1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Harris still missing on Border Crisis. Milk Carton Issued for Missing VP.

Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by Twilight Hue, Apr 16, 2021.

  1. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    34,146
    Ratings:
    +14,312
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
  2. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    34,146
    Ratings:
    +14,312
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    I love this part....

    "House Republicans at their press conference Wednesday brought out a milk carton adorned with the vice president’s face, and "Missing at the border" written below".



    Priceless beyond measure.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. esmith

    esmith Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    12,643
    Ratings:
    +1,838
    Religion:
    No name designated at this time.
    What should the Republican do?
    When Biden asked them for input on the Covid relief package he didn't listen and pushed it through.
    All Biden is doing is following the directons of his handlers and they are not of the centrist philosophy.
     
  4. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    34,146
    Ratings:
    +14,312
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    Only thing Republicans can do right now is at the mid terms.
     
  5. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,998
    Ratings:
    +6,606
    Religion:
    None
    It seems that nobody on the left is listening to the right at all, including Harris on this matter. Nobody wants conservative counsel. Harris doesn't care what the Republicans want of her, and hopefully, she'll continue to flout their advice with not so much as an acknowledgement that anybody on the right spoke.

    Nobody on the left seems to care what Republicans want of Harris or any other Democrat. Nobody on the left cares what they recommend about vaccines or masks, or what people like Jordan and Paul have to say to Fauci, especially Fauci. Nobody on the left cares what Cruz and Abbott think about the border. Nobody on the left cares what Graham predicts will happen in Afghanistan after withdrawal. Nobody on the left cares what the Republicans consider COVID relief or infrastructure. Nobody on the left wants to hear what Marjorie Taylor Greene wants to say to AOC in a debate about the New Green Deal. Nobody on the left is buying that Jim Crow legislation is about election integrity. Nobody on the left cares how much Cornyn wants Biden to Tweet or go on cable TV. Nobody on the left cares what Republicans predict that raising corporate taxes will do.

    And on it goes. All being ignored. All have excluded themselves from the conversation with their intransigence, antidemocratic actions, malice, indifference to ordinary people, and complete lack of constructive ideas or civility.

    How can we call the Republicans and their enablers Americans in the ideological sense? What principle of Americanism does the right embrace? These are what I consider foundational principles in Americanism, the attack on any of them constituting un-Americanism: democracy, transparent government dedicated to promoting the words in the Preamble (general welfare, etc.), the rule of law, egalitarianism, church-state separation (secular government), guaranteed personal liberties such as freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial, justice, and the like.

    Republicans spit in the face of all of that, subverting democratic elections, opaque government, disinterest in the welfare of the typical citizen, uninterested in obeying the law or applying it fairly, promoting inequality and white privilege, happy to inject religion into government, and no interest in fair trials or the rights of anybody but themselves. Sorry, but that's not American. It's the antithesis of American.

    And so many people are so slow in seeing that.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  6. Ponder This

    Ponder This Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,625
    Ratings:
    +467
    McConnell says Biden hasn't spoken to him since he took office

    Maybe Biden doesn't regard McConnell as an American. Biden said he was a going to be a President for all Americans, but it sounds like you are saying that Republicans are not American.
     
  7. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    34,146
    Ratings:
    +14,312
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    I never believed in that facade from Biden. Once 'President' Harris was selected, I knew it was game over.
     
  8. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,998
    Ratings:
    +6,606
    Religion:
    None
    What I said is that the Republican party is un-American ideologically, but of course, those that have American passports (all of them), are American in a technical sense.

    Do you disagree? If so, why? At what point is one so far rightwing that he fell of the tip of the American bird. How could the Republicans be any less interested in Americanism as I defined it? In what way are they opposed to America's enemies like Putin?

    I make this argument a bit here and elsewhere, but get almost no feedback, certainly no rebuttal. It's very disappointing, as if it wouldn't matter either way to most posters, or they don't understand what is claimed.

    Would you or anybody else on RF be interested in rebutting the argument? Tell me where you think I'm wrong, or if you find no fault with the argument and its conclusion, that you agree.
     
