The Next President is...

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, kaputt said:

Election 2023: 3 key takeaways on abortion, Trump and Biden | Fox News

A small sample size of elections for sure, but some strong messaging from voters nonetheless. I've said this on here before, but the overturning of Roe v Wade was one of the single dumbest strategic moves by the Republican party in a very long time. Forget about the legal or technical aspects for a second and look at the big picture. One, abortion bans are in general not popular across most of the country. Two, the right essentially went at the heart of the left's version of the second amendment. This galvanized support and basically proved to many voters the Dem's drum beat of "they want to take away abortion!" was correct after all. Looking at the last two years, the overturning of that single measure has led to numerous election losses and looks like it will continue to do so.

Also, the moderate democrat Kentucky governor winning (again) in a deep red state highlights to me the desire in this country for moderation in politics. The far left and far right garbage that dominates the headlines is not what most people want. Personally, I think on the presidential level the republicans have the best candidates that actually could lean center on many issues and also provide genuine leadership. But of course, somehow, someway, Trump is going to be the nominee; nearly ensuring 4 more years of the current garbage we have. 

The only positive light I would take from this for conservatives is that this week's elections were far more local in nature, and the economy, the border, national security, etc... were not exactly what was being run on. Those three things look very bad on the current administration. But again, they're probably going to run against Trump so the issues will go out the window for half the country anyway. 

 

Counterpoint, this is exactly how the Roe issue is permanently removed from the conversation. Every state is now deciding what they want, which is going to appease a lot of people who now have choices if this issue is truly that important to them. 

 

The only way Republicans can truly fuck this up is if they try to nationalize the issue again with a federal ban. They will lose their asses in that case, but I don't think that's the strategy for most. A terrible legal decision has been undone, and one of the most contentious issues in modern American politics is being dealt with in the manner of the founders originally intended, locally.

 

I know a lot of Republicans had the ultimate goal of fully banning abortion, but from a purely conservative and legal standpoint, this issue is resolving itself remarkably fast after 50 years of turmoil.

[kaputt]

I get what you’re saying, but think you’re still looking at it mostly from a legal standpoint. That’s why I specifically said strategic. 
 

And I disagree with the fact that moving it to the states will make the issue go away. One, the left is not going to let it go away unless and until it is protected or codified again at the federal level. You may not agree with that, but that’s the only way the dem’s think they win on this. Not to mention, any conservative politician wishing to make a national level campaign will have to answer for their stance on abortion or have their stance used against them, especially if they come from a state with an abortion ban. 
 

Abortion was always a fringe issue out there that got talked about from time to time to get a rise out of people, but it never got the level of electoral attention it’s getting now on a national scale. In the recent elections since the overturn of Roe v Wade it has been a forefront in the decision making of many voters and has not worked in favor of conservative candidates.
 

That’s why I think it was a colossal strategic mistake to shake the hornets nest of Roe v Wade. 

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, kaputt said:

That’s why I think it was a colossal strategic mistake to shake the hornets nest of Roe v Wade. 

Well, now that’s it done, what do you recommend the GOP do going forward?

[bfargin]

Given the choice of saving innocent human life vs losing elections, I'll stand for life every single day. Without life nothing else matters (no rights to protect). I understand losing elections means the democrats get to decide who they allow to be killed, but the principle remains. We just need to do a better job of framing the question/topic and recognize that not every jurisdiction is happy with the exact same restraints (sadly even on the killing of babies).

The 2nd amendment in our republic is/was/always has been law, abortion was a made up right to kill innocents. They are not even in the same ballpark. Comparing those two is like comparing the right to own material possessions with the right to kill someone you don't like.

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, kaputt said:

I get what you’re saying, but think you’re still looking at it mostly from a legal standpoint. That’s why I specifically said strategic. 
 

And I disagree with the fact that moving it to the states will make the issue go away. One, the left is not going to let it go away unless and until it is protected or codified again at the federal level. You may not agree with that, but that’s the only way the dem’s think they win on this. Not to mention, any conservative politician wishing to make a national level campaign will have to answer for their stance on abortion or have their stance used against them, especially if they come from a state with an abortion ban. 
 

Abortion was always a fringe issue out there that got talked about from time to time to get a rise out of people, but it never got the level of electoral attention it’s getting now on a national scale. In the recent elections since the overturn of Roe v Wade it has been a forefront in the decision making of many voters and has not worked in favor of conservative candidates.
 

