Reply With Quote
That's terrorism, right?
That's terrorism, right?
Look you can call it assumptions all you want but at worst I'm doing as much assuming as you are. That's why it's a risk reward question. Risk = losing seats and therefore more ground in the battle for reproductive rights. Reward = None, by your own admission.
As you should know by now, things don't work the same for Republicans as they do Democrats. They never have. The middle is generally more turned off by angry leftists than they are by angry right wingers. Maybe it's a subconscious reaction to all the flags. But you might as well posit that Democrats can win a Presidential election with a re ed TV celebrity because it worked for Donald Trump.
Last edited by Spurminator; 05-11-2022 at 03:12 PM.
I didn't, how dishonest. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Energizing people who don't normally vote might be another pathway to victory. Basing electoral strategy on cautiousness around sensitivities imputed to modal voters might be self-limiting.
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-11-2022 at 03:17 PM.
Gotta say, the connection between tealight vigils and terrorism isn't intuitive to me, can you flesh that out?
GMAFB I said "you might as well."
Dishonest, Jesus dude.
I think you're far overestimating non-voters' interest in, or awareness of, people protesting outside of Samuel Alito's home. Most of them probably can't even tell you who Samuel Alito is. If you think this is a strong outreach tactic for non-voters, I don't know what to tell you.There's more than one way to skin a cat. Energizing people who don't normally vote might be another pathway to victory. Basing electoral strategy on cautiousness around sensitivities imputed to modal voters might be self-limiting.
You want me to explain a connection I never made? Speaking of dishonest.
I'll stick with dishonest, there's a solid handful of bad faith, more or less hysterical exaggerations of my takes in the past few pages.
Dishonest, Jesus dude.
-- that I'm encouraging cathartic violence
-- that I'm willing to sacrifice women's rights for petty catharsis
-- that I want to see Democrats lose elections
-- that pointing out the artificiality and antiseptic wonkiness of median voter theory means I want Democrats to run crass reality show hosts for national office
I don't think this is a strong outreach effort, I've said as much upstream. That's another more or less dishonest take.I think you're far overestimating non-voters' interest in, or awareness of, people protesting outside of Samuel Alito's home. Most of them probably can't even tell you who Samuel Alito is. If you think this is a strong outreach tactic for non-voters, I don't know what to tell you.
Explain it to me as if you were the median voter. You're the one who suggested that person would associate tealight vigils with terrorism and defeat any possibility of legislative success thereby.
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-11-2022 at 03:57 PM.
Never said that.
Not sure what other conclusion I should come to. You admit this may be a counterproductive and ineffective tactic but you still think it should be done.-- that I'm willing to sacrifice women's rights for petty catharsis
Never said that.-- that I want to see Democrats lose elections
Never said that either. The problem isn't my honesty, it's your reading comprehension.-- that pointing out the artificiality and antiseptic wonkiness of median voter theory means I want Democrats to run crass reality show hosts for national office
Then why did you even bring it up in the context of this conversation?I don't think this is a strong outreach effort, I've said as much upstream. That's another more or less dishonest take.
No, I said Republicans would paint them as terrorists, and you'd probably agree with me on that if you weren't on such a stubbornly boneheaded argumentative streak right now.
And I also never said it would "destroy any possibility of legislative success." This whole time my position has been that the possibility is greater than zero that it would cede legislative ground.
It's understandable you're distancing yourself from your sly distortions and misrepresentations. They don't flatter you.
Manchin
Angry libs are triggered, angry repugs are patriotic.
Angry Republicans are traitors who want to overthrow the US system of government.
That's you.
There is a SCOTUS ruling from the 90s that says protesting at abortion providers houses is protected free speech.
So, hooray first amendment.
What a legend
Yeah, that's why they all forgot to bring the thousands of guns they own to the iNsUrReCtIoN.
It's funny to watch the narrative crew turn on each other with "putting words in your mouth" retorts and "putting words in my mouth" denials. Now you see how re ed you folks are. You can't debate for .
"I've had threats, I have had nasty letters, texts to me with my personal address, the names of my children," Psaki told a group of reporters Thursday at a breakfast meeting sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor.
"It crosses lines, and you know, that's when it becomes a little scary," said Psaki
Lonnie Coffman of Alabama: Police found multiple firearms and weapons in Coffman’s possession. Coffman’s truck, which he had parked in the vicinity of the Capitol on the morning of Jan. 6, was packed with weaponry including a handgun, a rifle and a shotgun, each loaded, according to court do ents. In addition, the truck held hundreds of rounds of ammunition, several large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, a crossbow with bolts, machetes, camouflage smoke devices, a stun gun and 11 Molotov tails.Yeah, that's why they all forgot to bring the thousands of guns they own to the iNsUrReCtIoN.
Court records and video surveillance footage show that Coffman, who had ties to militia groups, parked the vehicle near the Capitol at 9:15 a.m. that day. The do ents say that after he got out of his pickup truck at 9:20 a.m., he joined a crowd of people who walked directly to the Capitol building.
He was detained later that evening as an unnamed woman was driving him back toward his truck. Police questioned Coffman and searched him, finding two more handguns on his person. None of the weapons were registered, do ents state.
Guy Reffitt of Texas: Reffitt was charged with bringing a handgun onto Capitol grounds. Court do ents showed that Reffitt, reported in court do ents to be a member of the militia group Three Percenters, told his family he brought his gun with him and that he and others "stormed the Capitol."
Christopher Michael Alberts of Maryland: Alberts brought his handgun onto Capitol grounds. An officer saw that Alberts had a gun on his hip and alerted fellow officers. When Alberts tried to flee, officers detained him and recovered the loaded handgun along with a separate magazine.
The total number of people who carried firearms with them that day may not ever be fully accounted for because the majority of those involved in the siege were not arrested on-site but were tracked down by law enforcement days, weeks and months later.
It’s also worth noting that the definition of "armed" is not legally limited to guns — it refers to any weapon used for defense or offense and used as a means of protection. Other items used as weapons Jan. 6 included bats, crutches, flagpoles, skateboards, fire extinguishers and chemical sprays.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news...ow/7963993002/
----
PeAcEfUl PrOtEsT yO!
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
