What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

January 6th - what will happen? (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The General said:
I didn’t say this.

What I’m saying is one is much more easily definable and exponentially more dangerous. 
Click to expand...
Fair enough. 

But I think if the Feds put in 1/4 of the effort to investigate BLM/Antifa the way they have with the Jan 6th protestors I think they - and you - would find that it is just easily as definable and dangerous.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
Fair enough. 

But I think if the Feds put in 1/4 of the effort to investigate BLM/Antifa the way they have with the Jan 6th protestors I think they - and you - would find that it is just easily as definable and dangerous.
Click to expand...
No way. Until we have a “President of Antifa” who wins a National election it’s not in the same universe :lol:

Jan 6th is unique because it’s one dude who just happened to be the President. It’s unreal. 

 
The General said:
BladeRunner said:
Fair enough. 

But I think if the Feds put in 1/4 of the effort to investigate BLM/Antifa the way they have with the Jan 6th protestors I think they - and you - would find that it is just easily as definable and dangerous.
Click to expand...
No way. Until we have a “President of Antifa” who wins a National election it’s not in the same universe :lol:

Jan 6th is unique because it’s one dude who just happened to be the President. It’s unreal. 
Click to expand...
This is exactly where I’m at and what sets it apart honestly, there’s no question antifa and BLM are extremist groups at this point. It’s a shame the BLM movement has been hijacked and become that but it seems to be what it is. Regardless, the actions going on in Portland and elsewhere are not OK.  But the fact that the president of United States is on equal footing for an atrocity of an event with an extremist group is absolutely mind blowing. But more than that there’s a huge fraction of conservatives who continue to defend it. It’s unconscionable to me.  

Im not surprised by extremist groups, they’ve been around forever and will continue to be around.  But a POTUS being on equal footing I thought I’d never see.  

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
Can you answer without using the ridiculous straw man phrase?  If not it’s cool just move on
Click to expand...
Actually it is the Straw Man arguments, where people completely mischaracterize what someone has said and then argue against that, which is what is not cool. 

When people quit making Straw Man arguments, I will be glad to discontinue the using the phrase. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
Can I ask why?  How does the POTUS being the face and driving force behind the 6th not make it different? 
Click to expand...
Because ultimately the goal of BOTH "movements" is to usurp and/or disrupt the power of the Federal government.

Degrees of "badness" don't really matter in this case.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
Of course it does.  It all matters.  :shrug:
Click to expand...
But it matters more, far more. No two ways about it.  One is an extremist group and one is the President.  The same guy who is still being supported by the GOP btw. The fact that it was the president automatically gives it more weigh and I’m honestly no even sure how you could argue differently.  

 
BladeRunner said:
Because ultimately the goal of BOTH "movements" is to usurp and/or disrupt the power of the Federal government.

Degrees of "badness" don't really matter in this case.
Click to expand...
The goal of the BLM movement has never been to usurp or disrupt the power of the Federal government. 

 
rockaction said:
I just closed the article out in my browser because everything kept crashing. I will say this: It was more about the groups and whether to use non-violence and the overlap between BLM and Antifa and the tensions inherent therein when Antifa (largely white) is practicing property damage and violence while a lot of BLM protestors are conscious of violence because it seems the violence is happening in black communities. But it's proof they overlap -- that's what I use it for and why I link to it.

It's in the New Yorker. It's a explication of the tensions inherent in BLM and Antifa showing up at the same protests. But there's clear points in the article where the groups intertwine and interlink. At one point, the author has a subject who deplores the Antifa violence lament that his movement is being "subsumed" by Antifa. But it's really a meandering article because the overlap is just that...meandering a bit, unsure in its direction, unsure in conclusion exactly how much violence the protests should have. I'll find the link and post it. It's a longish read, but you see the overlap of the two groups.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/11/02/trump-antifa-movement-portland
Click to expand...
Hey @rockaction

Thanks so much for posting this article again. I read it in detail over the weekend, from start to finish, and I found it really illuminating. Ironically it’s an article in defense of Antifa, making arguments that I (and I’m sure you as well) strongly disagree with: no matter how justified one’s cause, no matter how unfair the system is, the instigation of violence in our society, particularly to support a political goal, is NEVER right, can NEVER be tolerated, and there are NO mitigating circumstances, and this rule is permanent unless and until we lose our democratic, free, system of government. I would hope everyone reading this agrees; unfortunately, Antifa does not. 
 