That’s why I think it was a colossal strategic mistake to shake the hornets nest of Roe v Wade. 

I agree that it's having short-term negative consequences for Republicans, but strategic considerations are generally long-term, not short-term. Strategically, this issue has been removed from the national conversation, *if* the Republicans can get it through their big fat stupid heads to keep it a states rights issue.

 

You say that the dems aren't going to let it go, but then you also say that it's a fringe issue. It's either one of the other. It doesn't matter what the activists scream about, what matters is what actually impacts the average person. The average person now has a much greater ability to live somewhere that agrees with their abortion views, if they consider those views so important as to move to another state.

 

This experiment has been run already in Europe, where the various countries have various laws, and it's just not a part of their normal political discourse.

 

If the Democrats want to make this a national issue, that's all well and good, but they will suffer the same short-term consequences the Republicans are suffering now. Change is seldom good for those doing the changing.

 

The alternative was to have this issue hanging over the heads of Republicans for all time, forced to accept a world of completely unrestricted abortions for all time. That's not a moral proposition that many conservatives can accept, but at least now they can redirect their moral concerns to the local level, as it has been meant to be.

 

I can't speak to the forecast of the Republicans who pushed this, but if they expected no fallout, or even crazier, the adulation of the masses from killing Roe, then they were idiots. But I think many knew that there would be short-term consequences, and those consequences are more than acceptable for completely solving the legal problem, and partially solving the ethical problem.

 

But I think this will be the last presidential election cycle where abortion is a headline issue. The abortion advocates will absolutely hate that reality, as will the pro-life absolutists, but the rest of us will be better off.

[kaputt]

3 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Well, now that’s it done, what do you recommend the GOP do going forward?

In a perfect world (imo) the Republicans and Democrats would work together to come to a bipartisan federal law that codifies abortion rights for women that meets a middle ground of avoiding the extreme lefts desire for late term abortion availability but also gives a woman a chance to know she’s pregnant before making a choice to go through with it or not. I realize some of you aren’t going to like that, but that’s my personal opinion. 
 

Since that has a snowballs chance in hell I’d at least like the GOP to put pressure on states that outlaw abortion even in cases of rape and incest to change those provisions. That really just looks bad from any way you slice it. 
 

Beyond that every GOP candidate for Congress, senate, and president is going to have to either moderate their stance on abortion or consistently promise potential constituents that they aren’t going to push for a federal abortion ban, because the left is going to use that as a rallying cry otherwise. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by kaputt
Typos

[uhhello]

Preach

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, uhhello said:

Preach

It's crazy who the RNC picks to moderate the debates. It goes to show you that establishment Republicans are more concerned with being accepted in the political sphere by their peers than they are with being conservative and pushing conservative policy. And even after Trump they haven't learned.

 

Being conservative in temperament and disposition is mutually exclusive from being someone who seeks the media spotlight, so it seems.

[HeloDude]

1 hour ago, kaputt said:

In a perfect world (imo) the Republicans and Democrats would work together to come to a bipartisan federal law that codifies abortion rights for women that meets a middle ground of avoiding the extreme lefts desire for late term abortion availability but also gives a woman a chance to know she’s pregnant before making a choice to go through with it or not. I realize some of you aren’t going to like that, but that’s my personal opinion. 

You’re dreaming man.  And not just on the Republican side, but I’d say mostly on the Democrat side—the left could easily pass a bill in the Senate that says federal law protects abortion up until 4 months but then it’s against the law to do it afterwards.  But that’s not what the left wants—their entire argument is “it should be left up to a woman and her (abortion) doctor”…which means zero bans.

So sure, could the GOP play politics and vote for the 4 month ban as I suggested?  Sure…though of course they’ll never do it for obvious reasons.  And the left would also not vote for it since they don’t want any restrictions.

So politically I don’t know where this goes from here on out.  I do know that the majority of the country is not for abortion on demand.  But they’re also not for a complete ban.  In the end, the state issue makes since, both Constitutionally and politically.  But I agree, if the GOP pushes for federal ban, not only will they not get it, but that it doesn’t help them at all politically.

In the end, as much as I think abortion is morally unacceptable, we’ve got much bigger problems going on.  It’s a distraction compared to massive fiscal shitshow brewing.

[kaputt]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

we’ve got much bigger problems going on.  It’s a distraction compared to massive fiscal shitshow brewing.