    #8 It Aint Necessarily So, Apr 16, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Suave

    Suave Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2020
    Messages:
    449
    Ratings:
    +272
    Instead of going to the border for a photo op, our V. P. Is going to the source of our hemisphere's migration challenge. V.P. Harris will visit Guatemala where she will set up conditional cash transfers (edited) * to Guatemalans as an incentive for them to safely remain in their native homeland.*
     
    #9 Suave, Apr 16, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue The gentle embrace of twilight has become my guide

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    34,146
    Ratings:
    +14,312
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    But....

    Not today! Baw!! Hahahaha!!
     
  11. Suave

    Suave Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2020
    Messages:
    449
    Ratings:
    +272
    What Republicans can do now is support U.S.foreign aid going to young unemployed Guatemalans who would then might be able to remain in their native homeland rather than having to migrate in order to have a chance of survival.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Ponder This

    Ponder This Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,625
    Ratings:
    +467
    I'm not a Republican, so I might not be able to provide you with the rebuttals for your claims that you desire but... sure! Why not?

    It looks like we agree that there is little interest on the left to talk with the right. Freedom of Speech and expressing opinions is an American value. Censorship (of right-leaning views, for example) is un-American.

    I wouldn't necessarily go that far as a criticism of the left. I think Pelosi is someone who is at least willing to sit down and talk even if she disagrees and condemns the Republican point of view. So while Biden-Harris might be doing nothing to pursue, not all Democrats are as bad as Biden-Harris. Pelosi would probably be a much better President.

    Democracy is certainly a value of Republicans and the right. It seems that when Republicans suspect elections have been conducted unfairly, they get very angry about it. Yet, despite irregularities, the result of the election has been accepted by Republicans. It's not clear that Democrats actually care about fair elections. For example, Chain of Custody is missing for over 400,000 thousand votes in the Georgia Presidential Election, but that doesn't seem to bother Democrats and Democrats aren't doing anything about it.
    Transparent government is not something I would ascribe to Republicans prior to Trump. Bush seemed more supportive of secretive covert actions. Trump was very public all the time and would release transcripts of his calls, without it being requested to do so, when there was a question about impropriety. Biden actually tried his best to stonewall media coverage of the border crisis. So Biden gets an F on transparency. The massive bills with only a tertiary relationship to the things they are named for is a failure of transparency on the part of Democrats.
    It seems like the Preamble is important to people on the left and the right. Republicans respected Unity, Democrats are ignoring Republicans. Democrats are actually debating Court Packing! Leftist riots have caused massive destruction of property and the disturbance of Domestic Tranquility. Trump was strong on Common Defense; Biden has been weak on defending the border. General Welfare was furthered by Trump's Warp Speed for vaccines; Biden pushed hard on mask wearing. Democrats used "Covid Relief" and "Infrastructure" as a smokescreen for other agendas. So... actually, it looks like the Preamble, on the whole, is more important to Republicans, than it is to Democrats. If you have something specific in mind that relates to the Preamble, please share!
    Rule of Law seems very important to Republicans. Biden seems to not to want riots, but doesn't seem to mind releasing illegal immigrants into the population.
    Egalitarianism can be American. It can also be un-American. So you'll have to describe what you mean.
    Church-State separation is important to everyone. So if you think otherwise, you'll have to explain.
    Freedom of Expression: as I said before, is clearly a value of the right, but not so clearly valued by the left. Democrats actually encouraged CEOs of social platform corporations to do more censorship when they called them in for questioning.
    If you think anyone is not receiving a fair trial, then you'll have to explain who and why. It doesn't seem like anyone on the left or right wants an unfair trial. Well, there was that whole business about the Democrats manufacturing impeachments against Trump, etc. So I suppose Democrats get an F for their handling of the fairness of trials.

    It looks like Republicans might actually be more "American" than Democrats.

    Can you explain your assertions? Examples might be a good place to start. A good argument is not just you asserting something is true. A good argument involves you providing some support for your assertions. If I just look at your assertions, they seem, as a whole, not true and they are very provocative claims. So you really do need to put some meat on the bones of your assertions.

