crazietalk.net

I am sad too....It just seems too much. This system seems stacked against fairness....

Furniture wrote: ↑

September 19th, 2020, 11:53 pm

I am sad too....It just seems too much. This system seems stacked against fairness....

It's not the system, it's the people. There's no honor.

These people should have been arrested.

A group of Trump supporters waving campaign flags disrupted the second day of early voting in Fairfax, Virginia, on Saturday, chanting, “Four more years” as voters entered a polling location and at one point forming a line that voters had to walk around outside the site.

County election officials eventually were forced to open up a larger portion of the Fairfax County Government Center to allow voters to wait inside, away from the Trump enthusiast

s.

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-supporters ... 32226.html

Not really directly Trump-Biden related, but I did better than expected OY. I got a couple posts deleted, but I managed to avoid a trip to the penalty box.

I do remain concerned about our descent into authoritarianism, which both the right and the left seem poised to adopt. Most Democrats seem ready to resort to fighting fire with fire, which I think is a mistake. If you lose your principles, no matter how just you think your cause is now, eventually, you will do things for the wrong reasons and nobody will be able to object. That's still authoritarian rule, and not democracy. It's just a matter of time.

Democrats must always listen to Republicans, regardless of how painful it might be. They must try to reach compromise, even if the attempt is doom to fail. Proceed anyway, if the efforts are not successful, but a real attempt to reach agreement is very important. Nobody in this country should be denied access to the political process for any reason at any time.

Hopefully, the electorate as a whole comes back around to that point of view.

I say play smart. Keep quiet for now and if the Dems get the senate and the President go Full Monty!

Phredd3 wrote: ↑

September 22nd, 2020, 5:12 pm

Not really directly Trump-Biden related, but I did better than expected OY. I got a couple posts deleted, but I managed to avoid a trip to the penalty box.

I do remain concerned about our descent into authoritarianism, which both the right and the left seem poised to adopt. Most Democrats seem ready to resort to fighting fire with fire, which I think is a mistake. If you lose your principles, no matter how just you think your cause is now, eventually, you will do things for the wrong reasons and nobody will be able to object. That's still authoritarian rule, and not democracy. It's just a matter of time.

Democrats must always listen to Republicans, regardless of how painful it might be. They must try to reach compromise, even if the attempt is doom to fail. Proceed anyway, if the efforts are not successful, but a real attempt to reach agreement is very important. Nobody in this country should be denied access to the political process for any reason at any time.

Hopefully, the electorate as a whole comes back around to that point of view.

Agreed. I think the Republicans are being bullying, hypocritical, authoritarian a$$holes at this point, going against the dying wish of RBG and a majority of Americans, just because they can. This could cost them a lot in terms of Senate seats and the Presidency. I think it would be equally foolhardy for the Democrats to pack the court just because they can. If they do, they’re no better than the Republicans.

I have sent letters to both of my Senators, to tell them that the level of hypocrisy they’re showing is beneath them. I’m sure it won’t do any good, but they have heard from me.

Phredd3 wrote: ↑

September 22nd, 2020, 5:12 pm

Not really directly Trump-Biden related, but I did better than expected OY. I got a couple posts deleted, but I managed to avoid a trip to the penalty box.

I do remain concerned about our descent into authoritarianism, which both the right and the left seem poised to adopt. Most Democrats seem ready to resort to fighting fire with fire, which I think is a mistake. If you lose your principles, no matter how just you think your cause is now, eventually, you will do things for the wrong reasons and nobody will be able to object. That's still authoritarian rule, and not democracy. It's just a matter of time.

Democrats must always listen to Republicans, regardless of how painful it might be. They must try to reach compromise, even if the attempt is doom to fail. Proceed anyway, if the efforts are not successful, but a real attempt to reach agreement is very important. Nobody in this country should be denied access to the political process for any reason at any time.

Hopefully, the electorate as a whole comes back around to that point of view.

Unfortunately I have to disagree. I've always said 'Just let me know what the rules are and I'll play by them'. Then if, for instance, I didn't want to be a lying hypocritical piece of horse dung, I could choose not to play. The Ds don't have the choice not to play. It's an old trite saying, but they're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Adding states (a fantastic idea) or adding Justices is not illegal, and certainly not as bad as what the Rs are doing right now. If they hadn't pulled the Garland shit 4 years ago, I would actually not have a problem with them trying to push through a Justice right now. But they have no sense of decency.