Well that’s kind of my point. The country is a dumpster fire right now and instead of being the party of solutions, a large amount of conservative political and legal capital was spent on overturning Roe v Wade, all the while losing elections and letting the truly serious challenges facing this country go unaddressed.  
 

So instead of being a party of leadership, fiscal responsibility, national security, etc…, the GOPs crowning achievement in recent history is overturning a Supreme Court ruling that in the grand scheme has turned a distraction into a rallying cry for low information and low participation voters; and made them actually come out to the polls. 
 

Again, a strategic disaster for the party and honestly it’s less about the abortion issue itself and more about the Republican party’s complete inability to come up with a comprehensive vision for this country that will lead it out of the problems it’s currently facing. 
 

Edit: Just watched the Ramaswamy clip above. Not the biggest fan of him, but those comments in many ways are spot on. The current Republican Party is a bunch of losers. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by kaputt

[Negatory]

8 hours ago, HeloDude said:

You’re dreaming man.  And not just on the Republican side, but I’d say mostly on the Democrat side—the left could easily pass a bill in the Senate that says federal law protects abortion up until 4 months but then it’s against the law to do it afterwards.  But that’s not what the left wants—their entire argument is “it should be left up to a woman and her (abortion) doctor”…which means zero bans.

Oh, a brain dead take on political issues on base ops. Who would have guessed.

You (specifically) can’t help but make false equivalencies and invalid broad generalizations, which you demonstrate literally every single day you post here.

The truth is that Americans support way more nuance in this discussion than your backwards reductionist views. The majority of Americans do not support abortion past 24 weeks. Only 19% of Americans believe abortion should be legal with no strings attached. Oh that’s against the narrative you’re stating?

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/

A lot of people think that it should be allowed in extreme cases beyond an arbitrary time stamp (guaranteed non viability, extremely high risk of death, fetus is almost guaranteed dead). This is not the same as when you try to insinuate democrats support anyone - for any reason as flippant as they just don’t feel like it - should be able to get a third trimester abortion. THATS AN EXTREME VIEW DEMOCRATS DONT EVEN SUPPORT. But it’s in talk radio. You’ve been propagandized. You have to know this, right? But I guess you couldn’t win this argument without bending reality or convincing yourself of some slightly flawed logic.

Finally, you guys are wrong about the potential of this to be perceived as just a states rights issue. This is a big deal. To the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, this was a fundamental attack on Women’s and men’s rights to plan their families. That’s how the majority of Americans (and a supermajority of Democrats) feel, and the longer you try to pretend it’s just a legal battle or was justified via some federalist debate, the longer you lose. Just telling you the truth. Here’s a graph showing how republicans are actively losing the support of independents across the country. 57 to 41, that’s not even close.

 

Now that we’ve had a good time debunking the logical basis of your arguments, let’s go to the emotional way you’re losing this debate (and with it, the American people’s support):

Go ahead and explain why does it affect your poor Christian family if another family that you have never interacted with gets an abortion 2 cities over? Get out of people’s lives. Also, are you suddenly okay with it if it’s just across state borders? Choose a side. If you’re gonna play the pathos argument and then go straight to a legal logos you just sound disingenuous. Which you are. But you sound like it, too.

Oh, and is it really a states right thing? Or is it an overreaching control over everyone thing? Why is Texas trying to inhibit the ability for federal citizens to go to states that align with their views to enjoy the freedoms of those states?

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/wireStory/west-texas-county-bans-travel-roads-seeking-abortion-104256476

Shit like that is what Republicans laugh about. It’s what the rest of Americans are terrified of. That’s a disadvantage for y’all, sorry.

Edited November 9, 2023 by Negatory

[lloyd christmas]

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

Go ahead and explain why does it affect your poor Christian family if another family that you have never interacted with gets an abortion 2 cities over? Get out of people’s lives. Also, are you suddenly okay with it if it’s just across state borders? Choose a side. If you’re gonna play the pathos argument and then go straight to a legal logos you just sound disingenuous. Which you are. But you sound like it, too.

Disingenuous?  This argument would stand a much better chance of being solved if the pro-abortion side was honest about their intent.  The truth is, people who are pro-abortion are scared of ruining their careers, commitment, finances and scared of the changes to their body should they have a child.  Can’t have stretch marks in this social media crazed day and age.  

