Canadian Money Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
221 - 240 of 259 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,317 Posts
Where is the Republican support for these "peaceful protestors" ? Trump, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Mo Brooks, Marco Rubio.....wherefore art thou ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,696 Posts
Discussion Starter #222 (Edited)
You gotta love cnn band wagon.
what exactly is shocking to the video? People walked in, no damage to the surrounding, no beating of guard, took few pictures and left.
There certainly are worse videos out there, like when they beat a cop with an American flag, when they crush a cop in a doorway, or when they chant "hang Mike Pence".

You asked, "what exactly is shocking to the video?" ... dude, the whole attack is shocking. It's shocking beyond belief, in a first world country. This is like watching the Congo or some other s***hole country. Trump has literally made America into a s***hole country.

This footage is shocking because they have broken into a primary government building and you see from a first hand vantage point what an insurrection looks like. Pretty amazing to see that. Maybe to you this isn't shocking, because maybe this is how things are done in Ukraine all the time. But this is absolutely not something that happens in the US and other first world countries. Remember, they have broken into the building to overturn the election by halting the final vote - it's an attempt to overthrow the USA.

There are several shocking parts, such as when MAGA surrounds cops and overpower them, when they break into the building and march around yelling "treason!"

Another interesting part is around 01:59 where they menacingly (in a tone of voice mimicking a movie villain) say "knock knock, we're here" as they break into the chamber floor. This is where they were trying to confront and probably take hostages, maybe to kill members of government.

As they break in they say "while we're here we might as well set up a government" ... clearly showing the intent to overthrow the government of the USA.

Where is the Republican support for these "peaceful protestors" ? Trump, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Mo Brooks, Marco Rubio.....wherefore art thou ?
Many Republicans now fear for their own lives, from the delusional MAGA terrorists they helped create. It's funny how unhinged people can turn on you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,792 Posts
You're misreading all of this. They (extremists) were plotting "civil war" shortly after Trump was elected in 2016 and were again talking strongly about it even before the 2020 election.
Misreading what?
I agree, the extremists have been plotting increasingly violent acts since Trump took office. In fact I'd say that his election was a shock to many, and further motivated them to this end.

The only thing we actually seem to disagree on is
1. That there are extremists and agitators all over trying to exploit the situation. I think this is only a small percentage of people, but still enough to cause problems.
2. The specific facts relating to certain instances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,792 Posts
Where is the Republican support for these "peaceful protestors" ? Trump, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Mo Brooks, Marco Rubio.....wherefore art thou ?
What are you talking about?
I believe they are all for peaceful protest.
They however, like almost everyone else, do not approve of violence and riots.

Which peaceful protests are they not supporting?

or are you being sarcastic with "peaceful protestors", and wondering why the Republicans arent' supporting the universally condemned Capital violence?
They're not supporting it, because it's wrong. The only way this is a question even makes sense is if you believe Republicans are evil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,696 Posts
Discussion Starter #228 (Edited)
It's looking like Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, and Michael Flynn may have been key figures in launching the insurrection. I would add Alex Jones to the list; I saw his media outlets inflaming anger and whipping up people into a frenzy.

I think it's very important to remember that this is not a "grass roots" movement that came about on its own. Going back to at least 2015, these figures (especially Bannon & Stone) have been using the media to radicalize people and grow the alt-right movement. Rupert Murdoch of Fox News joined that bandwagon too. Then you can add the various extremists groups who also push violence & anger through social media and fringe web sites.

I wish that conservative voters (including MAGA) realized that they are being played. The anger and outrage is artificial... these figures whip up emotions for their own agendas. They are using you... they are manipulating you.

James.....the events in the US are already having an impact on Canadian politics.

Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole has been forced to scramble around talking about the alt right influence in the Conservative Party.
It's certainly good to see this, but the "Conservatives" (let's remember they are really Reform/Alliance) have a history of emulating US right wing tactics. I am not convinced that they will act honourably.

