the DoJ to skullfuck Donald Trump
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:how many people have been indicted for sedition in each case? No your initial hunch was correct quote:But pharmacists are particularly concerned about S.B. 4, a law restricting the distribution of medication that can be used for abortions. S.B. 4 added two medications to the category of “abortion-inducing drug” in Texas law: misoprostol and methotrexate. (Previously, the category only named mifepristone, the so-called abortion pill, which blocks progesterone, the hormone that supports the pregnancy.) https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/abortion-texas-pharmacies-refusing-prescriptions-misoprostol-methotrexate.html Tl:Dr , It’s not outright banned but the extra regulations and liability surrounding it are likely to reduce pharmacists willing to dispense it
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 01:01
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I listed in the very next post what actions the Democrats could have taken to convince me they believe it is a big deal. I think we're likely to hear from several democrats that DO consider it a big deal and some who did at the time who legit believed their lives were in danger. And they most certainly were. Whether the party as a whole decides to do anything about it is a different thing and I wish the people I typically vote for would grow some loving balls but, again, I expect to hear from quite a few members of the party describe in detail why the whole thing should have been taken more seriously and dealt with more forcefully.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
Oracle posted:They did take immediate action. They came back in that night and finished the vote count. Subsequent investigations showed that Trump was hoping the actions of the mob would delay this vote count and allow more time for him to throw doubt on the results. They then impeached him a second time within the week, which is the only action allowed by the Constitution to deal with a rogue president. If you wanted them to perform a coup, I think you're getting firmly into Cool Zone territory, especially when at the time they had no idea which parts of the government they could trust, given that Trump had been appointing several people in charge of national security on the basis that they would be loyal to him, and as commander-in-chief, he was commander in chief of the armed forces until 25th'd, impeached and convicted, or dead until noon on Jan. 20th. They gave the police a shitload more money. They behaved as though nothing happened the day of. And because they chose to do nothing about trump, he is heavy odds on favorite to win the next election if he runs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:https://twitter.com/deitaone/status/1534994603652300800?s=21&t=tHu6IH_lAJjdnx0hjv-paw Can't wait* to see those numbers tomorrow! (*I, in fact, can wait and don't want to actually see them.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 01:08
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:You could argue about why it's dumb instead of deconstructing the existence of what a disagreement is. Yes, two people have different perspectives that make them disagree. Except the person I'm responding to was very much acting like there weren't two different perspectives, so that the only disagreement could be about whether to take it seriously. And I have to explain why their argument necessarily implies that otherwise I'll be accused of not responding to what was actually argued.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I listed in the very next post what actions the Democrats could have taken to convince me they believe it is a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 01:15
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Except the person I'm responding to was very much acting like there weren't two different perspectives, so that the only disagreement could be about whether to take it seriously. And I have to explain why their argument necessarily implies that otherwise I'll be accused of not responding to what was actually argued. Uh, I have been explaining my perspective and reasoning for disbelieving the severity of Jan 6. I fully accept others disagree, I'm just explaining why I find that unpersuasive SubG posted:That's not what I asked. I asked what issues are a big deal by that measure? this is answered in the second half of that very post A big flaming stink fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Jun 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 01:15
|
|
|
For reference on timing, it took the Warren Commission about 11 months to issue its report. It was nearly 3 years after the fact until the 9/11 Commission report was issued. I know this risks some edgy response of “lol the government didn’t care about those things either” but in the real world poo poo taking time is the rule and not the exception.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 01:17
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:this is answered in the second half of that very post That doesn't answer the question. The question is: what does past the test? You're just agreeing that there are other things that don't. What are things that are a "big deal" per the Democrats' actions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 01:32
|
|
|
SubG posted:The second half of that post is "Those other issues I absolutely believe the Democrats also do not consider those to be a big deal. The difference that makes me believe them to be a big deal is their material impact on the people, an aspect Jan 6 utterly lacks from my perspective". Ah, my apologies, I misunderstood. Funding the police, giving money to Ukraine, protecting the SCOTUS from the slightest discomfort, reelecting incumbents are things the Democrats consider to be profoundly important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 01:36