    Well... yeah. Because you need to put forth a substantial argument. No substance means there is nothing to argue with you about. People will just think you are caught up in some sort of ideological propaganda if you only talk in generalized absolutes.
     
  13. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    48,757
    Ratings:
    +13,054
    Best thing for Republicans to do is pull their heads out their backsides.
    Of course, there is no telling how long they will nurse their butthurt over losing the Presidency.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  14. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,998
    Ratings:
    +6,606
    Religion:
    None
    But ignoring people is not censoring them. Let them talk. To each other. I don't think too many Americans understand what censorship or free speech are.

    These were my words:

    "Nobody on the left seems to care what Republicans want of Harris or any other Democrat. Nobody on the left cares what they recommend about vaccines or masks, or what people like Jordan and Paul have to say to Fauci, especially Fauci. Nobody on the left cares what Cruz and Abbott think about the border. Nobody on the left cares what Graham predicts will happen in Afghanistan after withdrawal. Nobody on the left cares what the Republicans consider COVID relief or infrastructure. Nobody on the left wants to hear what Marjorie Taylor Greene wants to say to AOC in a debate about the New Green Deal. Nobody on the left is buying that Jim Crow legislation is about election integrity. Nobody on the left cares how much Cornyn wants Biden to Tweet or go on cable TV. Nobody on the left cares what Republicans predict that raising corporate taxes will do. And on it goes. All being ignored. All have excluded themselves from the conversation with their intransigence, antidemocratic actions, malice, indifference to ordinary people, and complete lack of constructive ideas or civility."

    That is not advocating for censorship.

    Furthermore, individual citizens and private institutions don't owe anybody a platform, and are free to silence unwanted speech by any legal means, which is just about anything short of murder or abduction. Nobody has freedom of speech with me against my will. I'll only hear them if I'm interested.

    Except for the 139 of 212 House Republican that refused to certify the Electoral College vote, and the legislatures and governors of the states such as Georgia that are clamoring for election security absent evidence of substantial election fraud immediately after an election that was famously declared stolen. Were you aware of that, and if so, how do you reconcile that with your claim?

    As I've been alluding, you and I don't have much of our belief sets in common. I have a completely different read on what is motivating the Republicans, and it wasn't election fraud. It is that too many working people are voting against them, and they need to impede voting in people that work 9-5 M-F. I realize that you don't agree, but we've hit an impasse here.

    Is that what the insurrection and attempted coup was about? Democracy as a value?

    Is that what voter suppression is about, promoting democracy?

    Once again, it appears we don't have enough common ground to have a productive discussion of these things. There needs to be shared values and beliefs (shared premises) as a starting point. How far back do we need to go to find common ground? That we both want what we want? That we both have opinions, albeit contradictory ones? That murder is bad? That's not enough. That's too far back to get to either of our positions on anything.

    Not to somebody who is so far from my view. Recently, I commented that I thought that Trump was likely guilty of many crimes, and he asked me why I thought that. Really? In 2021 he didn't know the answer to that? It means that he simply isn't processing evidence as I do if he's missing it all (psychologists call it a confirmation bias - seeing only what you want to see and nothing contradictory to it). When dealing with a confirmation bias, there is no point proceeding. The person is telling you that they do not think critically, that is, the do not use reason properly applied to relevant evidence to decide what is true about the world, and since I have nothin else to offer, what's the point?

    Or the believer who want to know where the Bible contradicts itself, or how it is in conflict with science. Again, what's the point of answering. There is no chance that such a person will be influenced by demonstrations of contradictions in scripture or errors in the creation story, so the only reason to answer is the possibility that others who do use evidence and argument to determine what is likely the case might benefit.

    The thing with dialectic, or the cooperative effort of two critical thinkers to determine where they disagree, why, and if it is over a matter of fact rather than an opinion like a value, they can go back to their shared premises and work forward until they find where they parted ways, and since each is able to understand and be convinced by a compelling answer, they can resolve their difference, one being educated in the process.