The more difficult question is: does this article prove your point that there is a direct connection between the leaders of Antifa and the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement, and the protests that took place last summer, and the riots and looting that took place last summer, and the partial takeover of certain parts of the downtown of cities in the Pacific Northwest? Can all this be looped together so that when @BladeRunner and others use the term “BLM/Antifa Riots” to mean encompassing everything that happened, they are right to do so? 
Sorry but I remain unconvinced. Yes there are some loose connections- in leadership, in ideology, but earlier last year, after reading a LOT on these subjects, as well as witnessing some of the protests first hand, I formed a series of hypotheses: 

1. Antifa is dangerous but very small, they are more than a idea, but unorganized as a group. Their actual power as presented by the conservative media is grossly exaggerated, 

2. Black Lives Matter is both an organization AND a slogan. The slogan is a thousand times more popular than the organization and the vast majority of those who protested last summer, including members of my own family, were believers in the slogan and had no ties to BLM the organization or even knowledge of some of its more radical ideas. 

3. The vast majority of protestors last summer were peaceful and did not take place in any violence whatsoever. 

4. The vast majority of violence last summer (looting, burning etc.) took place at night well after the protests had ended, and were committed by opportunistic thugs, mostly young gang member types, with no affiliation to BLM OR Antifa. Unfortunately, these same thugs have always emerged throughout our history whenever there have been racial protests caused by perceived injustice. 

5. The takeover of the sections of Portland and Seattle were committed by a combination of ideological radicals, some with connections to Antifa and BLM leadership, and a carnival like surge of idealistic young people along the lines of Occupy Wall Street. These takeovers were peaceful at times, violent at times, and there is a historical comparison between them and the hippie takeovers of the 1960s (see “People’s Park.) They’re really not connected to the violence discussed in point #4.

The article you presented does not cause me to think that any of these hypotheses are incorrect. I remain convinced that they’re true, get to the heart of the matter, and that therefore the term “BLM/Antifa riots” is a false narrative designed to make a lazy and destructive political argument. 

 
timschochet said:
Hey @rockaction

Thanks so much for posting this article again. I read it in detail over the weekend, from start to finish, and I found it really illuminating. Ironically it’s an article in defense of Antifa, making arguments that I (and I’m sure you as well) strongly disagree with: no matter how justified one’s cause, no matter how unfair the system is, the instigation of violence in our society, particularly to support a political goal, is NEVER right, can NEVER be tolerated, and there are NO mitigating circumstances, and this rule is permanent unless and until we lose our democratic, free, system of government. I would hope everyone reading this agrees; unfortunately, Antifa does not. 
 

The more difficult question is: does this article prove your point that there is a direct connection between the leaders of Antifa and the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement, and the protests that took place last summer, and the riots and looting that took place last summer, and the partial takeover of certain parts of the downtown of cities in the Pacific Northwest? Can all this be looped together so that when @BladeRunner and others use the term “BLM/Antifa Riots” to mean encompassing everything that happened, they are right to do so? 
Sorry but I remain unconvinced. Yes there are some loose connections- in leadership, in ideology, but earlier last year, after reading a LOT on these subjects, as well as witnessing some of the protests first hand, I formed a series of hypotheses: 

1. Antifa is dangerous but very small, they are more than a idea, but unorganized as a group. Their actual power as presented by the conservative media is grossly exaggerated, 

2. Black Lives Matter is both an organization AND a slogan. The slogan is a thousand times more popular than the organization and the vast majority of those who protested last summer, including members of my own family, were believers in the slogan and had no ties to BLM the organization or even knowledge of some of its more radical ideas. 