Ol' W hisself said it best: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me...can't get fooled again.

dudog wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 9:34 am

Phredd3 wrote: ↑

September 22nd, 2020, 5:12 pm

Not really directly Trump-Biden related, but I did better than expected OY. I got a couple posts deleted, but I managed to avoid a trip to the penalty box.

I do remain concerned about our descent into authoritarianism, which both the right and the left seem poised to adopt. Most Democrats seem ready to resort to fighting fire with fire, which I think is a mistake. If you lose your principles, no matter how just you think your cause is now, eventually, you will do things for the wrong reasons and nobody will be able to object. That's still authoritarian rule, and not democracy. It's just a matter of time.

Democrats must always listen to Republicans, regardless of how painful it might be. They must try to reach compromise, even if the attempt is doom to fail. Proceed anyway, if the efforts are not successful, but a real attempt to reach agreement is very important. Nobody in this country should be denied access to the political process for any reason at any time.

Hopefully, the electorate as a whole comes back around to that point of view.

Unfortunately I have to disagree. I've always said 'Just let me know what the rules are and I'll play by them'. Then if, for instance, I didn't want to be a lying hypocritical piece of horse dung, I could choose not to play. The Ds don't have the choice not to play. It's an old trite saying, but they're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Adding states (a fantastic idea) or adding Justices is not illegal, and certainly not as bad as what the Rs are doing right now. If they hadn't pulled the Garland shit 4 years ago, I would actually not have a problem with them trying to push through a Justice right now. But they have no sense of decency.

Ol' W hisself said it best: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me...can't get fooled again.

I have been using the "knife to a gun fight" saying a lot the last few days as well as it really describes this situation. I am a rule follower to a fault. My oldest child is the exact same way as me and I am teaching him about taking calculated risks. So it is really hard for me to tell people to break the rules.

I think the Dems need to strongly consider some other options. I'm just not sure if now is the time to advertise that. There are some voters who I think will be energized by this and appreciate them growing some backbone. But I think there are others, including some of the never-Trump Republicans, who are voting for the Democrats specifically because there has been too much change and they like rules. So if the Democrats start calling for massive change, even if it is theoretically legal, these voters might not be happy. And we need these voters really badly. So I'm not sure what to do. In game theory, you assume your opponent is a rational actor. The Republicans are not rational, though they are fairly predictable. The Dems need to do a better job of staying a step ahead of them and be selective about sticking to their virtuousness.

Jason posted the great Brotherhood Votes video OY featuring K and a lot of former and current players. It admittedly goes beyond just telling people to vote but it calls for a return to basic, decent values and behavior. But Mattman had to be the turd in the punchbowl and call it out as being partisan and uncomfortable (his posts have been taken down and the thread was shut down). As a few posters responded (but were also taken down), if this makes you uncomfortable and doesn't make you re-evaluate who you are voting for, then I'm glad you can come up with excuses that help you to support Trump and sleep at night. It is well known that K is historically a Republicans but he clearly seems to be pretty anti-Trump. As has been discussed, a lot of former military officers have flipped as they can't stand what Trump is doing to our country. And I think that his job traveling around the country recruiting players from many different backgrounds has given K a different perspective on things.

dudog wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 9:34 am

Phredd3 wrote: Democrats must always listen to Republicans, regardless of how painful it might be. They must try to reach compromise, even if the attempt is doom to fail. Proceed anyway, if the efforts are not successful, but a real attempt to reach agreement is very important. Nobody in this country should be denied access to the political process for any reason at any time.

Unfortunately I have to disagree. I've always said 'Just let me know what the rules are and I'll play by them'. Then if, for instance, I didn't want to be a lying hypocritical piece of horse dung, I could choose not to play. The Ds don't have the choice not to play. It's an old trite saying, but they're bringing a knife to a gun fight.

Adding states (a fantastic idea) or adding Justices is not illegal, and certainly not as bad as what the Rs are doing right now. If they hadn't pulled the Garland shit 4 years ago, I would actually not have a problem with them trying to push through a Justice right now. But they have no sense of decency.

Ol' W hisself said it best: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me...can't get fooled again.

I think you are missing the bolded. Democrats have to try, and try in good faith. But I don't think they have to fold up their tent and play by rules that the other side is not respecting. Democrats need to make it clear that they prefer the rules and norms, but that they can't honor them if Republicans do not. Not "won't", can't.

