The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[Nutmeg]

"Blue sauce" is the east coast name for it.  Out west and in the south it’s called "blue dressing", while in the Midwest it’s called "fresh blooble goo".  There’s a map floating around somewhere that shows the different regional breakdowns.

There's actually a lot more than that.



And honestly, you could label most of metro areas as "blue sauce". Local dialects are dying out thanks to our modern world. Very sad to see.

[Ancestral Republican]

This comparison is highly offensive and downplays the actual atrocious views that Steve King has (at least with AOC). This is not a good post by any means of the imagination.

I've noticed this thread is less about quality posts and more about "centrist who doesn't like taxes accidentally falls for right-wing memes about progressive Democrats"

[Coastal Elitist]

Of course you can scare people with the spectre of "Marxist Riots", especially when it's true.

What is going on in the streets today is not Dr. King's "non-violent peace movement".  It is a violent Marxist revolt, something people wish to keep the general public from fully recognizing until after the election.  It is a Marxism that is a cure that is worse than all the ills you cite because it will (if fully successful) end individual Constitutional liberties and replace them with the sort of Mob Rule we see now.

Marxist-Leninist movements provide cures that are worse than the disease in every nation they've tried it.  That's what you propose.  What's going on in our streets today is nothing that Dr. King ever signed off on during his lifetime.  And no one in the SCLC ever described themselves as "trained Marxists" as Patrice Cullors, co-founder of BLM, has done.

I won't stop.  And if you say that BLM isn't a Marxist organization, you are either deceived or deceiving.  Their leaders have gone on record.  Their tactics are straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.  There's no middle ground here.

[NewYorkExpress]

Of course you can scare people with the spectre of "Marxist Riots", especially when it's true.

What is going on in the streets today is not Dr. King's "non-violent peace movement".  It is a violent Marxist revolt, something people wish to keep the general public from fully recognizing until after the election.  It is a Marxism that is a cure that is worse than all the ills you cite because it will (if fully successful) end individual Constitutional liberties and replace them with the sort of Mob Rule we see now.

Marxist-Leninist movements provide cures that are worse than the disease in every nation they've tried it.  That's what you propose.  What's going on in our streets today is nothing that Dr. King ever signed off on during his lifetime.  And no one in the SCLC ever described themselves as "trained Marxists" as Patrice Cullors, co-founder of BLM, has done.

I won't stop.  And if you say that BLM isn't a Marxist organization, you are either deceived or deceiving.  Their leaders have gone on record.  Their tactics are straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.  There's no middle ground here.

Could we please stop posting Fuzzy Bear posts here? He belongs in the sh**tposts thread, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions.

[Coastal Elitist]

Of course you can scare people with the spectre of "Marxist Riots", especially when it's true.

What is going on in the streets today is not Dr. King's "non-violent peace movement".  It is a violent Marxist revolt, something people wish to keep the general public from fully recognizing until after the election.  It is a Marxism that is a cure that is worse than all the ills you cite because it will (if fully successful) end individual Constitutional liberties and replace them with the sort of Mob Rule we see now.

Marxist-Leninist movements provide cures that are worse than the disease in every nation they've tried it.  That's what you propose.  What's going on in our streets today is nothing that Dr. King ever signed off on during his lifetime.  And no one in the SCLC ever described themselves as "trained Marxists" as Patrice Cullors, co-founder of BLM, has done.

I won't stop.  And if you say that BLM isn't a Marxist organization, you are either deceived or deceiving.  Their leaders have gone on record.  Their tactics are straight out of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.  There's no middle ground here.

Could we please stop posting Fuzzy Bear posts here? He belongs in the sh**tposts thread, as has been pointed out on numerous occasions.

No, everything Fuzzy has said is true regarding BLM. They've even admitted it themselves and you can see it in their actions.

[lfromnj]

I was home for 14 days in June after testing positive for COVID-19, as did my wife (who was also home, as was my son).  I have been an essential worker this entire time.  I have not always worn a mask.  It's not a political statement; it's just that hadn't become a habit.  I've got some ideas as to how I may have been exposed, but I don't think it was from a time I didn't have my mask.  (I think it was a time I let someone speak on my cell phone, something I'll never do again unless it's on speaker.)

