MAGAs Trying to Storm the Capitol

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

We’ve had this conversation before, it’s good to know we can disagree.

We've had the conversation about the current validity of the electoral college in a modern society.  We can agree to disagree on that it's all good.

But that's very different from the incredibly innacurrate historical take you just put out there regarding the reasons for the formation of the EC.

[I_M4_AU 7,992]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

We've had the conversation about the current validity of the electoral college in a modern society.  We can agree to disagree on that it's all good.

But that's very different from the incredibly innacurrate historical take you just put out there regarding the reasons for the formation of the EC.

Are talking about Howard Zinn’s revisionist history or the CRT version?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Are talking about Howard Zinn’s revisionist history or the CRT version?

What revisionist history?  The EC was built largely to placate Southern slave states due to 40% of the population being Black and thus not allowed to vote.

[caleb1633 1,418]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Examples?

Sure, here's some examples where Party leaders have either encouraged, or been passive to violence by the radical left.

 

Andrew Cuomo: "Who says protests are supposed to be peaceful and polite?" https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/06/04/cnns_chris_cuomo_who_says_protests_are_supposed.html

 

Kamala Harris on June 1, 2020: "If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota." As Minneapolis was up in flames and people were being arrested for vandalism and other acts of violence.

 

Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley: On August 22, 2020 called for "unrest in the streets."

 

Joe Biden: Denies that Antifa is anything more than an idea, when they in fact held near-nightly riots for over 100 days in Portland.

 

On July 27, the Washington Times reports: "Rep. Jerrold Nadler declared Sunday it’s a “myth” that Antifa provocateurs are behind the ongoing violent protests in Portland, Oregon."

 

Mayor Ted Wheeler in Portland has stood by, mostly idly, while Rioters run amok.

 

June 25, 2018: Rep. Maxine Waters says, regarding members of Trump's cabinet, "Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

 

In fairness, there have been plenty of instances, particularly by President-elect Biden, where Party leaders have condemned the violence, but there are definitely plenty of those who have either fanned the fire or continued to let it burn.

[I_M4_AU 7,992]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

What revisionist history?  The EC was built largely to placate Southern slave states due to 40% of the population being Black and thus not allowed to vote.

The original purpose of the EC was as I stated and when the Southern slave states pushed back the 3/5 Compromise was agreed upon.  Slavery was not the driving factor, but a by product.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention addressed the apportionment in the House of Representatives and the number of electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections based on a state’s population. The Southern states wanted to count the entire slave population. This would increase their number of members of Congress. The Northern delegates and others opposed to slavery wanted to count only free persons, including free blacks in the North and South.

Using the logic of the promoters of the “three-fifths of a person” interpretation, think of the constitutional ramification had the position of the Northern states and abolitionists prevailed. The three-fifths clause would have been omitted and possibly replaced with wording that stated “other Persons” would not be counted for apportionment. The Constitution, then, would be proclaiming slaves were not human at all (zero-fifths). This is an illogical conclusion and was certainly not the position of Northern delegates and abolitionists.

Counting the whole number of slaves benefited the Southern states and reinforced the institution of slavery. Minimizing the percentage of the slave population counted for apportionment reduced the political power of slaveholding states.

https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/understanding-the-three-fifths-compromise/

If, in fact, the EC was to placate the Southern states; why did it survive through the sixties?  If the EC is abolished we become mob rule, which ok if you’re part of the mob, but you will not always be in the mob that rules.

[caleb1633 1,418]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Examples?

Also, the mayor of Seattle let CHAZ takeover continue and even said, "It could be our summer of love!"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/we-could-have-the-summer-of-love-seattle-mayor-says-she-doesnt-know-when-chaz-occupation-will-conclude%3f_amp=true

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

18 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The original purpose of the EC was as I stated and when the Southern slave states pushed back the 3/5 Compromise was agreed upon.  Slavery was not the driving factor, but a by product.

The 1787 Constitutional Convention addressed the apportionment in the House of Representatives and the number of electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections based on a state’s population. The Southern states wanted to count the entire slave population. This would increase their number of members of Congress. The Northern delegates and others opposed to slavery wanted to count only free persons, including free blacks in the North and South.

Using the logic of the promoters of the “three-fifths of a person” interpretation, think of the constitutional ramification had the position of the Northern states and abolitionists prevailed. The three-fifths clause would have been omitted and possibly replaced with wording that stated “other Persons” would not be counted for apportionment. The Constitution, then, would be proclaiming slaves were not human at all (zero-fifths). This is an illogical conclusion and was certainly not the position of Northern delegates and abolitionists.