Instead we get to argue over some arbitrary number of weeks.  It’s all the same in the end, you’re ending your own child’s life.  Or, we get to talk about things that are statistically irrelevant like rape and incest.  Or, we get to talk about the life of the mother which is getting harder and harder to argue with the advances in medicine.  

The left will never agree to something firm in this argument.  As stated by many above, it’s a political football that consistently produces winners and losers.  It’s too valuable of a political commodity to put to bed.  Meanwhile, millions of children are being murdered in the name of politics, selfishness and irresponsibility.  

It’s all disgusting.  

Edited November 9, 2023 by lloyd christmas
Added

[Biff_T]

12 hours ago, Negatory said:

Go ahead and explain why does it affect your poor Christian, Muslim, Church of Satan or Jewish family if another family that you have never interacted with gets an abortion 2 cities over

Added a few more religions, just for fun.  Not everyone worships Jesus.

12 hours ago, Negatory said:

, and is it really a states right thing? Or is it an overreaching control over everyone thing? Why is Texas trying to inhibit the ability for federal citizens to go to states that align with their views to enjoy the freedoms of those states?

Texas shouldn't be allowed to tell its citizens anything, lol. 

But seriously, states shouldn't be allowed to tell their citizens where they can go.  That's insanity. 

Abortion is as American as apple pie, it isn't going anywhere, ever.  Let the states decide.   

States rights!  This is a way to get the Federal government off of the abortion train.  Just like weed but with less fun talking points.  

 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Biff_T
Spelling bee failure

[ViperMan]

12 hours ago, Negatory said:

Oh, a brain dead take on political issues on base ops. Who would have guessed.

You saying this unironically is peak you.

Overturning Roe was a good thing, though it may have bought some R losses for a while, it was a shitty legal fiction that needed to go, and it's after-effects will subside in time. You are right about one thing, though, most Americans agree that there should be some restrictions on abortion. You construing this as being anti-republican, however, is confusing. If most people are ok with some abortion but not unrestricted, then why is it still such an issue for the left? I'm not sure your characterization that the left doesn't want abortion on demand is actually true. Most on the left use such notions as "life of the mother", rape, incest, etc (i.e. some other extreme justification) to serve as the justification when the know good and well that it's really about getting it approved because they consider it a family planning tool - which is the justification you quoted in your post. So sure, there's some elections to be lost for a while. I'm fine with that. This is merely the first step in getting back to a rational basis for abortion. The next step is defining the issue more clearly so it rules out the real crime, which is abortion "because I want one."

The "life of the mother" trope is precisely that: a trope. It was never illegal in this country for a woman to get an abortion if her life was in danger. Don't take my word for it, though, here's the Texas law that Roe overturned (https://www.sll.texas.gov/assets/pdf/historical-statutes/1925/1925-3-penal-code-of-the-state-of-texas.pdf#page=278). Read it yourself if you don't believe me, but it's your side that has been propagandized and spouts non-starters as if they're informed on the issue or historical context. In reality, your lack of SA is on blast.

So yeah, the left wants abortion because they believe it's a family planning tool, or a "bodily autonomy" issue, or some other such nonsense, but they use the above tropes as emotional wedges because it's easier to sell it that way. You know that and so does everyone else. So let's not avoid the issue by saying it's all about the "health of the mother" because it isn't, and it never was. Eliminating abortion at any point for frivolous reasons is what this is all about and most Americans agree that it shouldn't be used as birth control. That's all I get from the poll you posted.

[Lord Ratner]

13 hours ago, Negatory said:

Oh, a brain dead take on political issues on base ops. Who would have guessed.

You (specifically) can’t help but make false equivalencies and invalid broad generalizations, which you demonstrate literally every single day you post here.

The truth is that Americans support way more nuance in this discussion than your backwards reductionist views. The majority of Americans do not support abortion past 24 weeks. Only 19% of Americans believe abortion should be legal with no strings attached. Oh that’s against the narrative you’re stating?

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/05/06/americas-abortion-quandary/

A lot of people think that it should be allowed in extreme cases beyond an arbitrary time stamp (guaranteed non viability, extremely high risk of death, fetus is almost guaranteed dead). This is not the same as when you try to insinuate democrats support anyone - for any reason as flippant as they just don’t feel like it - should be able to get a third trimester abortion. THATS AN EXTREME VIEW DEMOCRATS DONT EVEN SUPPORT. But it’s in talk radio. You’ve been propagandized. You have to know this, right? But I guess you couldn’t win this argument without bending reality or convincing yourself of some slightly flawed logic.