I also don't think masks keep ME safe.  I think they may keep OTHERS safe.  And I'll wear them to ease the fears of others.  I don't have the fear my wife has when I go out; perhaps she's smarter than me in this regard.  The lady who works at where I regularly get gas told me she has asthma, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema and is "scared to death" but needs to go to work.  There are lots of people like that; another lady that works as a checkout in the supermarket where I am most likely to find toilet paper at has just been diagnosed with congestive heart failure and has had a heart attack; she, too, is scared, but has to go to work until she can qualify for Social Security, or until she can make arrangements to move in with an adult daughter while she files for disability.  These are two (2) people.  I'll wear a mask for them to give them peace of mind, and if it has benefits for me, that's a plus.

Why this is such a politicized issue is beyond me.  

[Fuzzy Bear]

They are using unmarked cars because the Mobs in the streets are attacking and vandalizing police cars.  It's an appropriate tactic in the face of a lawless, Marxist mob.

People have committed crimes during the violence in major cities.  Those who have need to face the criminal penalties for these acts.  The hysteria is deception, and is a means the left is using to assist the Marxist Rioters guilty of crimes to avoid prosecution.  I'm very definitely not OK with that.  These people are not peaceful protesters; they are persons committing crimes.  And the municipalities where they are committing these crimes are simply not enforcing the law.  Why taxpayers and ordinary citizens should be OK with that is beyond me.

This shouldn't be here. If Black Lives Matter is Marxist, than logically, every black person is a communist.

Since that isn't true, that post by Fuzzy Bear should not be here.

Black Lives Matter IS a Marxist organization.  It's founders have stated that they are trained Marxists.  Patrisse Cullors said this herself.  I also note that you don't respond to the rest of the post, which points out accurately that these people in the streets are, in fact, committing criminal acts.

My question is this:  I would receive flak if I complained about a post being included here.  Why do you get to do it?  Why does Badger get to do it?

If it's OK, then I'll respond with criticism to every post in this thread until it's shut down.  I will not allow people to have this both ways.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Absolutely ridiculous I am banned till Nov 3rd on 2020 board. I bet most posters would agree.

Too bad

[Battista Minola 1616]

Absolutely ridiculous I am banned till Nov 3rd on 2020 board. I bet most posters would agree.

Too bad

High quality?
This should go to the tavern of simple truths and smart one-liners.

[bagelman]

The city hasn’t “abandoned” all other projects, just because it’s also focused on police reform, which is a serious issue that needs attention.

Go do a poll of Magnolia and ask them if they feel abandoned by the city.  They've been begging the city to fix the crumbling Magnolia Bridge for years and the city's current position is "lol they don't need that bridge anyway."  Meanwhile the council last year handed activists a victory in their fight to turn a section of Discovery Park into a homeless shelter, not for any logical reason (it's a terrible location for a shelter) but just to stick it to the rich people who live there.

As possibly Atlas's only resident Magnolian, I have to jump in here, and I tend to agree with MacArthur here in general, but I don't necessarily draw links between that sense of abandonment with issues like police reform. Magnolia is covered in BLM signs right now, and from the conversations I've had with my neighbors, I don't think anyone really ties calls for police reform to a lack of commitment to fix the Magnolia bridge or figure out what to do with the homeless population in the area. If anything, the issue that seems to come up in tandem with the Magnolia Bridge is the West Seattle Bridge and a sense of West Seattle's bridge of death being given top priority over us, since that's much more of a one-to-one comparison than with other things that might require funding.

My immediate neighbors are mostly middle-aged, with some borderline Karens and even some former Republicans. Absolutely none of them are considering moving away from the Democratic party as a result of the protests. If anything, they attribute the deaths at the CHOP and the rise of Sawantism more generally to the same "populist" tide that brought up Trump. I've also heard lines like "it's terrible that Sawant has tried to make the George Floyd protests all about her." It's pretty common to hear "both sides" sentiments from this crowd, saying that the Anarchists and the Trumpees just need to fight it out somewhere else. But again, absolutely none of them are willing to give the Republicans the time of day because, while they do not see most Democrats as being in league with Sawant and the anarchists, they absolutely do see random local average Republicans (i.e. Jason Rantz and John Curley) as being in 100% lock step with Trump.

