The Marjorie Taylor Greene thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems to me scenes of military occupation and cops brutalizing CNN reporters on the streets of America does a lot to persuade undecided people about the nature of the police, but perhaps I'm out of touch.

But protests involve confrontation and that only leads to riots, frequently by the police at the start. That clearly is counter productive at least according to dudalb, so the clear answer is to do nothing. Just accept that the cops are vicious violent thugs above all laws of god and man and everything gets to be much easier.
 
I disagree about Walters. Her statement was incredibly irresponsible, and is going to be intereperted as a call to violence.
But that the GOP Is just as guilty is a good point.

If Chauvin is acquitted and there are riots because of that acquittal, then that acquittal will be the reason for the riots- you can argue that they're not justified, and certainly not "good optics," but that doesn't make them the result of what Waters said, her "call to violence" would be a whisper to a hurricane. Can you (or MTG or McCarthy) say the same about the Capitol riots? That they would have happened if Trump hadn't spent two months beforehand stirring the pot with lies and then the morning exhorting his faithful to fight and march? "Just as guilty" is misleading- there's no equivalence here, between what Waters said and what the GOP did in reaction to the respective situations, but a forced one.
 
I disagree, I think the collapse of the GOP is a realistic possiblity. It has happened before with the collapse of the Whigs in the 1850's. Which led to the founding of the Republican party, I think the two party system is imbedded, but that done mean one of the two major parties cannot be replaced.

If only the other party would try to woo another demographic than "monster", it'd be nice.

To the highlighted: nice accent, there! ;)
 
And I think that kind of nihilistic thinking is crap. Like it or not, you're stuck with the Republican Party, the parties are far too embedded in the US system to change that with anything short of a war at this point. Giving up and letting half the government be controlled by utter whackjobs is an incredibly bad idea. Anything that moves the GOP back towards sanity, even a little bit, is a good thing.
1. I'm having a sale on Brooklyn Bridges, if you're interested.
2. I don't think you're using the word "nihilistic" correctly.

The Republican party spent the last 4+ years exulting in cruelty and insanity, and there's little now to indicate regret. In fact, at the state level, they appear inclined to continue their attempt to absolutely destroy democracy. The Republican party is irredeemable. Anything that hastens its destruction is, therefore, a good thing.
 
I disagree, I think the collapse of the GOP is a realistic possiblity. It has happened before with the collapse of the Whigs in the 1850's. Which led to the founding of the Republican party, I think the two party system is imbedded, but that done mean one of the two major parties cannot be replaced.


In a country that's less than 250 years old, you have to go back about 170 years to find an example of a political party being destroyed and replaced.

Also recall I added the caveat "...with anything short of a war..." What was the context of the Whigs falling apart? Oh, Yeah, it was the lead-up to the US Civil War.

So, yeah, I think it's safe to say the Republicans will be around for a while yet. So either figure out how to fix them, or just get used to the **** show.
 
In a country that's less than 250 years old, you have to go back about 170 years to find an example of a political party being destroyed and replaced.

Also recall I added the caveat "...with anything short of a war..." What was the context of the Whigs falling apart? Oh, Yeah, it was the lead-up to the US Civil War.

So, yeah, I think it's safe to say the Republicans will be around for a while yet. So either figure out how to fix them, or just get used to the **** show.

Or maybe we need another leadup to another Civil War.
 
Seems to me scenes of military occupation and cops brutalizing CNN reporters on the streets of America does a lot to persuade undecided people about the nature of the police, but perhaps I'm out of touch.


I think you may be out of touch with the not insignificant portion of the U.S. electorate who believe that the protesters deserve the treatment they get from rioting cops.
 
And I think that kind of nihilistic thinking is crap. Like it or not, you're stuck with the Republican Party, the parties are far too embedded in the US system to change that with anything short of a war at this point. Giving up and letting half the government be controlled by utter whackjobs is an incredibly bad idea. Anything that moves the GOP back towards sanity, even a little bit, is a good thing.

And that's why you need to swallow your pride, get a Disqus account and join us over at the OANN comment section. We're taking the fight to them-and we're winning ... *


*You'll never forget your first "Cry harder, snowflake!" It feels so good just to let it out ...
 