Counting the whole number of slaves benefited the Southern states and reinforced the institution of slavery. Minimizing the percentage of the slave population counted for apportionment reduced the political power of slaveholding states.

https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/understanding-the-three-fifths-compromise/

If, in fact, the EC was to placate the Southern states; why did it survive through the sixties?  If the EC is abolished we become mob rule, which ok if you’re part of the mob, but you will not always be in the mob that rules.

1) It survived through the sixties because it's already codified in the Constitution.  Nearly impossible to change at that point.

2) The idea that mob rule takes over is ridiculous.  We aren't a monarchy.  Even with the abolition of the EC, you still have the House, Senate, and Judiciary as checks and balances.  None of that changes.  Your argument is one that would inherently require all power to be in the Executive.

[I_M4_AU 7,992]

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Your argument is one that would inherently require all power to be in the Executive.

Increasingly the Executive Branch has used Executive Orders.  It’s extreme, but it could happen.

[AUDub 11,184]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

If, in fact, the EC was to placate the Southern states; why did it survive through the sixties?  If the EC is abolished we become mob rule, which ok if you’re part of the mob, but you will not always be in the mob that rules.

Hagiography, appeals to tradition and the parties that benefitted at the time resisting the change.

And no we don't become "mob rule." Hell, that's not the reasoning the founders implemented the EC at all. Smaller states' representation (and inherent advantage) in Congress, a co-equal branch of government, particularly the Senate, would remain.

It was all about finding a compromise to hold the tenuously nascent union together, so they cobbled one together on short notice. 

[AUDub 11,184]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Examples?

Don't bother. He's fashioning an equivalent boogie man to try and soften the blow of armed people storming the capitol with makeshift handcuffs, guns and a list of names they planned to 86 at the discretion of our current idiot in chief. 

Oh, and don't forget the pipe bombs and molotov cocktails. 

[I_M4_AU 7,992]

7 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Hagiography, appeals to tradition and the parties that benefitted at the time resisting the change.

And no we don't become "mob rule." Hell, that's not the reasoning the founders implemented the EC at all. Smaller states' representation (and inherent advantage) in Congress, a co-equal branch of government, particularly the Senate, would remain.

It was all about finding a compromise to hold the tenuously nascent union together, so they cobbled one together on short notice. 

Holding the union together was a major focus of the founding fathers and yes, the EC was hastily put together and probably wouldn’t have been constructed the way is was in today’s world.  To abolish it would be a mistake, to amend it could be something to look at, but how would be the question.

[caleb1633 1,418]

22 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Don't bother. He's fashioning an equivalent boogie man to try and soften the blow of armed people storming the capitol with makeshift handcuffs, guns and a list of names they planned to 86 at the discretion of our current idiot in chief. 

Oh, and don't forget the pipe bombs and molotov cocktails. 

Still going with that strawman argument huh? Perhaps I'm trying to say that if we're going to live in a Republic together, political violence of any kind is BAD.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Holding the union together was a major focus of the founding fathers and yes, the EC was hastily put together and probably wouldn’t have been constructed the way is was in today’s world.  To abolish it would be a mistake, to amend it could be something to look at, but how would be the question.

1 EC distributed for the winner of each district and 2 for the winner of the overall state total.  Basically, the way Maine and Nebraska does it.  Would likely need to create non-partisan commissions to create districts to make it work.

You would actually see some competitive districts in otherwise non-swing states start to get attention (see: Omaha).  Quick back of the napkin math also shows that the EC count would have been more representative as Biden would have won 270-285 ECs.  He still wins, but the count would more accurately reflect how close the win was nationally in places like GA and AZ.

Same would have been true in 2016.  Trump wins, but the EC is more reflective of the will of the people.

[aubearcat 2,138]

This is an interesting article 

[caleb1633 1,418]

35 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

This is an interesting article 

Perhaps there's a simpler explanation.

Per MPR News:

"Three days before supporters of President Donald Trump rioted at the Capitol, the Pentagon asked the U.S Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower. And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. The police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter.

Despite plenty of warnings of a possible insurrection and ample resources and time to prepare, the Capitol Police planned only for a free speech demonstration.

Still stinging from the uproar over the violent response by law enforcement to protests last June near the White House, officials also were intent on avoiding any appearance that the federal government was deploying active duty or National Guard troops against Americans."

 

Side note: I will also say that Trump supporters are typically incredibly supportive of law enforcement, so that could have hypothetically played a factor in the tepid response. Whether or not that's the case, they were woefully unprepared for that s*** show.