    And if the difference is at the level of values, say whether abortion should be legal or not, they can still come to agreement at the level of, "If I believed what you do about the moral status of abortion, I would be forced to come to the same conclusion you did, and vice versa."

    But that doesn't happen unless both participants agree that this is the way to settle differences. If critical thinking and cooperation aren't skills brought to the process, there is no dialectic, no agreement, and no changing minds.

    Do you really think that democracy is a Republican value despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary? Do you just not see it? I gave you a long list of what I consider core beliefs of Americanism, and the ways I though the Republicans spat in the face of them all, including democracy, the only one you addressed.

    Anyway, thanks for your good cheer and sincerity, but I'd need to repeat the events of the last several years to make my case, and they had little impact on you when they happened, so I wouldn't expect my words to be of any value to you, nor yours to me, so lets save some time and wasted effort and just agree to disagree.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Ponder This

    Ponder This Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,625
    Ratings:
    +467
    Your Claim???: the left should ignore the people because: "intransigence, antidemocratic actions, malice, indifference to ordinary people, and complete lack of constructive ideas or civility".

    Intransigence means "refusal to change one's views or to agree about something": Not a good reason.
    Antidemocratic actions: Such as?
    Malice: Who is intending malice and what is being intended?
    Indifference to ordinary people: Such as... ignoring people - the very thing you advocate people on the left do?
    Complete Lack of Constructive Ideas: There are a lot of ideas... but ignoring and not caring about people is not the way to hear those ideas.
    Complete Lack of Civility: Who is it that completely lacks civility?

    It's important to hear if Harris gets called out for not doing anything constructive.
    YouTube censored a discussion with experts on masks. Do you agree with YouTube's (?legal?) decision to remove this content?
    What do you mean "people like"? Fauci was called before the House of Representatives and listened to what Jordan had to say (the right thing to do). Why do you think it's better if Fauci ignores Jordan?
    Cruz is a Texas senator. Abbott is the Governor of Texas. Texas is on the border. Why ignore them?
    Graham is a senator; Troops in Afghanistan is an important issue. Covid Relief and Infrastructure are important. Marjorie Taylor Greene and AOC are representatives; the Green New Deal is a big deal. Election Integrity is important. Why ignore these?
    Cornyn is a senator. I agree it's not important that Biden tweet a lot. It is significant that Biden lacks transparency, which he campaigned about.

    I reconcile that with the fact that Biden is President of the United States. I trust that you are aware that just because the vote was not unanimous doesn't mean that result has not since been accepted.
    Why do Democrats not care about election integrity? Evidence of substantial election fraud isn't necessary before improving election integrity.

    Exit Polls...
    National Exit Polls: How Different Groups Voted
    Do you work full-time for pay?
    Yes: 58% of voters 51% Trump 47% Biden
    No: 42% of voters 42% Trump 57% Biden

    Republicans have an incentive to help working people vote; Democrats have an incentive to impede working people from voting. What reason do you have that Republicans don't want working people to vote? I understand if you are relying on a hunch (in which case, we are indeed at an impasse).

    If you had the opportunity to interrogate those present at the capitol, what would they say?
    A. We value Democracy
    B. We do not value Democracy.​
    I think they would say that they value Democracy. Do you disagree?

    We can dig a little deeper if you like. What do you think Republicans say about the capitol riots?
    A. The invasion of the capital was a good thing.
    B. The invasion of the capitol was a bad thing.​
    I think they have already said it was a bad thing. They don't support it. Do you disagree?

    So that leaves Trump. Do you believe Trump wanted the people to invade the capitol building? I don't. Do you disagree?

    Voter suppression such as...?

    Are you giving up on trying to find common ground?

    I might call your refusal to change your view or agree about something "intransigence". Do you think that would be a good reason for others to ignore you?

    If you have "nothin else to offer", why invite other people to rebut your arguments?

    I agree that debate most often does not change minds. I still like to debate sometimes.

    I agree that finding common ground is important. I disagree that they will always be able to resolve their difference of opinion.

    Something like that, but I don't believe the conclusions are "forced", merely compelling.