3. The vast majority of protestors last summer were peaceful and did not take place in any violence whatsoever. 

4. The vast majority of violence last summer (looting, burning etc.) took place at night well after the protests had ended, and were committed by opportunistic thugs, mostly young gang member types, with no affiliation to BLM OR Antifa. Unfortunately, these same thugs have always emerged throughout our history whenever there have been racial protests caused by perceived injustice. 

5. The takeover of the sections of Portland and Seattle were committed by a combination of ideological radicals, some with connections to Antifa and BLM leadership, and a carnival like surge of idealistic young people along the lines of Occupy Wall Street. These takeovers were peaceful at times, violent at times, and there is a historical comparison between them and the hippie takeovers of the 1960s (see “People’s Park.) They’re really not connected to the violence discussed in point #4.

The article you presented does not cause me to think that any of these hypotheses are incorrect. I remain convinced that they’re true, get to the heart of the matter, and that therefore the term “BLM/Antifa riots” is a false narrative designed to make a lazy and destructive political argument.
Click to expand...
We'll agree to disagree. Especially about Point Four. The article specifically tracks the night violence in Portland, culminating in courthouse and property damage. I also see, as per the article, the origins of anti-racist and anti-fascist movements as being intertwined and having a complicated relationship. And that's the point you're outlining in Point Five, which is by all admission a "takeover" of private and public property, two radical things with differing but somewhat similar implications. You're also neglecting the level of violence going on in the article, which doesn't gloss it over, but talks about them taking over courthouses, smashing things, going after politicians' houses, doxxing people, etc. I mean, they talk about the tension when black-owned business get burned.

Can you imagine that? The tension when private property gets burned? It's right in the article that it becomes a tension between some of the BLM members and some of the Antifa members with the end game being a hodge-podge of people traversing back and forth between groups.

Your hypothesis might be right if I said the leaders got together and planned this. I never said the leaders of the Antifa/BLM movements were intertwined. Never. The leaders of the BLM movment are three gay women/academics. The Antifa groups are too decentralized. But the protestors on the ground are clearly operating within the same sphere, with similar tactics and similar ends. That's what the article clearly shows. And I would even say some of the main players in the street protests that organize these marches at the street level drift in and between Antifa and BLM. The article quite explicitly mentions it. So I'm not positive what you read, but how we can read the same thing and draw radically differing conclusions is something else. Unless you're just sort of talking to reaffirm old beliefs. Then you can ignore the drifting in and out between groups and the entirety of your own Point Five.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
But it matters more, far more. No two ways about it.  One is an extremist group and one is the President.  The same guy who is still being supported by the GOP btw. The fact that it was the president automatically gives it more weigh and I’m honestly no even sure how you could argue differently.  
Click to expand...
Meh.  I'll give DJT a little more weight but the ultimate goal for both was the same.

 
Dickies said:
If they’re trying to damage as much as they can, they appear to be doing a poor job. The Trump insurrection was much more efficient.

https://www.npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/02/24/970977612/architect-of-the-capitol-outlines-30-million-in-damages-from-pro-trump-riot
Click to expand...
That's just in damage to federal government/local government buildings.  You forgetting about all of the private owned businesses/homes/neighborhoods that BLM/Antifa burned to the ground, destroyed, looted and ran out of town.  That's more than 30 million.  You're probably looking at Billions with a "B".

It's not even close.  From a monetary perspective, what happened on Jan 6th was pocket change to what BLM/Antifa has destroyed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
Some how I doubt you’d have given Obama the same level of dismissiveness had he done the same 🤷🏻‍♂️
Click to expand...
Guess we'll never know.  :shrug:

Also, once again, I need to point out the ferociousness with which you defend the left despite not being on a side.  I mean, it's all okay and stuff but when fence sitters claim to not have a side but then defend and praise one side only it hardly makes you appear to be sitting on the fence at all.