[homersapien 11,447]

8 hours ago, caleb1633 said:

Sure, here's some examples where Party leaders have either encouraged, or been passive to violence by the radical left.

 

Andrew Cuomo: "Who says protests are supposed to be peaceful and polite?" https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/06/04/cnns_chris_cuomo_who_says_protests_are_supposed.html

I agree with you here - that's one.

 

Kamala Harris on June 1, 2020: "If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota." As Minneapolis was up in flames and people were being arrested for vandalism and other acts of violence.

I have no problem with providing bail for people who can't afford it.  Being arresting does not mean you are necessarily guilty - especially if you are black.

 

Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley: On August 22, 2020 called for "unrest in the streets."

Well what exactly did she mean by "unrest"?   Many would describe massive public protest as "unrest".

 

Joe Biden: Denies that Antifa is anything more than an idea, when they in fact held near-nightly riots for over 100 days in Portland.

SOMEONE promoted riots in Portland for a long time. 

But I don't think Biden was challenging that fact.  He may have been challenging the myth of a highly organized (liberal) terrorist group as the primary reason for riots that started from legitimate protests.  It doesn't take more than a handfull of anarchists or opportunistic criminals to start a riot given the right atmosphere which is exactly what historically happens when inflammatory events happen.

On July 27, the Washington Times reports: "Rep. Jerrold Nadler declared Sunday it’s a “myth” that Antifa provocateurs are behind the ongoing violent protests in Portland, Oregon."

See above.

 

Mayor Ted Wheeler in Portland has stood by, mostly idly, while Rioters run amok.

Bad on him. He'll probably be run out of office.  But I wouldn't say he is representative of Democratic philosophical policy in general. 

Democrats value law and order as much as anyone.  They don't repeatedly claim that a given election was fraudulent for months after the legal certification.  Nor do they incite their followers to violently invade the capitol to reverse a given election (well excepting the election of 1860 ) 

June 25, 2018: Rep. Maxine Waters says, regarding members of Trump's cabinet, "Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere."

OK you got me there also.  That approaches Trump's implying there might be a "Second amendment" solution to the Election of Hillary Clinton.

Lucky Maxine doesn't have millions of Democratic acolytes, huh?

In fairness, there have been plenty of instances, particularly by President-elect Biden, where Party leaders have condemned the violence, but there are definitely plenty of those who have either fanned the fire or continued to let it burn.

You mean Democrats?  What is the "fire" they are fanning?

 

[AUDub 11,184]

Holy s*** antifash Twitter found ziptie guy.

His Facebook was loaded with Tucker Carlson before he locked it down.

Anyone who wants his name DM me.

[autigeremt 6,696]

On 1/7/2021 at 9:25 PM, AUDub said:

And here we have it. EMT is a culture warrior, not an unbiased observer at all. 

Hence the laugh but whatever 🙄

[AUDub 11,184]

Just now, autigeremt said:

Hence the laugh but whatever 🙄

"Both sides would have found it funny, Dub!"

[homersapien 11,447]

10 hours ago, caleb1633 said:

Also, the mayor of Seattle let CHAZ takeover continue and even said, "It could be our summer of love!"

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/we-could-have-the-summer-of-love-seattle-mayor-says-she-doesnt-know-when-chaz-occupation-will-conclude%3f_amp=true

Yeah I saw that.

(But I wouldn't characterize it as a call to riot.)

[homersapien 11,447]

Most ironic sign carried by a MAGA rioter while trying to use the federal government to overturn the electoral decisions made by the individual states:

"A Republic if You Can Keep it"

[CleCoTiger 1,957]

11 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Are talking about Howard Zinn’s revisionist history or the CRT version?

Zinn's history was not "revisionist." His "A People's History of the United States" was history from the viewpoint of those on the other side of our "victories." Take the Trail of Tears for example...

[Strychnine 1,804]

7 minutes ago, CleCoTiger said:

Zinn's history was not "revisionist." His "A People's History of the United States" was history from the viewpoint of those on the other side of our "victories." Take the Trail of Tears for example...

 

Sometimes I wonder if that was actually the source of "fake news", then I realize it's a book, so it was obviously never read.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,368]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Holy s*** antifash Twitter found ziptie guy.

His Facebook was loaded with Tucker Carlson before he locked it down.

Anyone who wants his name DM me.

It’s on Reddit now, so I figure this is fine:

 

[AUDub 11,184]

1 minute ago, ShocksMyBrain said:

It’s on Reddit now, so I figure this is fine:

 

I was lucky to catch his Facebook before he balleeted it lol. So much Tucker Carlson.