Regarding the Court, yes, Democrats can pack the Court. But the problem is, that can continue indefinitely as each side wins an election. Earlier versions of our government understood that. So I think that, if RGB's replacement is approved prior to the new Senate being seated, and Democrats win the Presidency and a Senate majority, they should, in fact, rebalance the Court, but they should do so in a controlled, measured way. They should increase the Court by exactly two seats, and pass a law at the same time that explains that it is necessary to include two seats rather than one to have the balance the court would have had if the Garland and RBG replacements had been accorded equal treatment. They should re-establish the Court at only nine seats for future nominations. Those future nominations would be required to have an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate (not just in committee, unless withdrawn) within 120 days of the nomination, except in cases where the nomination occurs within 120 days of a Presidential election, in which case, the nomination must be held for the next President to fill. That would leave the Court at a 6-5 Conservative majority, when it "should" be at a 5-4 majority, and it would remove the Court from play for a reasonable time period while the dust settles. It would show that the Democrats clearly understand the ethics of the situation, it would fix the hole in the current system and make it harder to re-break it, and it would show that Democrats are willing to fight hard for what they believe in, but are not willing to cave in to authoritarianism and aren't willing to just say to Republicans, "Screw you!"

And since that all depends on a winning both the Presidency and a Senate majority, they should say nothing whatever about Court packing in the meantime.

I realize this is probably a pipe dream. But it's what I would dearly love to see happen.

Phredd3 wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 10:36 am

And since that all depends on a winning both the Presidency and a Senate majority, they should say nothing whatever about Court packing in the meantime.

Thankfully, it appears as if they are downplaying that option, if not outright pulling it off the table. That rhetoric isn't smart as the election looms. If they do it after, that's up for debate, and will be, but for now it is best to simply focus on getting into office.

CrazyNotCrazie wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 10:04 am

I think the Dems need to strongly consider some other options. I'm just not sure if now is the time to advertise that. There are some voters who I think will be energized by this and appreciate them growing some backbone. But I think there are others, including some of the never-Trump Republicans, who are voting for the Democrats specifically because there has been too much change and they like rules. So if the Democrats start calling for massive change, even if it is theoretically legal, these voters might not be happy. And we need these voters really badly. So I'm not sure what to do. In game theory, you assume your opponent is a rational actor. The Republicans are not rational, though they are fairly predictable. The Dems need to do a better job of staying a step ahead of them and be selective about sticking to their virtuousness.

Jason posted the great Brotherhood Votes video OY featuring K and a lot of former and current players. It admittedly goes beyond just telling people to vote but it calls for a return to basic, decent values and behavior. But Mattman had to be the turd in the punchbowl and call it out as being partisan and uncomfortable (his posts have been taken down and the thread was shut down). As a few posters responded (but were also taken down), if this makes you uncomfortable and doesn't make you re-evaluate who you are voting for, then I'm glad you can come up with excuses that help you to support Trump and sleep at night. It is well known that K is historically a Republicans but he clearly seems to be pretty anti-Trump. As has been discussed, a lot of former military officers have flipped as they can't stand what Trump is doing to our country. And I think that his job traveling around the country recruiting players from many different backgrounds has given K a different perspective on things.

Agree on the bolded. They need to be smart (and not emotional) about this.

I think I've logged in once in the past month OY, and then only because Toots died. Many reasons for staying away.

Phredd3 wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 10:36 am

I think you are missing the bolded. Democrats have to try, and try in good faith. But I don't think they have to fold up their tent and play by rules that the other side is not respecting. Democrats need to make it clear that they prefer the rules and norms, but that they can't honor them if Republicans do not. Not "won't", can't.

Regarding the Court, yes, Democrats can pack the Court. But the problem is, that can continue indefinitely as each side wins an election. Earlier versions of our government understood that. So I think that, if RGB's replacement is approved prior to the new Senate being seated, and Democrats win the Presidency and a Senate majority, they should, in fact, rebalance the Court, but they should do so in a controlled, measured way. They should increase the Court by exactly two seats, and pass a law at the same time that explains that it is necessary to include two seats rather than one to have the balance the court would have had if the Garland and RBG replacements had been accorded equal treatment. They should re-establish the Court at only nine seats for future nominations. Those future nominations would be required to have an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate (not just in committee, unless withdrawn) within 120 days of the nomination, except in cases where the nomination occurs within 120 days of a Presidential election, in which case, the nomination must be held for the next President to fill. That would leave the Court at a 6-5 Conservative majority, when it "should" be at a 5-4 majority, and it would remove the Court from play for a reasonable time period while the dust settles. It would show that the Democrats clearly understand the ethics of the situation, it would fix the hole in the current system and make it harder to re-break it, and it would show that Democrats are willing to fight hard for what they believe in, but are not willing to cave in to authoritarianism and aren't willing to just say to Republicans, "Screw you!"