You're a good guy.  I'm just pointing out what I see.  :thumbup:

 
BladeRunner said:
Guess we'll never know.  :shrug:

Also, once again, I need to point out the ferociousness with which you defend the left despite not being on a side.  I mean, it's all okay and stuff but when fence sitters claim to not have a side but then defend and praise one side only it hardly makes you appear to be sitting on the fence at all.

You're a good guy.  I'm just pointing out what I see.  :thumbup:
Click to expand...
I’m not defending the left at all. In fact I said what was going on with antifa and BLM in those cities was wrong. I called them an extremist group for chrissakes. How is that defending the left?  So there’s absolutely zero defense there, just because I think it’s worse that the president was involved in the other action does not mean I’m defending the left, that makes no sense unless of course one feels the need to defend the right then it makes sense. Your defense of the right has you feeling like I’m defending the left. 

And I’ve never claimed to be a fence sitter.  I say I’m in the middle politically. Sometimes I lean left sometimes I lean right. I don’t define myself by left or right, conservative or liberal. I look at each topic/situation/policy individually and make a individual decision.  

I think you’re a good guy too, but you see it that way because you feel the need to defend the right. Just pointing out what I see. 

 
For the "its all the same" guys, i have a question because im trying to understand where you draw your lines on this stuff. 

Would it be "the same" if a group of 500 random armed dudes going to DC to overthrow the President as if 500 of our best special forces from our navy, army, and marines going to DC to overthrow the President?  Or is there a meaningful distinction there?

 
dkp993 said:
I’m not defending the left at all. In fact I said what was going on with antifa and BLM in those cities was wrong. I called them an extremist group for chrissakes. How is that defending the left?  So there’s absolutely zero defense there, just because I think it’s worse that the president was involved in the other action does not mean I’m defending the left, that makes no sense unless of course one feels the need to defend the right then it makes sense. Your defense of the right has you feeling like I’m defending the left. 

And I’ve never claimed to be a fence sitter.  I say I’m in the middle politically. Sometimes I lean left sometimes I lean right. I don’t define myself by left or right, conservative or liberal. I look at each topic/situation/policy individually and make a individual decision.  

I think you’re a good guy too, but you see it that way because you feel the need to defend the right. Just pointing out what I see. 
Click to expand...
Yeah....this isnt a distinction "the sides" seem to be able to make. If youre attacking their side, its automatically because you are defending the other "side"    

 
The Commish said:
For the "its all the same" guys, i have a question because im trying to understand where you draw your lines on this stuff. 

Would it be "the same" if a group of 500 random armed dudes going to DC to overthrow the President as if 500 of our best special forces from our navy, army, and marines going to DC to overthrow the President?  Or is there a meaningful distinction there?
Click to expand...
The goal is the same, is it not?  I don't see how that would be much more different other than from a symbolic perspective.

Ultimately both are a threat and need to be dealt with.

 
dkp993 said:
This is exactly where I’m at and what sets it apart honestly, there’s no question antifa and BLM are extremist groups at this point. It’s a shame the BLM movement has been hijacked and become that but it seems to be what it is. Regardless, the actions going on in Portland and elsewhere are not OK.  But the fact that the president of United States is on equal footing for an atrocity of an event with an extremist group is absolutely mind blowing. But more than that there’s a huge fraction of conservatives who continue to defend it. It’s unconscionable to me.  

Im not surprised by extremist groups, they’ve been around forever and will continue to be around.  But a POTUS being on equal footing I thought I’d never see.  
Click to expand...
Yup. 

 
The Commish said:
Yeah....this isnt a distinction "the sides" seem to be able to make. If youre attacking their side, its automatically because you are defending the other "side"    
Click to expand...
The problem is I never see him defending or praising "the other side" like he does the left.  :shrug:

I'm just pointing that out, that's all.  If he's done it then maybe I just missed it but it seems he's more intense on going after all things right.