Harper successfully replicated the Republican strategy of growing a base of religious conservative voters. Next, Andrew Scheer hired Hamish Marshall, a director from the far-right Rebel Media as a campaign manager. These things are straight out of the Republican playbook. I suspect that we will see Canadian parallels to Bannon/Stone at some point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,047 Posts
I wish that conservative voters (including MAGA) realized that they are being played. The anger and outrage is artificial... these figures whip up emotions for their own agendas. They are using you... they are manipulating you.
Not going to happen, it's a given that conservative voters go for emotions over facts, so as the leadership plays on fears: increasing numbers of minorities, or losing the "American way of life", supporters aren't going to leave. There are a number of articles that discuss this, but here's one that talks about it. These key psychological differences can determine whether you're liberal or conservative
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,792 Posts
Not going to happen, it's a given that conservative voters go for emotions over facts, so as the leadership plays on fears: increasing numbers of minorities, or losing the "American way of life", supporters aren't going to leave. There are a number of articles that discuss this, but here's one that talks about it. These key psychological differences can determine whether you're liberal or conservative
One British study found that voters who were aggressive, angry kids were more likely to distrust the government and lean liberal as adults.

It's important to understand that Liberal means different things in different areas.
In the US Liberal means big government nanny state, which is by definition not liberal.
With inconsistent definitions of Liberal and Conservative of course the article is going to be less useful.
That being said I do think lefties are aggressive angry kids, I think if they were a bit more grateful and aware of how good they've got it, they'd likely be Conservative.

I think the only really important note in the article is that both groups think they're being "fair". I actually believe, for the most part people from both groups really do think they're being fair. Which allows them to demonize the other, because obviously if you're being fair, and the other group disagrees, they're being unfair.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,716 Posts
Not going to happen, it's a given that conservative voters go for emotions over facts, so as the leadership plays on fears: increasing numbers of minorities, or losing the "American way of life", supporters aren't going to leave. There are a number of articles that discuss this, but here's one that talks about it. These key psychological differences can determine whether you're liberal or conservative
... this is surprising. I thought the Conservative folks always thought they were the most rational people on earth ... starting with the money talks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,792 Posts
... this is surprising. I thought the Conservative folks always thought they were the most rational people on earth ... starting with the money talks.
Both sides are pretty light on facts when it hits their hot button issues.
Also tribalism discourages questioning the believe.

For example a feminist who questions the wage gap will be attacked, the facts don't matter.
Or if you question the legitimacy of an election that waives the requirement for voters to show ID.. again you're attacked.

To reiterate for those who want to attack me, the election happened, the winners have been announced, it appears to have been a legal election.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,047 Posts
... this is surprising. I thought the Conservative folks always thought they were the most rational people on earth ... starting with the money talks.
Yes... something about facts not feelings...

Sure they think that they are rational, but generally speaking it's fear of change that is keeping them in to vote conservative. They may justify their choice by trying to fit rational reasons, but you can see their thought process was essentially, I'm voting this way, let's figure out how to justify it so that I don't sound like a regressive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,792 Posts
Yes... something about facts not feelings...

Sure they think that they are rational, but generally speaking it's fear of change that is keeping them in to vote conservative. They may justify their choice by trying to fit rational reasons, but you can see their thought process was essentially, I'm voting this way, let's figure out how to justify it so that I don't sound like a regressive.
I can see that viewpoint.

However please consider the possibility that it isn't "fear of change", as far as simply being responsibly cautious.

For example, lets say someone proposes a change that they think is a good idea.
I see that change, I understand it, I see that there are some negative consequences.
I decide on balance I don't think that the change is a net benefit, this is being reasonably cautious.
Someone may decide that rather than addressing my points, they'll just say I'm "scared of change".

The reality is that all actions involve trade offs, ALL of them.
The question we should ask isn't if something is a good idea, it's if it's still a good idea after we account for both the positive and negative impacts of the action.

Secondly opposing a specific change isn't regressive.
Any change can be regressive or progressive, good or bad, in varying degrees in a variety of ways.


Myself I think we have to acknowledge that things are pretty good, and we should work to make them better.
I think most people agree with that, though some think things are pretty bad.
If you think things are objectively bad, I would really want to understand your benchmark/reference case to understand where you're coming from.

FWIW, my biggest concern with politics is how regressive some of the ideas being put forward are.
I remain hopeful that it's not a fundamental desire for unfairness, and simply just a misunderstanding of the the impact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,989 Posts
Both sides are pretty light on facts when it hits their hot button issues.
Also tribalism discourages questioning the believe.