But just to close because we're talking about Magnolia and you hit on one of my key local issues, Magnolia is absolutely fed up with the city council in a completely non-partisan way for deciding that all of Magnolia is just Magnolia Boulevard and that we can somehow therefore fix all of our own problems or something. I mean, for pete's sake, look at the regional transit map - we're literally not even on the map:



And this is after McGinn launched his "road diet" on Nickerson, we lost access to Highway 99 via Western Ave when they tore down the viaduct, and they shut down the 15th Ave monorail back in 2006 only to decide we were getting Link after all, but it would take until 2030+ to actually be up-and-running. Next we'll lose the Magnolia Bridge after some minor earthquake, and there'll literally be two roads into and out of a neighborhood of over 20,000 people. There's absolutely no way this will end well, and I see pretty much nobody on either side of the Democrat-leftist divide really caring about it except for the very local politicians with no power to actually enact anything.

It's all part of this grand scheme to try to get people to commute by bike, I'm sure. Of course, nobody realizes that Magnolia is surrounded by incredibly steep hills on every side and nobody is going to want their commute home to end with a strenuous workout.

Thank you for attending my Ted Talk.

[Anti Democrat Democrat Club]

Who care? This is straight ignorance of LGBT culture at best and homophobic at worst. I'm getting real sick of the puritanical socon BS coming from liberals lately. I guess this is what happens when you swallow the suburbs!

What many straights (and apparently some teenage gay Atlas virgins/incels) don't seem to get that when there is literally less than 5% of the selection available to gay men that is available to heterosexual/bisexual men & women, there's going to be a naturally higher tolerance for age differences in relationships and sex (or else many would just end up being celibate; we're not all attracted to each other, you know).

A guy in his late 20s bangs some guys in their early 20s: that's a Wednesday night in Gay America. An insane number of gay relationships have a decade or more of difference in them. The overwhelming share of my own partners have been a few years older than I (a trend that has stuck from the time I was a teenager until now, despite it being unintentional on my own part), but it's just how things work out; these are my preferences. It doesn't make my relationships "inappropriate", it doesn't make me a "victim" and I highly doubt any of his partners could be considered such, either.


Furthermore and with regard to "muh power structures and student/teachers":

1) When did these events happen? I'm doubting they happened this year.

2) Are these "students" actually his students or just happened to be on the same campus that he taught at (along with 28,000 other "students" at UMass Amherst)? I imagine had he had sex with college students from a university halfway across the country, the headlines would be the same ("'teacher' banging 'students'!").

3) How long has he been a teacher on-campus? As far as we know, he was 25 and banging 21 year-olds before he was even a teacher there. This is a guy who got elected Mayor when he was 22 years old: I'm sure even had it not been students, some of the usual suspects would've been telling him back then that having intimate relationships with people of his own age and gender would have been "inappropriate" for somebody "of his position".

Nobody can claim "POWER STRUCTURE" nonsense if the "students" weren't students of his - and even then and from the sound of it, this was a voluntary, consensual, mutual matching of individuals that was initiated off-campus/on a dating app. If he was banging children or coercing his own students in-person without mutual interest expressed prior, then it's "inappropriate". Otherwise, it's just relying upon most people's ignorance by using buzzwords to paint a portrait largely rooted in the female-centric objectified sexual victim mentality, to which gay men obviously aren't bound.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don’t know what’s sadder to watch, OSR go all “notice me senpai” for Sanchez or Fuzzy white knighting for Reaganfan

Blue avatars on this site have a mentality that they’re all being targeted and therefore when one goes down for being a racist or whatever, they all take it as an attack. A lot of the blue avatars here are good posters, not racist, not like the outliers mentioned in this thread. But much like IRL Republicans, they stick together and only walk as fast as their slowest member. If Reaganfan is banned for violating the ToS because he could not stop being racist, the others must flock to his defense because they’re worried that they’ll be next. Never mind the fact that, you know, as long as you don’t say racist sh*t you won’t get banned no matter what your ideology is.

[Badger]

I don’t know what’s sadder to watch, OSR go all “notice me senpai” for Sanchez or Fuzzy white knighting for Reaganfan

Blue avatars on this site have a mentality that they’re all being targeted and therefore when one goes down for being a racist or whatever, they all take it as an attack. A lot of the blue avatars here are good posters, not racist, not like the outliers mentioned in this thread. But much like IRL Republicans, they stick together and only walk as fast as their slowest member. If Reaganfan is banned for violating the ToS because he could not stop being racist, the others must flock to his defense because they’re worried that they’ll be next. Never mind the fact that, you know, as long as you don’t say racist sh*t you won’t get banned no matter what your ideology is.

