greg1647545532

Here's my take. I don't know what the articles of impeachment that are currently being debated look like, but the draft I read over the weekend laid out a very clear accusation against Trump. Specifically, that he: 1. Made up lies about rampant election fraud, which 2. Convinced a lot of his supporters that he, Donald Trump, was the true winner of the election and should remain president on 21 Jan. That he 3. Organized an event, incriminatingly called "STOP THE STEAL," at the White House on the day that the EC was to be certified. And he 4. Told the mob that he had gathered at the event that he would lead them to the Capitol building in order to do exactly what they gathered there to do, so that he could 5. Remain in power despite having lost the election. The facts are not in dispute, even among top Republicans. These top Republicans include, but are not limited to, Mike Pence, Mitch McConnell, former AG Bill Barr, at least 2 of Trump's few remaining cabinet secretaries, and unofficially (via Lindsay Graham), Trump's own legal counsel and chief of staff. Since those facts are stipulated to by "both sides," the only thing left to debate is whether or not those facts should result in Trump's removal from office. Personally, it seems insane to me that someone who tried to steal the presidency by force, an effort which resulted in multiple deaths, would be left in control of the nuclear codes or anything else in the executive branch, even for 5 minutes. I can't believe he's still in power right now, although you get the impression from Graham and others that he's basically a cuck in his own White House. You'll notice that nowhere in the above do I mention leftist violence or BLM. The debate is strictly about Trump's actions, and what to do about them, and additionally, what to do about the Republican leadership like Cruz and Hawley who went along with his lies about election fraud and his little charade about objecting to the EC certification. I would like something to happen to those people, but I'm not holding my breath. If you think that specific politicians on the left instigated violence, as the part of your post I quoted suggests, then by all means, level an accusation as succinct as the accusation levied against Trump in the impeachment article and we can debate it. But we need specifics, because I don't know who you're referring to or what specific violence they're responsible for. If your claim is simply that encouraging BLM protests rises to the level of "inciting violence" as the direct attack on the Capitol 5 days ago, then I don't think that claim has much merit, nor does it have any bearing on the impending impeachment. If your claim is that Democrats didn't denounce the violence the led from some BLM marches, then I can provide cites (some are in the previous thread) countering this. If you think that in general, leftist rabble rousing hasn't been handled with the same level of condemnation that we're now seeing against the right, then I agree 100%. And we can discuss that as well if you'd like. But pointing this out is not a defense of Trump, and it does nothing to address the immediate concern of the fact that we have an insurrection in the White House, still in power, still able to fuck up democracy for another 9 days. If you think that leftist violence needs to be handled more thoroughly, then now is a chance for Republicans to take the high road and show Democrats how it's done. Impeach Trump, remove him from office, and then sit up on top of Capitol Hill and say, "This is what you should have done when the left was rioting in the streets." Shame the Democrats from a position of moral superiority. But letting a literal insurrectionist get away with violence against our own government because of a general sense of unfairness doesn't make sense to me.

I agree, there are proper channels for this. She could have, for instance, held a STOP THE NUKES rally and told a mob to march to the White House.

What do you propose? What we have now is already pretty close to the conservative, free market ideal.

Cool, thanks!

I'm sure it's good and I guess Mace is right, after tax and shipping it probably wasn't a bad price, but it doesn't seem like it was a rare score or a great price. I do probably need a few "guest tasting" bottles but I'm more about the $23 bottles of Woodford they sometimes have and going through them faster than my wife thinks is healthy. Just had a bit of a FOMO moment in the store when I saw it up there and it was the only bottle left.

Wright Patt. They have good prices on the volume sellers but I've never been impressed with the selection. I haven't asked about special orders. I did pick up a bottle of Whistle Pig 10 year rye there today but after checking online I probably shouldn't have bothered.

The Class Six has had a supply of Angel's Envy lately at $48 a bottle. I don't think that's a great price but I don't know how hard it is to find, so if anyone's interested I can grab some tomorrow.

