4 ms·

No, it can't, because at this point, each considers the most minor breach by their enemy to be worthy of instant eradication, but considers even the most blatan

No, it can't, because at this point, each considers the most minor breach by their enemy to be worthy of instant eradication, but considers even the most blatant and heinous act of their ally to be utterly beyond reproach or consideration. There is no such thing as law, there is only whether the people who control the law-machine are on your side or the opposing side in the war.

ggm 4y ago
Can you give some each side examples? I am obviously partisan, I want to understand what things done by "my side" are seen as having equivalence to ones done by the other side. Gerrymander might be an example. I'm pretty sure both major parties exploit it shamelessly.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  Democrats (I’m assuming that’s your party) see any social policy they really like in any and all Constitutions - regardless of actual wording. That removes issues from voters and places it in the hands of sympathetic elites. No other country does this. The Republicans do it for some issues, but not nearly on the scale of Democrats - and usually because something in the Constitution is pretty direct. Leftists promoted the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s - only to find that it’s all contained in the 14th amendment, and not really necessary. After Roe was overturned, lawyers in every state have argued that the state constitution protects abortion, even in states whose constitutions explicitly say “abortion is not protected.” Democrats regularly see most good things as “beyond politics” (some exceptions) while Republicans reject court control of most good things (some exceptions, too).
  - ggm 4y ago
    I'm not seeing this as a compelling narrative basically. Its disconnected statements each of which are contestable. The point about the ERA seems to be in a different spectrum. Are you seriously proposing that it should be rolled back, and thats an always-been-true article of faith in right wing politics, or is this the "states should decide" thing, and so America becomes a federation of distinct islands of choice in this matter (choice, maybe the wrong word. somebody in the state decided) The ERA story is quite complicated. I think you're eliding over some history here. Opposition was tactical, not foundational for Democrat women, the principle of equality was a given. It was backed heavily by Republican women before the 70s as I understand it, the modern states-rights/constitution thing is really just that: a modern hot take on something. Basically, I can't see how these things actually address the topic. I'm not an American, so I don't have direct affiliation with D or R.
    - pyuser583 4y ago
      We both seem confused! > Can you give some each side examples? I am obviously partisan, I want to understand what things done by "my side" are seen as having equivalence to ones done by the other side. > Gerrymander might be an example. I'm pretty sure both major parties exploit it shamelessly. You talk about “both major parties” and imply they both gerrymandering - but then you say you’re not American. Which country are you from that has two major parties and systematic gerrymandering, but isn’t America? I don’t think anyone can give you examples about “your side” without knowing your country and political affiliation.
      - ggm 4y ago
        my side is the left side. I am talking as a non-american about american politics and so I identify with american left politics which means the democrats. The entire article is written about US domestic politics. I am discussing US politics from an outside point of view. My understanding is that both major parties exploit gerrymandering, is an example of a posed equality of abuse of law. The shitlist above appears both to be not about illegality and failure to respect law, and, not really cohesive as a narrative of equality or difference between R and D.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  - cnelsenmilt 4y ago
    There's no reasonable equivalence between the two events you're referring to. If you wanted a recent rightist event comparable to CHAZ, you could go with the Malheur standoff, perhaps. Also, "no armed confrontation with police" and your last paragraph are disingenuous at best.
  - ggm 4y ago
    1) it's been up for 2 hours 2) yes, it was an insurrection 3) .. but not an attack on the seat of federal government. Do you not see a difference? Did the Seattle protectors occupy the house of government and threaten to kill elected representatives? Did they contest a national election? Were they trying to alter government to install a specific candidate and party? Note 2) I don't deny some qualities of equivalence. Some.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
I'm much less pessimistic than you. A bunch of Trump-appointed judges ruled against Trump in voter fraud cases. The Supreme Court has ruled against him too. Mike Pence wore an "R" label, but still didn't go along with the January 6 nonsense. I admit that there is plenty of data in favor of your position. But there is significant data against it, too, and you're not seeing it. So far, team "law" is winning - though by much less of a margin than I'd like.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Yes and most of the elected officials who went against Trump on the right either retired or lost in the primaries. I’m proud to say that the Republican government in GA stood strong against the stupidity. But many state officials didn’t in other states.
- KerrAvon 4y ago
  We’ll know on approximately November 8th how bad it really is. Not until then, though. Maybe not for a couple of weeks afterwards. edit: fix date

ggm 4y ago

Can you give some each side examples? I am obviously partisan, I want to understand what things done by "my side" are seen as having equivalence to ones done by the other side. Gerrymander might be an example. I'm pretty sure both major parties exploit it shamelessly.