 
BladeRunner said:
Because ultimately the goal of BOTH "movements" is to usurp and/or disrupt the power of the Federal government.

Degrees of "badness" don't really matter in this case.
Click to expand...
It’s that the President was leading this. He’s still working at it, people are excusing it.

Name the Antifa leader. 

 
The General said:
It’s that the President was leading this. He’s still working at it, people are excusing it.

Name the Antifa leader. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I forgot, "Antifa" is just an idea.  :doh:

Good thing all of those fake burning cities, fake looted and destroyed businesses and fake murdered people were all just an idea too.

No one is excusing it.  The only excuses I see are the ones you guys make in support of BLM/Antifa.

 
BladeRunner said:
Yeah, I forgot, "Antifa" is just an idea.  :doh:

Good thing all of those fake burning cities, fake looted and destroyed businesses and fake murdered people were all just an idea too.

No one is excusing it.  The only excuses I see are the ones you guys make in support of BLM/Antifa.
Click to expand...
That’s not the issue that I feel like we are talking about. You and I are talking about what is more dangerous and comparing these two (really this seems to be your issue and I’m just going along down this line of thought because I disagree with this idea as well).

My point of view on this is that the Jan 6th violence and this idea the election was stolen was created by Don, one man. It’s a lie based on this man’s extreme mental issue, for lack is a better phrase, frankly. An inability for him to admit defeat. He’s talked about this quite openly. The lengths he goes to avoid this reality and his persuasion is truly incredible. One of the more extraordinary things in recent history to be honest.

Antifa / BLM are not related as far as I know. They are many things to many people I believe. I really don’t know, not an area I believe very qualified to talk about. 

People lighting up buildings, destroying Nordstroms, Starbucks etc piss me off as much as anyone. These people are hurting their cause. They should be tossed in jail. 

With that there is no one person to point to for my anger as the organizer of this. There’s no one idea to break down what I agree or disagree with. I mean seeing cops murder a guy for 9 minutes in daylight in front of people. That makes me pretty angry. 

Jan 6th, this stop the steal. One guy. The reasoning behind it is absurd and really just insane to me that this dude has the sway,

I don’t hold these two types of activism or whatever you want to call it the same regard.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
The more difficult question is: does this article prove your point that there is a direct connection between the leaders of Antifa and the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement [...]

The article you presented does not cause me to think that any of these hypotheses are incorrect. I remain convinced that they’re true, get to the heart of the matter, and that therefore the term “BLM/Antifa riots” is a false narrative designed to make a lazy and destructive political argument. 
Click to expand...
I have been making the same point about the false narrative which links BLM and Antifa. There is no connection between the two groups outside of a few Antifa anarchists who used the BLM protests to further their own radical and destructive agenda. 

The article linked to was laughable with the proof of a BLM/Antifa connection being a couple of BLM members making unsubstantiated claims about a BLM and Antifa association. It is absurd to think that BLM would work with a group whose primary objective is anarchy (which is why this so called connection is never believed by anyone who is familiar with the actual ideology and goals of the two groups). 

 
The General said:
That’s not the issue that I feel like we are talking about. You and I are talking about what is more dangerous and comparing these two (really this seems to be your issue and I’m just going along down this line of thought because I disagree with this idea as well).

My point of view on this is that the Jan 6th violence and this idea the election was stolen was created by Don, one man. It’s a lie based on this man’s extreme mental issue, for lack is a better phrase, frankly - this inability for him to admit defeat. He’s talked about this quite openly. The lengths he goes to avoid this reality and his persuasion is truly incredible. One of the more extraordinary things in recent history to be honest.

Antifa / BLM are not related as far as I know. They are many things to many people I believe. I really don’t know, not an area I believe very qualified to talk about. People lighting up buildings, destroying Nordstroms, Starbucks etc piss me off as much as anyone. These people are hurting their cause. They should be tossed in jail. 