For example a feminist who questions the wage gap will be attacked, the facts don't matter.
Or if you question the legitimacy of an election that waives the requirement for voters to show ID.. again you're attacked ...
Apparently there are lots of US elections to question the legitimacy for as it's reported that voter ID laws came into use in 2002.

Given that the requirements vary by state, it seems reasonable to wonder about statements that make it sound like there is no variation.


... To reiterate for those who want to attack me, the election happened, the winners have been announced, it appears to have been a legal election.
Good to know ... but there seem to be lots who have their minds made up, no matter what the variations are.


Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,792 Posts
Apparently there are lots of US elections to question the legitimacy for as it's reported that voter ID laws came into use in 2002.
Of course, however there is a nuance here.
1. Is the election legal.
2. Is the election and authority of the government legitimate.

Legal is easy, legitimate is hard.

I think the requirement to provide ID is an interesting one, and the question is if it is a reasonable tradeoff.
1. If anyone can vote, or vote repeatedly I think we have a problem.
2. If people are denied their right to vote because they have trouble getting ID, that is also a problem.

In the past getting voter ID might have been an unreasonable barrier.
I think today it is increasingly unlikely that getting suitable government issued ID is a problem. Many if not most jurisdictions have Free or low cost ID available.

Those trade off have to be considered and addressed.

The problem with legitimacy is very complex, and something like vote fraud is only one of the considerations.
Also the standard changes, many legitimate and legal elections would not be considered legitimate today.

For example elections that did not allow most of the population (women, blacks, asians etc) to vote, would by todays standards be considered completely illegitimate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,989 Posts
With reports of people being caught voting multiple times in the same city, in different counties and in different states from a range of methods, it seems more of a question of how effective the methods are and which states are using them. That is for both in-person, mail and a mix (i.e. vote in person on one state, vote by mail in a different state).

As for gov't issued ids covering a lot of voters - some checking is likely required. Offering free gov't id specifically for voting IMO is a clear indication that the usual types of ids (ex. drivers license) does not cover as much as one would assume.


IMO part of the problem is that those who have their minds made up take up one example without checking the wide variation of what's out there.
How many would have guessed that prior to 2016 duplicate voters had been found by facial cognition software or data mining?


What one can dream and be suspicious of may or may not be a problem.


Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,792 Posts
With reports of people being caught voting multiple times in the same city, in different counties and in different states from a range of methods, it seems more of a question of how effective the methods are and which states are using them. That is for both in-person, mail and a mix (i.e. vote in person on one state, vote by mail in a different state).

As for gov't issued ids covering a lot of voters - some checking is likely required. Offering free gov't id specifically for voting IMO is a clear indication that the usual types of ids (ex. drivers license) does not cover as much as one would assume.


IMO part of the problem is that those who have their minds made up take up one example without checking the wide variation of what's out there.
How many would have guessed that prior to 2016 duplicate voters had been found by facial cognition software or data mining?


What one can dream and be suspicious of may or may not be a problem.


Cheers
Be careful with that, people might consider that "conspiracy theory".

Myself I prefer to look at the published laws and policies of the states.
I do think there are serious problems with the way the various US voting laws exist and were implemented in the election.
I do think it was mostly legal, but that isn't enough.

There are lots of things that are legal and wrong, or illegal and right. It's the job of democracy to fix those issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,696 Posts
Discussion Starter #240
There are lots of things that are legal and wrong, or illegal and right. It's the job of democracy to fix those issues.
And luckily the courts are there and perfectly capable of handling these situations. As they did, with the 2020 election.

The courts heard the challenges and asked to see evidence of voter fraud. Very minor examples of irregularities were presented. In one case, the vote was corrected and it put Trump even further behind his original count. There was a FULL recount in one state, as I recall.

So the democratic system works, which is what's so great about this.

Unfortunately you have characters like Trump, Roger Stone, Steve Bannon who still push the false story of "voter fraud" and cause direct harm to the democratic system, and that's the real problem. These are people who operate 'in bad faith', and now they've brainwashed millions of people into thinking there is a great injustice here, when there is absolutely no such thing.
 
221 - 240 of 259 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top