+1

I'm going to go ahead and be an asshole and say that it's pretty amazing that you wrote a 4 paragraph reply "correcting" Richard Cranium without doing a basic amount of research to inform your position. Twitter is making a lot of enemies on "both sides" right now. While I believe you're factually incorrect about twitter tanking in 2016, they've certainly profited from algorithms that promote bullshit conspiracy theories and blatant misinformation. E.g., they certainly have profited immensely from Trump and the controversies he fans. Trump shouldn't be banned in 2021, he should be reduced to a nobody in 2012 because Twitter doesn't promote his lies. At this point all of these algorithms that have only cared about bringing in the most ad revenue have created a monster in the form of a massively uninformed and misinformed population who follow and believe in the nonsense spewing forth from idiotic demagogues. The companies that created them don't know what else to do except hit the ban button and hope that people forget how complicit they were in all of this. Fuck Twitter. Fuck Facebook. Fuck Trump.

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html

He tweeted twice after his suspension was lifted (not including his hostage video), and Twitter decided that both of those tweets might continue to incite to violence.

If Trump had won in November and ANTIFA had stormed the capital building to stop the electoral college count, I have a hard time thinking that anyone here would find any silver linings. This really doesn't seem like the way anything ought to be accomplished. Lindsay Graham said multiple times in his speech things along the lines of, "One of them could have had a bomb." I honestly hadn't really though about that before he said it.

If Trump had won in November and ANTIFA had stormed the capital building to stop the electoral college count, I have a hard time thinking that anyone here would find any silver linings. This really doesn't seem like the way anything ought to be accomplished. Lindsay Graham said multiple times in his speech things along the lines of, "One of them could have had a bomb." I honestly hadn't really though about that before he said it.

Yeah I was kidding, it's actually eating me up inside not to respond but fuck if you didn't get all up in my head about this now.

<Shrug> Guess so. But if you don't care, neither do I.

High five for being fucked up!

You have to spell it out because I don't see it. I said I'm posting here out of a sick compulsion. I don't enjoy but I can't go away. If you don't enjoy it, and you don't share a similar compulsion, then you can go away. Is there a contradiction there? Please explain. eta: And it wasn't a juvenile tactic. I will readily admit that getting involved in internet arguments is a personality flaw that I have. I tell people in real life that I do this and I'm ashamed. If you're above getting into petty political squabbles online then I'm 100% serious about you being better than me in this regard.

Take the time to explain how I contradicted myself, please. I promise I will take it seriously if you do.

Hence, the sick compulsion. Why couldn't I just let you be wrong? I compulsively had to correct you. I didn't enjoy it, but I couldn't just go away. You know, because of the compulsion. Do you have a similar compulsion that forces you to continually click on, read, and reply to a thread that you don't enjoy? If so, then maybe I understand you more than I realize. I get it, you're better than me. Stop rubbing it in. I can't help who I am.

Nope, I didn't.

I meant what I typed.

Of course not, I'm doing this out of some sick compulsion. I just don't understand the kind of people who pop in to political squabble threads to loudly declare that they're too mature for political squabbles. Like, congrats, your a better person than me, but if you don't enjoy this then maybe go away?

Nobody's forcing you guys to read this thread, you know.

Nobody's forcing you guys to read this thread, you know.

Still watching this, but Graham's ability to flip-flop between respectable statesman and spineless coward is fascinating. This speech is definitely respectable statesmen, and I agree with everything thus far, including his statements about the lasting effects of handling those who committed political terrorism in Portland and Seattle with kid gloves. But man, he is not mincing words: Bolding mine. Strong words attacking the president. And yet, the Trump administration has been so bad for the last year, that America will never know the true service these folks acting behind the scenes have done. And yet, when Lindsay Graham had the opportunity to do something about it, he turned into spineless coward Lindsay Graham. Anyway, gonna go back to listening. I'm disappointed that he's not on board with a 25th amendment solution. I hope he votes for removal if this 2nd impeachment gets off the ground. eta: And right back to spineless coward in the Q&A.