Finally, you guys are wrong about the potential of this to be perceived as just a states rights issue. This is a big deal. To the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, this was a fundamental attack on Women’s and men’s rights to plan their families. That’s how the majority of Americans (and a supermajority of Democrats) feel, and the longer you try to pretend it’s just a legal battle or was justified via some federalist debate, the longer you lose. Just telling you the truth. Here’s a graph showing how republicans are actively losing the support of independents across the country. 57 to 41, that’s not even close.

 

Now that we’ve had a good time debunking the logical basis of your arguments, let’s go to the emotional way you’re losing this debate (and with it, the American people’s support):

Go ahead and explain why does it affect your poor Christian family if another family that you have never interacted with gets an abortion 2 cities over? Get out of people’s lives. Also, are you suddenly okay with it if it’s just across state borders? Choose a side. If you’re gonna play the pathos argument and then go straight to a legal logos you just sound disingenuous. Which you are. But you sound like it, too.

Oh, and is it really a states right thing? Or is it an overreaching control over everyone thing? Why is Texas trying to inhibit the ability for federal citizens to go to states that align with their views to enjoy the freedoms of those states?

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/wireStory/west-texas-county-bans-travel-roads-seeking-abortion-104256476

Shit like that is what Republicans laugh about. It’s what the rest of Americans are terrified of. That’s a disadvantage for y’all, sorry.

I know what Americans think. Are you implying that the Democratic Party supports abortion bans at a certain point? Or is the official position of the Democratic party that there should be no restrictions on abortion?

 

Regardless, abortion is so far down the list of priorities, and always has been, it's hilarious that people still think Americans are going to pick the president on this issue. They aren't.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

 

Just because people have an opinion doesn't mean they care. And they really don't care when it doesn't even affect them. You think a liberal in a state with abortion access is going to pick who they vote for based on what other people in other states do or don't have? Nonsense.

 

Everyone is looking for some excuse for why Republicans are doing so poorly, some issue or singular mistake. The party is in a transition and is splitting into two parties, neocons and populists. They don't agree on much and as such take no real stance as a party and pick shitty candidates that represent nothing. Politics in it's truest form. The Democrats would be in the same boat if progressivism wasn't so spectacularly distasteful that it can't get more than 9-10% of the population to support it.

 

But the people still going on about abortion aren't even following the logic through. Once every state has voted and decided what their abortion policy will be, exactly who is going to carry the torch? If abortion is so popular, then nearly every state will pass a law protecting it. Then... What? The country is going to pick the president based on abortion access in 4 or 5 deep red states? Right.

 

And if some states ban it and some states protect it, then it wasn't the slam dunk issue liberals said it was. Hell, that's why they wanted Roe so badly. They knew a voter-driven law would result in more restrictions.

 

So much reluctance to let the people decide for themselves. I'm sure a lot of Republicans are disappointed with what happened in Ohio, but some of us are quite pleased with it, not because I like abortion or believe it should be legal, but because I believe it was always for the voters to decide. And they have.

[HeloDude]

 

14 hours ago, Negatory said:

Oh, a brain dead take on political issues on base ops. Who would have guessed.

You (specifically) can’t help but make false equivalencies and invalid broad generalizations, which you demonstrate literally every single day you post here.

A few simple questions if you want to have an honest debate:

1) At what point in a pregnancy do you personally think it should be illegal to terminate a pregnancy if the mother is not at a health risk (physically) to continue her pregnancy?

2) Similar to the question above, at what point in a woman’s pregnancy do Democrats on a national stage want to ban abortions?  And can you provide a source for your response?

3) Why aren’t Democrats as supportive of organizations that try to convince women to not have an abortion and assist were her pregnancy as they are with organizations that support/perform abortions?

[ClearedHot]

Trump hints at expanded role for the military within the US. A legacy law gives him few guardrails

So much NO here...

[Biff_T]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:05 PM, HeloDude said:

Why aren’t Democrats as supportive of organizations that try to convince women to not have an abortion and assist were her pregnancy as they are with organizations that support/perform abortions?

Because that's not evil enough.  I can't understand the constant need to passionately argue for abortions of convenience.   Its almost like you're not "cool" unless you get one.   There is no justice for the unborn, unless it's an animal.  