And since that all depends on a winning both the Presidency and a Senate majority, they should say nothing whatever about Court packing in the meantime.

I realize this is probably a pipe dream. But it's what I would dearly love to see happen.

Not missing anything, we just disagree a bit. I like your plan...and doubt it has a chance in hell.

This guy needs to cut back on the caffeine, but he makes some interesting points about how more SC Justices is not a bad thing.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari ... 2267589524

Hey y’all

cato wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 3:57 pm

Hey y’all

We can't have that kind of biased rhetoric here.

;)

CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 4:57 pm

cato wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 3:57 pm

Hey y’all

We can't have that kind of biased rhetoric here.

;)

I like the bring the fire right out of the gate. To set expectations, you know.

cato wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 5:00 pm

CameronBornAndBred wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 4:57 pm

cato wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 3:57 pm

Hey y’all

We can't have that kind of biased rhetoric here.

;)

I like the bring the fire right out of the gate. To set expectations, you know.

cato wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 3:57 pm

Hey y’all

[Inspector Clouseau]“Not now, Cato . . . .” [/Inspector Clouseau]

OPK wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 6:21 pm

cato wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 3:57 pm

Hey y’all

[Inspector Clouseau]“Not now, Cato . . . .” [/Inspector Clouseau]

Too be fair, I bet Chatbot keeps Cato around in Section 21 longer than he would OPK.

Side note. Not looking forward to news reports from Louisville tonight. I will be very happy if there is no violence.

Another side note. 59% of Americans say wait til after the election to deal with RBG's replacement.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... li=BBnb7Kz

The chance of that happening is nil to none, though.

OPK wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 6:21 pm

cato wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 3:57 pm

Hey y’all

[Inspector Clouseau]“Not now, Cato . . . .” [/Inspector Clouseau]

Growing up the Kato/Cato references were:

33% Kato Kaelyn
33% “Not now, Cato”
33% Bruce Lee/The Green Hornet (well, maybe not 33% but I always liked this one best so I may be fudging things in my memory)
<1% “Cartago Delendo Est”

The last one only happened once, when I met the secretary of professor I worked for in law school. I walked into the office to introduce myself for my interview with the professor and his first words were “Cartago Delendo Est.” I knew about Cato the Elder and I think I knew vaguely about the “Carthage must be destroyed” rhetoric. I certainly knew about the Punic wars and the elephants and Rome defeating Carthage and “sowing the fields with salt” and all that.

What I did not realize at the time was the similarity between Carthage and Carolina and my solemn duty to always remind my fellow citizens that, above all else, Carolina must be destroyed.

At this point I think Trump gets another justice on the Supreme Court and Biden wins by sufficient margin to keep the election out of SCOTUS. What say you?

Carolina Delenda Est

cato wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 6:52 pm

OPK wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 6:21 pm

cato wrote: ↑

September 23rd, 2020, 3:57 pm

Hey y’all

[Inspector Clouseau]“Not now, Cato . . . .” [/Inspector Clouseau]

Growing up the Kato/Cato references were:

33% Kato Kaelyn
33% “Not now, Cato”
33% Bruce Lee/The Green Hornet (well, maybe not 33% but I always liked this one best so I may be fudging things in my memory)
<1% “Cartago Delendo Est”

The last one only happened once, when I met the secretary of professor I worked for in law school. I walked into the office to introduce myself for my interview with the professor and his first words were “Cartago Delendo Est.” I knew about Cato the Elder and I think I knew vaguely about the “Carthage must be destroyed” rhetoric. I certainly knew about the Punic wars and the elephants and Rome defeating Carthage and “sowing the fields with salt” and all that.

What I did not realize at the time was the similarity between Carthage and Carolina and my solemn duty to always remind my fellow citizens that, above all else, Carolina must be destroyed.

At this point I think Trump gets another justice on the Supreme Court and Biden wins by sufficient margin to keep the election out of SCOTUS. What say you?

Carolina Delenda Est

That’s what it looks like unless you don’t believe in polls and your own eye test...