pyuser583 4y ago
Democrats (I’m assuming that’s your party) see any social policy they really like in any and all Constitutions - regardless of actual wording. That removes issues from voters and places it in the hands of sympathetic elites. No other country does this. The Republicans do it for some issues, but not nearly on the scale of Democrats - and usually because something in the Constitution is pretty direct. Leftists promoted the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s - only to find that it’s all contained in the 14th amendment, and not really necessary. After Roe was overturned, lawyers in every state have argued that the state constitution protects abortion, even in states whose constitutions explicitly say “abortion is not protected.” Democrats regularly see most good things as “beyond politics” (some exceptions) while Republicans reject court control of most good things (some exceptions, too).
- ggm 4y ago
  I'm not seeing this as a compelling narrative basically. Its disconnected statements each of which are contestable. The point about the ERA seems to be in a different spectrum. Are you seriously proposing that it should be rolled back, and thats an always-been-true article of faith in right wing politics, or is this the "states should decide" thing, and so America becomes a federation of distinct islands of choice in this matter (choice, maybe the wrong word. somebody in the state decided) The ERA story is quite complicated. I think you're eliding over some history here. Opposition was tactical, not foundational for Democrat women, the principle of equality was a given. It was backed heavily by Republican women before the 70s as I understand it, the modern states-rights/constitution thing is really just that: a modern hot take on something. Basically, I can't see how these things actually address the topic. I'm not an American, so I don't have direct affiliation with D or R.
  - pyuser583 4y ago
    We both seem confused! > Can you give some each side examples? I am obviously partisan, I want to understand what things done by "my side" are seen as having equivalence to ones done by the other side. > Gerrymander might be an example. I'm pretty sure both major parties exploit it shamelessly. You talk about “both major parties” and imply they both gerrymandering - but then you say you’re not American. Which country are you from that has two major parties and systematic gerrymandering, but isn’t America? I don’t think anyone can give you examples about “your side” without knowing your country and political affiliation.
    - ggm 4y ago
      my side is the left side. I am talking as a non-american about american politics and so I identify with american left politics which means the democrats. The entire article is written about US domestic politics. I am discussing US politics from an outside point of view. My understanding is that both major parties exploit gerrymandering, is an example of a posed equality of abuse of law. The shitlist above appears both to be not about illegality and failure to respect law, and, not really cohesive as a narrative of equality or difference between R and D.
codefreeordie 4y ago
- cnelsenmilt 4y ago
  There's no reasonable equivalence between the two events you're referring to. If you wanted a recent rightist event comparable to CHAZ, you could go with the Malheur standoff, perhaps. Also, "no armed confrontation with police" and your last paragraph are disingenuous at best.
- ggm 4y ago
  1) it's been up for 2 hours 2) yes, it was an insurrection 3) .. but not an attack on the seat of federal government. Do you not see a difference? Did the Seattle protectors occupy the house of government and threaten to kill elected representatives? Did they contest a national election? Were they trying to alter government to install a specific candidate and party? Note 2) I don't deny some qualities of equivalence. Some.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

I'm much less pessimistic than you. A bunch of Trump-appointed judges ruled against Trump in voter fraud cases. The Supreme Court has ruled against him too. Mike Pence wore an "R" label, but still didn't go along with the January 6 nonsense. I admit that there is plenty of data in favor of your position. But there is significant data against it, too, and you're not seeing it. So far, team "law" is winning - though by much less of a margin than I'd like.

scarface74 4y ago
Yes and most of the elected officials who went against Trump on the right either retired or lost in the primaries. I’m proud to say that the Republican government in GA stood strong against the stupidity. But many state officials didn’t in other states.
KerrAvon 4y ago
We’ll know on approximately November 8th how bad it really is. Not until then, though. Maybe not for a couple of weeks afterwards. edit: fix date