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Ah, my apologies, I misunderstood. Funding the police, giving money to Ukraine, protecting the SCOTUS from the slightest discomfort, reelecting incumbents are things the Democrats consider to be profoundly important. Because you're presenting the Democrats' position as some sort of metric for evaluating whether or not January 6th is a "big deal". Why? As near as I can tell you're not trying to argue that you use the Democrats' legislative priorities to decide if poo poo's a "big deal" in general or, apparently, literally anywhere else. So why does it suddenly matter with respect to January 6th?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 01:44
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:This is some Baghdad Bob levels of delusional coming from Yellen. Holy moly. This is a very excellent economy if you already have the basketball on the rim of the basket and just need to tip it in. People with the degrees and skills and other advantages can basically work anywhere right now. Other people... Hell is other people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 01:47
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:This is a very excellent economy if you already have the basketball on the rim of the basket and just need to tip it in. People with the degrees and skills and other advantages can basically work anywhere right now. I mean, in general, yeah, maybe. I’m a multiple degree haver and just got laid off, so YMMV. Feels like a lot of companies are gearing up for a recession.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 01:53
|
|
|
Abner Assington posted:I mean, in general, yeah, maybe. I’m a multiple degree haver and just got laid off, so YMMV. Feels like a lot of companies are gearing up for a recession. Elon Musk is, so if it actually happens it’s just pure chance plus the Fed raising rates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 02:28
|
|
|
SubG posted:And are those things that you think are also profoundly important as a result of the Democrats' position on the subject? .... Look, if you think I'm lying just say I'm lying, stop doing this bad faith gotcha poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 04:49
|
|
|
Oracle posted:The president trying to influence the attorney general to investigate his political enemies was one of the reasons Trump was impeached. The Dems also didn't have control of the DOJ until Biden was inaugurated on Jan 20, arguably until March 10th when Garland was confirmed. It isn't political corruption to prosecute a criminal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 05:07
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:It isn't political corruption to prosecute a criminal. It is a very dangerous precedent and was exactly what Trump was attempting to do with all the Hunter Biden Ukraine stuff and trying to get Comey to go along with his nutty bullshit. Weaponizing the Justice Department to go after your political enemies is just another ten steps down the road to tinpot dictatorsville. Appointing an independent investigator is the correct call but the Republicans put the kibosh to that pretty quick. This whole thing is just really showing what a flimsy incomplete document the constitution has become. It was just never built for these ‘the call is coming from inside the house’ situations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 05:52
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:you know what it looks like when an insurrection is being taken seriously by American politicians. in a prominent case we both remember, it involved American soldiers being sent into a city to kill every man between twelve and eighty, with a justification in its entirety of 'try and stop us, bitch.' Fallujah was something democrats thought was an insurrection, and something they gleefully endorsed drowning in blood and gunfire rather than risk it growing further. It would be very weird to see the killing of mercenaries in Fallujah a year after the invasion of Iraq as an insurrection against the American government, and I can't find any contemporary sources describing it as such. It's also not clear that Democratic decision-makers played any role in determining the US military's specific actions in Fallujah, given that the Republicans held the government trifecta in 2004, with healthy GOP majorities in both the House and Senate backing up President Bush. I'm not saying this is bunk, but I can't find anything backing it. And in general, comparing an Iraq War counter-insurgency purge to anything in domestic US politics feels rather ridiculous. What's next, saying they should have done a My Lai massacre against Republicans if they really cared?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 06:37
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:....
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 06:53
|
|
|
Oracle posted:It is a very dangerous precedent and was exactly what Trump was attempting to do with all the Hunter Biden Ukraine stuff and trying to get Comey to go along with his nutty bullshit. Weaponizing the Justice Department to go after your political enemies is just another ten steps down the road to tinpot dictatorsville. Appointing an independent investigator is the correct call but the Republicans put the kibosh to that pretty quick. To me this seems to run into an obvious problem of "You can't just arrest the wealthy and well connected for their obvious malfeasance! That means you are attacking your political enemies!". It sounds like an excuse to return to the idea of private law amd to essentially not bother to try and hold those wealthy enough to a set standard. I'm certain that it is not meant in that manner, but too much of this seems like something that needs root and stem changes, not going "oh well".