    Practically speaking, it takes real world experience to change minds - not just some talk on an internet forum.

    Yes, I think most people in the U.S. value democracy, both Republicans and Democrats. The "mountain of evidence" is something you seem loathe to impart. No, I don't "just see it".

    You claim this long list of ways in which you thought the Republicans spat in the face of Americanism, but when I press you on them, you write about how you can't be bothered to explain. What can I conclude? I certainly haven't shirked from going line by line through your remarks.
     
  16. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,998
    Ratings:
    +6,606
    Religion:
    None
    Thanks for your sincerity and effort, but as I said, we don't have enough in common to have this discussion constructively.

    There are people that have decided to believe something untrue by faith, and have acquired a faith-based confirmation bias. These people are recognized by their comments and questions. They are so far from where critical thinkers are that there is no place to begin a discussion. If you have to ask what I mean by antidemocratic actions from the Republicans and their enablers at this point in time, it means that you can't see the evidence, not that none is available to you. I can't make you see it, and I really have no need to so if I could.

    I have no burden of proof here because I am not trying to convince you. I was stating my beliefs to see if we could find common ground. We didn't, not enough to have a constructive discussion, and so I say we just leave it as it is with no common ground or shared beliefs.

    But when our disagreements are so fundamental that you have to ask for examples of antidemocratic tendencies, malice, and incivility from the right, I realize that we can make no progress. If the differences in opinion were one or two facts, and we were both critical thinkers, then yes, through dialectic we could resolve our differences. But that's not going to happen. Our differences are multiple and high-level - at the level of world view, not detail. My experience tells me that there is no future in proceeding given that chasm between us.

    And the gap between the American left and right is just as gaping, making communication across it just as impossible for the same reasons - lack of common values, beliefs, vision, and agenda. Look at what happens whenever the two are in conversation - nothin constructive. It's always an utter waste of time to talk to the right, whether than be their elected officials or Republican voters. That is why I have given up and advise others to do the same, although I think that neither Biden nor the rest of the Democrats need to be told that. They already seem to be ignoring the right except to tell them that if they ever want to become Americans ideologically again, they are welcome to a seat at the table and a voice in the discussion, but as they present themselves now, they are simply to be disregarded and viewed as having nothing to contribute. That's not surprising given how far from the left they are and what their vision and agenda are.

    But back to you and me, if you want to try to find common ground, please do. If you post something that we agree on, I'll tell you, and perhaps we can start from there.

    But just to throw you a bone and see what becomes of it, antidemocratic efforts from the left include undermining confidence in democracy by calling fair elections fixed without good evidence, attempting to overturn a fair election with a failed coup attempt, conspiring with the Russians to influence American elections, and voter suppression legislation such as we saw from Georgia. Gerrymandering is an old example. I was purged from the voting rolls twice (registered Democratic in a very red part of a red state surrounded by eight other red states, wasn't even aware that such things happened then).

    Did I really need to tell you that? How come you don't already know that, or see it that way? But the fact that I did tells me that this is a dead end for us both. You likely believe that none of those things happened, or that I misunderstood their significance. As I said, there is too much gulf between us to expect to ever bridge it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Ponder This