 

52 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Trump hints at expanded role for the military within the US. A legacy law gives him few guardrails

So much NO here...

That'd be a big mistake. 

[tac airlifter]

6 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Trump hints at expanded role for the military within the US. A legacy law gives him few guardrails

So much NO here...

I'm not sure what you're saying "no" to since Trump gave no specifics; his manner of communication seems to be tossing out vague ideas and seeing how they play publicly.  I don't necessarily like it, but it's better than whatever Biden is doing by operating in an echo chamber.
 

Had I been POTUS (good thing I'm not) I would not have allowed WA to dither for weeks while CHAZ/CHOP stole territory, set up borders, and inflicted misery on citizens of that state.  I haven't thought through specifically what I would've done, but certainly using the military in some capacity would've been on the table.

The fundamental question is this: when elected state or city leadership completely fails their citizens, what is the national government to do?  One could argue nothing since citizens voted those elected leaders into office, but one could also argue that outright insurrection is a federal crime and enforcement supersedes state authorities.  Not being a lawyer I don't know what the right answer is, but ruling out potential COAs before they've been fleshed out seems like a recipe for more losing. Something our military leadership is unfortunately quite adept at.

[ClearedHot]

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

I'm not sure what you're saying "no" to since Trump gave no specifics; his manner of communication seems to be tossing out vague ideas and seeing how they play publicly.  I don't necessarily like it, but it's better than whatever Biden is doing by operating in an echo chamber.

Hinting at employing the military implies some sort of martial law...seriously bro, that is ungood.

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Had I been POTUS (good thing I'm not) I would not have allowed WA to dither for weeks while CHAZ/CHOP stole territory, set up borders, and inflicted misery on citizens of that state.  I haven't thought through specifically what I would've done, but certainly using the military in some capacity would've been on the table.

I agree the optic of allowing the riots go on and federal property to be attacked and burned is very bad.  That being said, there were more than enough federal assets to employ without rolling in the military. 

 

2 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

The fundamental question is this: when elected state or city leadership completely fails their citizens, what is the national government to do?  One could argue nothing since citizens voted those elected leaders into office, but one could also argue that outright insurrection is a federal crime and enforcement supersedes state authorities.  Not being a lawyer I don't know what the right answer is, but ruling out potential COAs before they've been fleshed out seems like a recipe for more losing. Something our military leadership is unfortunately quite adept at.

The federal government certainly has a responsibility to protect the citizens and federal property but even hinting at employing the military is 3rd world banana republic type stuff.  If they didn't have enough Marshalls, FBI, ATF and other federal officers perhaps they could use the Guard under Title 32 but even hinting at the active duty military is complete and utter non-sense.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

The federal government certainly has a responsibility to protect the citizens and federal property but even hinting at employing the military is 3rd world banana republic type stuff.  If they didn't have enough Marshalls, FBI, ATF and other federal officers perhaps they could use the Guard under Title 32 but even hinting at the active duty military is complete an utter non-sense.

Not disagreeing with you, but in fairness, CHOP/CHAZ and what it represented - i.e. a government in name only / chaos - is third-world-type shit too...

[ClearedHot]

40 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Not disagreeing with you, but in fairness, CHOP/CHAZ and what it represented - i.e. a government in name only / chaos - is third-world-type shit too...

Completely agree.  Also think a well organized group of federal law enforcement officers would have ended that situation very quickly.

[ViperMan]

On 11/28/2023 at 12:59 AM, ClearedHot said:

Completely agree.  Also think a well organized group of federal law enforcement officers would have ended that situation very quickly.

It also would have made for absolutely fantastic YouTube clips - like, on the order of the Kyle Rittenhouse show.

[Biff_T]

On 11/27/2023 at 4:18 PM, ViperMan said:

but in fairness, CHOP/CHAZ and what it represented - i.e. a government in name only / chaos

[raimius]

On 11/27/2023 at 6:18 PM, ViperMan said:

Not disagreeing with you, but in fairness, CHOP/CHAZ and what it represented - i.e. a government in name only / chaos - is third-world-type shit too...

It was an actual, legit insurrection....oddly/chaotically enough.  DC could have sent the 82nd Airborne.

Probably would have ended poorly, and the local government let it collapse under it's own stupidity.  

I have mixed opinions on whether letting it go until collapse or making a statement (with lots of firepower) saying "treason isn't a laughing matter" was the better option.