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 07:31
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:I listed in the very next post what actions the Democrats could have taken to convince me they believe it is a big deal. A big flaming stink posted:Uh, I have been explaining my perspective and reasoning for disbelieving the severity of Jan 6. I fully accept others disagree, I'm just explaining why I find that unpersuasive Emphasis mine. You're saying two different things in these two posts. In the first, you're talking about what you think the Democrats believe, and in the second, you're talking about what you believe. You're basing your opinion on January 6th on what Democrats are doing, but people are pointing out that you probably don't base your opinion on whether other things are a big deal on what Democrats think or do. Your initial claim: [quote="A big flaming stink" post="524051754"] Jayxon, I'm straight up skeptical of the severity of Jan 6. Maybe it is a big deal, but the behavior of the Democrats is not consistent with that being so. If the Democrats are behaving as though it is merely fundraising fodder, and that is consistent with my intuition, why shouldn't I come to that conclusion? [/quote
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 08:21
|
|
|
When your polticial enemies try to subvert your nation at some point you have to do something to them. You can argue this isn't that or we haven't yet crossed the Rubican if you like but "can't ever prosecute your political enemies" does have a logical end point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 08:52
|
|
|
You're missing two things, but especially that there is a clearly second variable in (every one of) his post(s). That variable is his personal judgment. The second thing that you are missing is that the relationship of the Democrats to 1/6 that is reaffirming (not causing) his doubt is their relationship to the crime: They are supposed to be the victims of 1/6. So in his setup, there are four options: 1) His personal judgment is that it's not a big deal, and the victim (the Democrats) doesn't act like it's a big deal. (This is what he is saying is the current case. In this case, both his judgment and the behavior of the party are aligned - which he views as support for his original judgment, not a cause.) 2) His personal judgment is that it's not a big deal, but the Democrats do act like it was a big deal. (In this case he would need to re-evaluate and decide whether the evidence from the Democrats was more valid than his own judgment) 2) His personal judgment is that it is a big deal, but the Democrats aren't acting like it's a big deal (Same as above) 3) His personal judgment is that it is a big deal, and the Democrats do act like it's a big deal (In this case, both his expectation and the Democrats behavior are aligned, which would add support to his personal opinion.) In all of these cases, the latter variable is clearly not the one that is sufficient to set the opinion on it's own, but is just being used as a factor when determining the first variable. You even quote two of his posts where he clearly lays out that there are two factors, not one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 10:28
|
|
|
The real lol and probably true answer is that the Democrats do think it's a big deal, but they're personally and institutionally incapable of actually acting like it, since all of their principles and political education are against doing anything that might mean enforcing consequences for the powerful or making their opposition feel bad. They literally don't know how to do anything with cops but praise them and give them more money, or how to treat right-wing rioters as anything but rambunctious but well-meaning little rascals who just need a time-out and a sippy cup til they cool down. (Left wing rioters, of course, they can't call for the machine guns fast enough) At best, they can only punish the powerless and least relevant while giving an apology and tip of the hat to the ringleaders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 11:07
|
|
|
Oracle posted:It is a very dangerous precedent and was exactly what Trump was attempting to do with all the Hunter Biden Ukraine stuff and trying to get Comey to go along with his nutty bullshit. Weaponizing the Justice Department to go after your political enemies is just another ten steps down the road to tinpot dictatorsville. Appointing an independent investigator is the correct call but the Republicans put the kibosh to that pretty quick. I'm trying to find the headspace to think prosecuting a criminal is a worse precedent than NOT prosecuting them and while I get what you are trying to say, making a slippery slope argument in the face of actual treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors is, quite simply, illogical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 11:51
|
|
|
What would the response have been like if it was BLM protesters at the capitol? What happened to Occupy Wall Street? Start there and apply, like, 10% of the same response. Nobody gave a gently caress when those people were getting black bagged or their leaders straight murdered. How many lanyard class assholes were wringing their hands about the collapse of society when that happened? Wait, no, sorry, I guess I'm wrong. They were wringing their hands about the collapse of society because a loving trash can was burning but I didn't mean that I meant because of the suffering of people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 12:12
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:What would the response have been like if it was BLM protesters at the capitol? What happened to Occupy Wall Street? There would have been rivers of blood if this was a BLM protest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 13:19
|
|
|
These numbers are not good. March was not the peak. Initial quick scanning is telling me everything is accelerating. June is on track to be worse. https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1535238107729211393?t=LONaV9ZKCeGrAGMrbnl7gg&s=19 This is very, very bad. https://twitter.com/lisaabramowicz1/status/1535239254317703169?t=GBWS6A-fYoMUpmTpOFxEWQ&s=19 This is the highest inflstion print since 1981. Mr Hootington fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jun 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 13:35