    Ponder This Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,625
    Ratings:
    +467
    You are quite verbose about your lack of desire to articulate and support your claims. Perhaps that is why you have failed to have meaningful conversations with all the other people you say you've discussed with.
    There are plenty of irregularities with the recent elections. It is not "antidemocratic" to address voting irregularities (anymore than it was for Democrats to seek remedy for voting irregularities in past elections). Has your confidence in democracy been undermined? Ignoring people is not a path that sustains confidence.
    I agree that attempting to overturn a fair democratic election with a coup attempt is antidemocratic (?common ground?). The right has been supportive of finding people involved in sedition from Jan 6. I don't see why you choose to ignore that.
    In the other direction, a great effort was made by the left to remove a duly elected president (Trump) after he won the 2016 election.
    Let me know when have some evidence to support your conspiracy theory, preferably some evidence that has not been rejected after a thorough review and a failed impeachment trial.
    Are you able to articulate how the legislation suppresses votes? I suspect that you cannot. You already made a claim about Republican motivations that I was able to easily counter with a simple google search for exit poll data.
    Would you agree that claiming gerrymandering when there wasn't would be an example of undermining confidence in democracy by calling elections fixed without good evidence?
    It's not difficult to find examples of districts redrawn by Republicans or Democrats that favored the corresponding party, but that alone does not suffice. Do you have good evidence?
    Interesting anecdote. Voter lists have to be maintained by federal law and that means purges have to happen - something you admit you were unaware of. And you are suggesting that because you happen to live in a predominantly Republican area, registered Democrat, and have been purged twice that means you were deliberately targeted because of your party affiliation. That can't be your whole story - or rather if that is your entire story, then it is insufficient and would reflect poorly on you.
    Yes, you really do have to tell all that, as much as I would love to read your mind and tell what you are thinking without being told. You ought to say more than you have, because you have claims that aren't sufficiently supported. But even if we were to accept that the right is antidemocratic and that the left is not antidemocratic at the same time, it still wouldn't be sufficient grounds to ignore the right anymore than it would be sufficient grounds to ignore the left, because there are still other issues to discuss. For example, the crisis at the border and Harris' lack of a response is the topic of this thread! Harris' failure to visit the border suggests that she (and by proxy the left) is ignoring it. But the border is not an issue that should be ignored simply because you believe the right is antidemocratic.
     
  18. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,998
    Ratings:
    +6,606
    Religion:
    None
    Sorry, but I already explained that I am out of the business of trying to convince people seeing the world through a confirmation of anything. As I said, our perspective on these matters is so far apart that there is no hope of my making an impact. It's not just that we believe different things. If that was our only difference, we could resolve our differences through dialectic. But it's not just what you believe that is so far from what I believe, it's the way you go about evaluating evidence. You just don't see it, or you make no effort to find it.

    And I don't know hw to tell you these things without offending you, so I'll say what have carefully considered, sincerely believe, and offer constructively even if it's unflattering to you. I'll trust you to understand that this is how I feel and why I have given up trying to convince people of anything when we start so far apart. There is no burden of proof if either you don't feel that the other person can impartially consider an argument and evidence, and be convinced by a compelling argument. Also, when you aren't trying to change minds, but simply informing others of your beliefs and opinions.

    Thorough review? Are you referring to the congressional committees that wouldn't let Democrats call witnesses or participate in writing the committees' reports. Or the heavily redacted Mueller Report. I also place no value in the Republican's failure to convict Trump. This is just another example of how we're a universe apart.

    Regarding Russian interference in the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, all one need to ask is whether there a will to tamper with the election and the means. If the answer to both questions is yes, then it happened. Will the dog eat the steak you left on the table unattended? Question one: Does he want to? Question two: If so, can he get it it? If the answer to each is yes, your steak is gone. It's really that simple. So yes, the Russians tampered with both elections to the fullest extent possible.

    Are you unaware of the recent developments with the Russians and Biden's sanctions of them? Have you not heard about Manafort giving election intelligence to Kilimnik in 2016 as Trump's campaign manager? Will this matter to you at all?
    Treasury Escalates Sanctions Against the Russian Government’s Attempts to Influence U.S. Elections | U.S. Department of the Treasury

    You'd be wrong. Pointless, but here I go again. Why don't you know these things? Answer that for yourself. Why do I know this and you don't? How have you missed all of this? One answer - confirmation bias. You see what you want to.

    Here's some more news you missed. Just let me say once more that it's not that I can't defend my opinions, I just understand that there is no value in doing so with somebody whose thinking is so far from my own for reasons already given and already confirmed in this discussion.

    Anyway, I don't expect the following to have any impact on your opinions about this matter. I just wanted to show you and anybody reading along that I can do this all day with any number of issues that we disagree about, but I consider it an exercise in futility. I also don't try to convince creationists, flat earthers, or climate deniers of anything for the same reason. They're all worlds from me, faith-based thinkers, and filtering evidence through a confirmation bias rather than using it to reach sound conclusions.