With that there is no one person to point to for my anger as the organizer if this. There’s no one idea to break down what I agree or disagree with. I mean seeing cops murder a guy for 9 minutes in daylight in front of people. That makes me pretty angry. 

Jan 6th, this stop the steal. One guy. The reasoning behind it is absurd and really just insane to me that this dude has the sway,

I don’t hold these two types of activism or whatever you want to call it the same regard.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your post.  While I agree with what you say, mostly, where we diverge is holding them in the same regard.  I do because the goals were the same, IMO.

 
squistion said:
I have been making the same point about the false narrative which links BLM and Antifa. There is no connection between the two groups outside of a few Antifa anarchists who used the BLM protests to further their own radical and destructive agenda. 

The article linked to was laughable with the proof of a BLM/Antifa connection being a couple of BLM members making unsubstantiated claims about a BLM and Antifa association. It is absurd to think that BLM would work with a group whose primary objective is anarchy (which is why this so called connection is never believed by anyone who is familiar with the actual ideology and goals of the two groups). 
Click to expand...
@rockaction has taken both of you behind the woodshed on this matter on numerous occasions.

Rock has provided the relevant information and you refuse to not only look at it, but deny it outright.  Why? Because you don't want the truth - that's all we can surmise at this point. 

They are linked inextricably.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dkp993 said:
Thanks, but if that’s how you feel after all this time I would be beating that dead horse.  
Click to expand...
just so I get this right is this the quote where you feel Trump incited a riot?

And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them. We’re going to. We’re going to let you know who they are. I can already tell you, frankly.

 
shadrap said:
just so I get this right is this the quote where you feel Trump incited a riot?

And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them. We’re going to. We’re going to let you know who they are. I can already tell you, frankly.
Click to expand...
Trumps actions UP TO and including that day 100%, without question, undeniably created that situation.  

That’s my complete feelings and stance on the subject but have no intentions on going round and round with you as your opinions (like my own) are likely fully formed already on this topic.  
 

 
BladeRunner said:
[...] Rock has provided the relevant information and you refuse to not only look at it, but deny it outright.  Why? Because you don't want the truth - that's all we can surmise at this point. 

They are linked inextricably.
Click to expand...
Linked inextricably? They are not linked at all beyond a few Antifa anarchists who participated in the BLM protests and the completely unsubstantiated claims of some BLM members that the two groups are associated.

To quote Gertrude Stein, with the so called BLM/Antifa connection, there is no there there. 

 
BladeRunner said:
Guess we'll never know.  :shrug:

Also, once again, I need to point out the ferociousness with which you defend the left despite not being on a side.  I mean, it's all okay and stuff but when fence sitters claim to not have a side but then defend and praise one side only it hardly makes you appear to be sitting on the fence at all.

You're a good guy.  I'm just pointing out what I see.  :thumbup:
Click to expand...
Maybe when people see that, they should stop to think about what the party they defend the most is doing wrong to chase away people in the middle and turn them into people more likely to support the other side?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
The problem is I never see him defending or praising "the other side" like he does the left.  :shrug:

I'm just pointing that out, that's all.  If he's done it then maybe I just missed it but it seems he's more intense on going after all things right.
Click to expand...
The problem is you are seeing it by "sides".    

This happens way too often around here.    People arguing from one perspective in a topic shouldn't equal that they are against the other side for all things.  I guess unless you just flat out don't believe people when they say they vote for both parties, 3rd parties, etc.   

I would imagine to most around here I am firmly in the "lib" camp, when historically I have been as likely to vote 3rd party or R as I am D.  

Like I said above, I think this is more of an indication of the current Rs or Ds that would be driving people historically in the middle to one side or the other.  

 
BladeRunner said:
The Commish said:
For the "its all the same" guys, i have a question because im trying to understand where you draw your lines on this stuff. 