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:These numbers are not good. March was not the peak. Initial quick scanning is telling me everything is accelerating. June is on track to be worse. Capitalists haven't been fleecing the country this bad since the 1980 election
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 13:45
|
|
|
Here's the video from 1/6 that they showed last night featuring previously unseen footage. It looks to me like it was, in fact, a fairly big deal no matter what Democrats seem to think. Look at all these Antifa plants! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3_O91gyj9o
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 13:47
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:These numbers are not good. March was not the peak. Initial quick scanning is telling me everything is accelerating. June is on track to be worse. This will capture the attention of the commoners, not 1/6 hearings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 14:11
|
|
|
I've been corrected enough here to realize that January 6 was only one of many coup attempts (and actual coups) of the right-wing, only characterized by it's open violence against lawmakers and the president supporting that. So it IS huge, but there are so many huge things that constantly just happen in America due to Republicans that are met with ambivalence by almost anyone who isn't a Republican. Honestly, the most useful takeway is simpy taking it as another example and confirmation of what Republican supporters are and what they can be easily driven towards to, and use this to work towards the understanding that they are and remain the biggest obstacle to left-wing goals, be it electorally or in a glorious revolution on the streets. And I would stop wasting my time in trying to appeal to their better natures or material needs and start fighting fire with fire, be I a political representative or just a random leftist. And if I don't believe that politics will solve the issue, actually prepare for the revolution. But like said, ambivalence, from the leftest leftist to the shitlibs, nobody is ultimately treating it like they're supposed to treat it. Maybe the anti-fascists are, but they're famously not very good beyond local quick response organizing and eschew political engagement so that's not really good except with poo poo hitting the fan. Still if poo poo hits the fan due to the near-universal ambivalence definitely look for them. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 14:23 on Jun 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 14:20
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:What would the response have been like if it was BLM protesters at the capitol? What happened to Occupy Wall Street? We know what would happen if BLM showed up that day. Guards in guns and body armor four layers deep, like what happened when they protested at the Lincoln Memorial. But Republicans are the only legitimate political actors in the United States and get to do whatever they want, so the Capitol Police showed up largely weaponless and in plain uniforms. And of course, when things got worse, none of the security forces run by the executive-branch were willing to provide backup, because Donald Trump wanted the entire legislative branch to be torn apart by a violent mob.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 14:21
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:You're missing two things, but especially that there is a clearly second variable in (every one of) his post(s). That variable is his personal judgment. The second thing that you are missing is that the relationship of the Democrats to 1/6 that is reaffirming (not causing) his doubt is their relationship to the crime: They are supposed to be the victims of 1/6. This is more of a general point but “X doesn’t act like a victim” is actually a flawed trope to rely upon though. First, it assumes that the audience is capable of putting itself in the position of the victim, which is dubious. And second it assumes the audience and the victim even act/speak in the same way in general, which is demonstrably false when you compare the most cursed board on a dead comedy website to a Congressional Committee. As for whether the hearing moves the needle for the country, a lot of people will tune in and as we see from the TVIV thread, plenty of lurkers chimes in to say it’s a powerful reminder. So subjectively it works for others even though it won’t for all D&D posters. In terms of “engagement” personally it seems more difficult to me to get the reaction of X number of lurkers posting than it does for a megathread regular to make X number of posts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 14:23
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:These numbers are not good. March was not the peak. Initial quick scanning is telling me everything is accelerating. June is on track to be worse. The chorus of the capital class declaring recession as inevitable is about to get a lot louder. LegendaryFrog fucked around with this message at 14:39 on Jun 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
LegendaryFrog posted:The chorus of the capital class declaring recession as inevitable is about to get a louder louder. They were only saying recession was possible beginning in H1 2023. This print has shift the narrative completely to recession is now inevitable and a volcker shock must happen in June. There is legit freakouts about this print happening. It is pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 14:30
|
|
|
"I'm shocked and appalled that the bubble I've propagated for decades is about to burst. Nevertheless, there is no other way." ~ some big brained finance idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:This will capture the attention of the commoners, not 1/6 hearings. I am not sure what you are getting at here but, at someone who is watching economic news and not the 1/6 hearings, why is this bad? I assume the 1/6 hearings will show that a bunch of armed people invaded the capital at the behest of (and with the help of) Trump. So what will paying attention to the hearing get me? Hours of "you are a bad man, sir!" and a few details?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2022 14:53
|
|