    The people I can reach, the ones who decide what is true about the world using valid reasoning applied to relevant evidence, which is all I have to offer to prove anything, largely agree with me except for a point or two, which we can resolve through dialectic if we are both critical thinkers, whether that is about politics, religion, or any other topic. But not when we begin in different universes.

    Anyway, here's your answer. I'll leave it to you to decide why these provisions are thought to be intended to suppress the votes of people that vote against Republicans:

    "John Kennedy (R-La.), for example, apparently thought he could trip up Abrams with a question about her own state's new voter-suppression law. "Tell me specifically," the far-right Louisianan said, "just give me a list of the provisions that you object to."

    So, she did:
    "It shortens the federal runoff period from nine weeks to four weeks. It restricts the time a voter can request and return an absentee ballot application. It requires that voters have a photo identification or some other form of identification that they are willing to surrender in order to participate in the absentee ballot process."

    Apparently underwhelmed, the Louisiana Republican asked, "What else?" At which point, Abrams returned to her indictment of the Georgia law:

    "It eliminates over 300 hours of drop box availability. It bans nearly all out-of-precinct votes, meaning that if you get to a precinct and you are in line for four hours and you get to the end of the line and you are not there between 5 and 7 p.m., you have to start all over again."

    Kennedy, who initiated this line of questioning, responded, "Is that everything?" As it turned out, no, it wasn't everything. Abrams added:

    "It restricts the hours of operation because it now, under the guise of setting a standardized timeline, it makes it optional for counties that may not want to see expanded access to the right to vote. They can now limit their hours. Instead of those hours being from 7 to 7, they're now from 9 to 5, which may have an effect on voters who cannot vote during business hours during early voting. It limits the voting hours..."

    Kennedy, interrupting once more, effectively cried uncle. "I get the idea," the senator said. "I get the idea."

     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Ponder This

    Ponder This Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    Messages:
    1,625
    Ratings:
    +467
    I place value on the Democrat's failure... to provide convincing evidence or argument. After three years of investigation, they failed. Why are you unable to accept that? Apparently... you believe that there is some hidden fact in the redactions of Mueller's report? Or some key witness who never came forward? Possible, I suppose, but it's too great a stretch for me to simply agree must be the case.

    We both agree Russia tried to interfere. Republicans also agree. Russia and many other countries are believed to regularly try to interfere with U.S. elections. It wasn't shown to be a conspiracy with Trump.

    I am aware. I also haven't seen any Republicans, or Trump, or others on the right weigh in yet, and I would like to see what their response is before I draw a conclusion. Oh, but you're ignoring them, aren't you? Why do you think it is American to only listen to one side?

    I see that you have a very difficult time with people who don't already implicitly agree with you.

    What is your reasoning that the legislation is intended to suppress the votes of people that vote against Republicans? The list you provided, ironically, does not explain that. Instead you seem to keep asking me to connect the dots as if I knew what you were thinking or as if I were some sort of QAnon follower who reads bits and pieces of partially true information and feels smart by imagining some deeper conspiracy.

    FYI: The exchange between Sen. John Kennedy and Stacy Abrams took place at a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Voting Rights. Warning: it is about 4 hours long and it includes people on both the left and the right... talking. You might have to listen to both sides and that would go against your own suggestion to ignore what Republicans and people on the right say.

    And that's the point: even if you disagree with everything the right says, ignoring what they have to say and only listening to what other people on "your side" say is itself antidemocratic.
     
  20. tytlyf

    tytlyf The Mind Eye

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    10,430
    Ratings:
    +3,257
    For the record, the Republican party is about corporate, capitalist and elitist policy. There are no working class policies in the Republican party.
    I don't particularly care what Republicans have to say because their agenda doesn't relate to me.
    I can listen all I want, I hear the same tired corporate talking points and fear mongering.
    I think it's safe to say if you're not in the top 1%, feel free to dismiss everything Republicans have to say.
    Additionally, the only reason poor Americans vote Republican is because they're scared into it.
    It's not the phony policies. Heck, the Republican base isn't aware of Republican policies.
     
Loading...