Frankly, I think the congress would be better off withour both MTG and Walters, whose uging protestors to be "More confrantational if Chauvian walks" statemen is incredibly irresponsible, but MTG is the last person to call out Walters.
If Chauvin is acquitted it will be a vivid demonstration that blacks are second-class citizens in the USA, whose lives are of lesser value to other races.

The US Civil Rights movement would have utterly failed without confrontation.

I disagree about Walters. Her statement was incredibly irresponsible, and is going to be intereperted as a call to violence.
But that the GOP Is just as guilty is a good point.
Perhaps violence is needed?
 
Ah yes the proper response is to just give up and accept that police can murder with out consequence. Once they accept that it will be so much better.
If Chauvin is acquitted then I expect there will be more cases of "pre-emptive self-defense" against police by blacks who will (rightly) believe their lives are in danger.
 
I think somebody needs to take their political blinders off.

You are dealing with people who took kneeling at a football game to be too confrontational. There simply is no such thing as non-confrontational protests not matter what you seem to think.

But I get it property is always more important that the lives of mere blacks.
 
I disagree about Walters. Her statement was incredibly irresponsible, and is going to be intereperted as a call to violence.
But that the GOP Is just as guilty is a good point.

Please.

When Watters says "march" or "confront" she means exactly that. Not "riot", "beat", "kill", or the like. She's entirely correct that this is about confronting those in the wrong.

Compare to Dolt 45's long record asking his stans to "knock the crap out of" protestors, directing police to "be rough" when arresting suspects, and so forth - once going so far to claim he'd pay for bail and defense for anyone who physically attacked a protestor (he didn't, of course).

I'm unconcerned with bad faith arguments from GOP leaders or hangers-on in this, and I see no reason for her to be either.
 
Please.

When Watters says "march" or "confront" she means exactly that. Not "riot", "beat", "kill", or the like. She's entirely correct that this is about confronting those in the wrong.

Compare to Dolt 45's long record asking his stans to "knock the crap out of" protestors, directing police to "be rough" when arresting suspects, and so forth - once going so far to claim he'd pay for bail and defense for anyone who physically attacked a protestor (he didn't, of course).

I'm unconcerned with bad faith arguments from GOP leaders or hangers-on in this, and I see no reason for her to be either.
I agree. She said nothing in support of violence or lawlessness or unreason, except perhaps to disagree with curfews, and even that was equivocal. Her comments were immediately spun, and it was, I think, shameful for the judge in the Chauvin case to suggest that her comments would form a basis for an overturning of the verdict on appeal.

The kind of biased spin that's applied to statements like this is exactly what makes hers apt and on point.
 
I agree. She said nothing in support of violence or lawlessness or unreason, except perhaps to disagree with curfews, and even that was equivocal. Her comments were immediately spun, and it was, I think, shameful for the judge in the Chauvin case to suggest that her comments would form a basis for an overturning of the verdict on appeal.

The kind of biased spin that's applied to statements like this is exactly what makes hers apt and on point.

Wait. Are you implying that the criticisms of Maxine Waters may have been based on racism? How is that possible if her critics didn't repeatedly call her the n-word?
 
Wait. Are you implying that the criticisms of Maxine Waters may have been based on racism? How is that possible if her critics didn't repeatedly call her the n-word?

The only other person in recent memory I can recall being misinterpreted in this way recently is Eric Holder. This is outside of the usual social media nonsense, of course.

I won't accuse dudalb of being racist or anything, but when it's Waters on one side, and the Jewish Orbital Laser conspiracy theory woman on the other...this isn't a "both sides" issue.
 
The only other person in recent memory I can recall being misinterpreted in this way recently is Eric Holder. This is outside of the usual social media nonsense, of course.

I won't accuse dudalb of being racist or anything, but when it's Waters on one side, and the Jewish Orbital Laser conspiracy theory woman on the other...this isn't a "both sides" issue.

I still want to know what non confrontational protests are. Holding a sign up inside your own house maybe?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom