refresher for US Congress

[rexdutchman]

The left are the ones trying to change things. By virtue of that, they're the seditionists 100% correct but don't look here

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

HF knows better. He gets stuck in the Whataboutism. Sometimes ya gotta ignore when he goes down that path.

Yeah, getting stuck in understanding what happened instead of ignoring what happened for purely political partisanship is a flaw with your crowd.


Whataboutism, is explaining hypocrisy. Whataboutism was unsuccessfully used by Blacks for hundreds of years and you know it. "What about the White guy that did the same damn thing"?


Would you recognize that whataboutism?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

You just missed the whole point of this thread.


It is about Cruz and Hawley's actions.


Which was exactly the point of the article. Cruz and Hawley did exactly what previous Democrats did and nobody called it unpatriotic but I knew you wouldn't get it and and just wanted to see what your reply would be and you didn't disappoint.


It is not about Mars, Saturn, or any other thing you can think of.



Wow! That's some "pull it out of your ass shit" right there? Mars, Saturn? WTF?


So many on this political forum ignore the thread topic when they are unable to respond to it properly.


And I guess you are the decider of what is proper or not?



Did you happen to notice the staff resignations ?


So that's the new litmus test, if a member of one's staff resigns because they disagree with a position the boss takes, the boss is wrong?


Former Cruz staffers have spoken out against him following the violence at the Capitol

Perhaps because the staffers didn't understand what he was doing any better than you did.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Perhaps because the staffers didn't understand what he was doing any better than you did.

the abandoners aren't principled they are self concerned

et tu brute?

whats 30 pieces of silver worth today? maybe around $6,000

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Publicity stunt for self promotion

Or they were concerned, scared, of being cancelled by the mob.


https://justthenews.com/nation/culture/curt-schillings-insurance-cancelled-due-social-media-posts



Former baseball star Schilling's insurance canceled after social posts supporting Capitol breach




So this is what is going to make America great again? If you take a political position different than your insurance company, your doctor, the grocery store chain you shop at? Everybody scouring social media to see who to do business with and who is "unacceptable"?


If you people can't see where all this is heading, you are naive at best. This is exactly what authoritarian countries do to punish people who don't believe what the authoritarians want them to believe.


What happened to living in a country that doesn't suppress free speech? Nazi's can march in Skokie but we can no longer have a different opinion with the people we buy insurance from?



https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-hist...-speech-skokie


In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause.



Which is not to say what a handful of people did at the Capital was right because it wasn't but there were plenty more people that stayed outside than tried to enter. Were the "peaceful protestors" wrong too?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by royamcr

In all other elections the loser had long before conceded and wasn't using every avenue to discredit a fair election.


That's on Trump and has nothing to do with what Cruz and Hawley did. Two separate events that most seem not capable of separating.


All other Presidential race losers just conceded, were disappointed, but went on with their lives. Maybe wrote a book about their experiences, gave speeches, etc.


Again, on Trump, this as the op reminded us, was about Congress and what happened when people stood for principles just like the Democrats did in '69, '05, '17.



Electoral objections are nothing new and before 2020 99% of Americans probably didn't even know anything about it. It was never a televised event.

The point of my post.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Anyone hear about that. Anyone know what he could have possibly done to get IMPEACHED again.



Seems getting elected in the first place was enough to impeach and it literally never stopped.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ump-has-begun/


The campaign to Impeach has begun


Literally within hours of being elected.


Also heard that Hawley and Cruz are like persona non grata up on the hill. Anyone know anything about that. I wonder what they did.

The same thing Democrats did in '69, '05, '17 and you know it but just can't be honest enough to admit it which is sad for such an educated man who fears if he speaks the truth, he might be kicked out of the club.


But what the heck, I'll give you a chance to be honest with a simple question, if you have the time to read it of course and try not to deflect this time.


Did Cruz and Hawley do exactly what Democrats did in '05 and '17, when they went to the floor of the House and objected to certifying some electors because they were concerned about perceived "irregularities" as the CNN article clearly states?


I'll wait.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

The left are the ones trying to change things. By virtue of that, they're the seditionists 100% correct but don't look here

it might be time for americans to save real history books about America and other documents....on paper

they may well be soon outlawed

and that on top of a parallel economy for a free america

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Yeah, getting stuck in understanding what happened instead of ignoring what happened for purely political partisanship is a flaw with your crowd.


Whataboutism, is explaining hypocrisy. Whataboutism was unsuccessfully used by Blacks for hundreds of years and you know it. "What about the White guy that did the same damn thing"?


Would you recognize that whataboutism?

You don’t seem to understand the difference between pointing out disparate treatment and excusing a behavior.

You can’t bring yourself to just say Trump or Republicans were wrong for fomenting the anger that caused the Capitol to be overrun. You must follow it with a whataboutism of Dems did something in the past too.

That’s where we differ. I don’t feel that I have to come up with an excuse for the bad behavior.

My answer has been simple. Rioting is bad no matter who did it and what their reason is or was. I have a need to try to blame shift by pointing at the actions of others.

Hence, my statement that you get stuck in whataboutisms.

[Tsmokies]

If corrupt Texas ever held a fair election cruzy would be long gone back to cuba. The gop have made Texas elections corrupt for years. Abbott plays find the drop box dems and Pac man paxton is still trying to gobble a pardon out of the corrupt in chief. Fun stuff

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

You don’t seem to understand the difference between pointing out disparate treatment and excusing a behavior.



And you don't seem to understand the difference between what Trump is accused of and what Cruz and Hawley did. You are saying they are one in the same and I am saying they are two completely different things that you want to conflate because it either makes you feel good or merely promotes your agenda of putting all Republicans in the same boat in the same way you object to anybody putting all Democrats in the same boat..


You can’t bring yourself to just say Trump or Republicans were wrong for fomenting the anger that caused the Capitol to be overrun.


Sure I can and I have but I put the blame squarely were it belongs, on those that took those actions. "Fomenting anger". Did Trump "foment anger"? He must certainly did. Fomenting anger, is not a crime councilor. Much in the same way that Democrats fomented anger all summer by not calling for the arrest and prosecution of anybody committing violent acts but Democrats will justify that anger and finish with "but we never said take that anger and commit violate acts", the Democrat politicians that is, the BLM leaders absolutely did as I posted. BLM leaders proudly say that nothing has ever been achieved without violence and point to the founding of this country and every single time "this discussion" is attempted, it always comes back to "justification" which is inevitably in the eye of the beholder. At no time, that I have seen and you seem to agree, could this be proved in a court of law, that Trump said take that anger beyond protesting peacefully and violently attack the capital. You want to say "well everybody can see that" and I say "no, not everybody can see that and it is likely that a jury would not come to that conclusion "beyond a reasonable doubt" a bedrock principal of our Democracy which you have probably argued in a court of law if you are a trial lawyer. Do you believe in "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Do you believe it possible that what he said "go to the capital and protest peacefully" is what he meant, because those were his words, but I guess you would argue that you know that isn't what he meant. And yet his defense could put literally thousands of people on the stand that went to the capital that day and were horrified at what some but not all did and would swear that they never heard the words attack the capital and they did not. Some did, some didn't, a rather perfect example of reasonable doubt that he incited violence. He may have incited violence by some already prone to violence no matter what he said or didn't say.



This was brought up in one the discussions I'm listening to daily. "We now have evidence that these attacks were "planned" days before "the speech" which is credited with inciting the riot. That takes it out of the "imminent threat" that Trump may have made in that speech, required by statute necessary to find guilt in my opinion and in the opinion of others. Did Trump take part in that planning because if he did, there would be the case for inciting. There is no evidence that I am aware of that Trump knew about or took part in that planning.



You must follow it with a whataboutism of Dems did something in the past too.



Because the subject of the thread is Cruz and Hawley, what they did, not what Trump did and not what the rioters did. I would think that an educated person could well understand that argument but you obviously choose not to.


That’s where we differ. I don’t feel that I have to come up with an excuse for the bad behavior.


And I have never made an excuse for "bad behavior" because I was arguing the behavior of Cruz and Hawley unless you want to say that objecting to electors is bad behavior in which case you would be agreeing with me, that is what Democrats did since they did the same thing Cruz and Hawley did. But just in case I have to say it one more time for you to understand, what the rioters did was bad, criminal behavior. What the majority of those protesting did, was not bad behavior, it is protected behavior and what Cruz and Hawley did was not bad behavior, it was consistent with the rules that allowed it and consistent with what was done before by Democrats.


And even this, you can't bring yourself to admit.



While I didn't expect many if any of these ignorant people to understand this, I keep telling myself, surely you and educated person can make the distinction but I guess I'm just fooling myself.


My answer has been simple. Rioting is bad no matter who did it and what their reason is or was. I have a need to try to blame shift by pointing at the actions of others.



And I agree, rioting is bad no matter who does it and for what ever reason and you may well have said so over the summer, I don't remember. What I do remember are BLM leaders and their followers believing them, that rioting was justified because it was "reparations" and Democrats not saying that's just bullshit. Would you like to take a minute and repudiate that?


Hence, my statement that you get stuck in whataboutisms.

I'll ask you again since you either chose to ignore it or merely forgot. If you had a Black client charged with selling crack and he said, "what about the White guy selling powder that didn't get the same charge or even any charge". Would you tell your client not to get into "whataboutism" or might you say, "that's a good point, I think I'll use that as part of my defense" which we all know is exactly what happened in hundreds if not thousands of cases of Blacks charged differently than Whites.


What about that argument councilor? Is there a place for "whataboutism" in legal arguments?

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I'll ask you again since you either chose to ignore it or merely forgot. If you had a Black client charged with selling crack and he said, "what about the White guy selling powder that didn't get the same charge or even any charge". Would you tell your client not to get into "whataboutism" or might you say, "that's a good point, I think I'll use that as part of my defense" which we all know is exactly what happened in hundreds if not thousands of cases of Blacks charged differently than Whites.


What about that argument councilor? Is there a place for "whataboutism" in legal arguments?

you have the patience of job

[00 gauge]

And then there's this little jewel from royamcr (in post #13): "In all other elections the loser had long before conceded and wasn't using every avenue to discredit a fair election" ..... I guess he doesn't remember the presedential election of 2020, you know the one where the Dimocrats cheated to try to win Florida but didn't ..... and how Gore conceded until he didn't, and how ugly it got by him "using every avenue to discredit a fair election" ..... and how it took the Supreme Court bitch-slapping Gore to force him to realize he'd lost ..... so the shenanigans of the 2020 election were just repeats of stunts the Dimoturds have tried before in trying to rig an election by any means necessary until they achieve their goals, or the courts have to get involved .....

[VitaMan]

For those who are trying to compare issues from past elections, here is your answer
why those do not compare. Hope you can understand the difference.



"Within an hour of Cruz’s speech, a violent pro-Trump mob broke through a police line and forced their way into the Senate chamber itself."

[pfunkdenver]

Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDong

fuck congress

What a useful, and well written response!