Would it be "the same" if a group of 500 random armed dudes going to DC to overthrow the President as if 500 of our best special forces from our navy, army, and marines going to DC to overthrow the President?  Or is there a meaningful distinction there?
Click to expand...
The goal is the same, is it not?  I don't see how that would be much more different other than from a symbolic perspective.

Ultimately both are a threat and need to be dealt with.
Click to expand...
I'm asking if you view them the same.  If it's not the same, what parts are different to you.  

 
BladeRunner said:
The problem is I never see him defending or praising "the other side" like he does the left.  :shrug:

I'm just pointing that out, that's all.  If he's done it then maybe I just missed it but it seems he's more intense on going after all things right.
Click to expand...
In this conversation with him, right now in this thread, what is "the other side" and what is he defending/praising?  His condemnation in the last few posts are AGAINST things he dislikes.  He makes no mention of things he likes.

This is a pretty large "problem" / "blind spot" in the "sides" arguments I see all too often.  Because he's disagreeing with you or an idea you have, it doesn't automatically mean he is defending the total opposite of that idea (the other "side" in this case).

 
@BladeRunner> would you agree that BLM/Antifa = Radical Left ideology, just as Proud Boys/Oathkeepers = Radical Right ideology?  These are two sides of the same coin, no?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice said:
The problem is you are seeing it by "sides".    

This happens way too often around here.    People arguing from one perspective in a topic shouldn't equal that they are against the other side for all things.  I guess unless you just flat out don't believe people when they say they vote for both parties, 3rd parties, etc.   

I would imagine to most around here I am firmly in the "lib" camp, when historically I have been as likely to vote 3rd party or R as I am D.  

Like I said above, I think this is more of an indication of the current Rs or Ds that would be driving people historically in the middle to one side or the other.  
Click to expand...
If I had a dollar for every time I've been wrongly associated with being a Democrat or a liberal just because I disagree with the Trump locksteppers or the general disintegration of what used to be the Republican party, I'd be pretty flush with some serious beer money.

 
One this that has really caught me off guard during the last 5-6 years or so is what feels to me an erosion of the expectations of the POTUS.   It feels like it's come to the point where the person who holds that office is just another citizen.  Sorry, but that's not how I view it.  Their actions matter more, their words matter more.  

That's why I have trouble understanding why anybody would defend the actions of the 6th, or even say they are in the same ballpark as rioters last summer.  

 
BladeRunner said:
The problem is I never see him defending or praising "the other side" like he does the left.  :shrug:

I'm just pointing that out, that's all.  If he's done it then maybe I just missed it but it seems he's more intense on going after all things right.
Click to expand...
You obviously missed my whole discussion in the thread NONSENSE by MoP, or my support of recalling Newsom, or when I talk about ANTIFA/BLM being extremist groups, or when I talk about gun ownership rights, or when I talk about personal responsibility and my distain for the woke left, or how I dislike Biden/Harris and didn’t vote for them, or, or or...  

 
KarmaPolice said:
The problem is you are seeing it by "sides".    

This happens way too often around here.    People arguing from one perspective in a topic shouldn't equal that they are against the other side for all things.  I guess unless you just flat out don't believe people when they say they vote for both parties, 3rd parties, etc.   

I would imagine to most around here I am firmly in the "lib" camp, when historically I have been as likely to vote 3rd party or R as I am D.  

Like I said above, I think this is more of an indication of the current Rs or Ds that would be driving people historically in the middle to one side or the other.  
Click to expand...
This this and this

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dinsy Ejotuz
Updating the Electoral Count Act
Replies
8
Views
472
Dinsy Ejotuz
Dinsy Ejotuz
Joe Bryant
Election Deniers Are Bad, Right?
20 21 22
Replies
1K
Views
29K
knowledge dropper
knowledge dropper
massraider
Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states
2 3
Replies
147
Views
4K
Roy L Fewks
R

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Top