This is a really really good analysis, not only have Republicans and conservatives on this forum, but all across America. Seriously insightful. It totally explains Trump derangement syndrome on the right.

[YE]

So far, only Hoyer had openly participated in this primary.
https://twitter.com/greggiroux/status/1294693774782877696

https://twitter.com/hjessy_/status/1294696586870755329

Even if that was the reason, that still doesn't excuse it. Why would you have to even it out? Why would want to be neutral in this race?

Staying neutral isn't a good thing when it's a principled politician getting primaried by a shameless opportunist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH. principled politican.

As someone who actually lives here and knows what Markey is - and don’t get me wrong I agree with many of his positions but principled is not him.

Well you’ll all get your wish sadly but my god are you being sold a bill of goods

You’re never going to explain are you

K

What is there to explain? By a lot of members here and by the red rose crew on Twitter he’s being painted as some saint of the far left who has always put his neck out when it wasn’t always the politically prudent thing to do. But that’s not the case. I’m not the smartest person on these forums and I’m not pretending to be and I’ve gotten some things wrong and I will again but I feel a little less intelligent every time I read the Markey praise.

You literally said recently that both Atlas & Massachusetts are stupid for not being as eager to bow down before JKIII as you've been. "Not pretending to be the smartest person" my ass.

The only thing that should make you feel unintelligent is the fact that you're clearly not intelligent.

You could go back and read his record for highlights but just to name a few of the notable ones: He was vehemently against busing in Boston public schools, it would’ve been the politically courageous thing to do to support it but he opposed - a decision that surely saved his political ass back then but wasn’t the morally right one. He supported the ‘94 crime bill wholeheartedly - Now I understand I support Biden who had a role in that bill but don’t tell me that Markey is this darling of the left and fights for what is right over what is politically prudent. He voted for the Iraq war - What turned out to be a foreign policy disaster for this nation, found no WMD’s and cost the nation trillions that could’ve gone to other meaningful causes.

Okay? Yeah, those all suck but he's clearly changed course, proven himself to be a great ally for the State of Massachusetts to have, & stood on the side of working families much moreso than JKIII.

Not to mention, everybody (including our party's presidential nominee who, I'll remind you, you vehemently supported in the primaries) has changed course on those issues, so it's inarguably fair to call out that hypocrisy.

But hey, keep pretending that, had JKIII been in Congress in 1994, he wouldn't have voted for the crime bill. Yeah, it was a bad bill. Markey shouldn't have voted for it, but the idea that JKIII wouldn't have done the same (which was the politically expedient choice at the time) is f**king hilarious. Same for the Iraq War, & same for every other regressive policy that Markey supported. At least Markey's had the decency to evolve.

Or have you conveniently forgotten that JKIII was anti-marijuana until he changed his stance when it was obvious he'd otherwise be left behind, voted in favor of nuclear weapons, voted "against legislation curtailing the government's data snooping power," voted to curtail Dodd-Frank by making it harder to designate financial firms systemically important, co-sponsored the bill that would've banned boycotts of Israel (which, regardless of where you stand on Israel, is just wholly undemocratic in & of itself), & heavily invested in fossil fuel companies?

You shouldn't have, considering we've reminded you about all of this on this forum time & time again. No, you didn't forget about it. You just don't care. And that's fine (I mean, it's not, but whatever), but at least be honest about it.

He spent less time in the state than every member of the Massachusetts delegation (including Warren who was RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT). He’s been known to be an absent political for years. The special election where he won the senate seat was known to be an apathetic race where Democratic voters were bored to tears with the options they had. Then in the general of that special election Markey won against a very mediocre canidate by just 10 points and actually lost more cities/towns than he won. He literally just likes holding the positions and gives off the impression he’s just going along for the ride.

Cool, except that's not a legitimate criticism in anyway. Their job is in DC. Why on Earth should somebody give two sh*ts that they don't come home? That doesn't make them bad at their job, because their job is literally in DC. They represent Massachusetts in DC, not in Massachusetts.

If the best argument JKIII has as to why one should vote for him is because Markey spends his time in the place that the people have literally employed him to go to & represent them at, then that's an excellent argument for JKIII to f**k off. "You don't spend enough time in the state" would be a great argument for a state legislator whose job is literally in the state, sure. But if that really is the best argument JKIII has against Markey (& it seems to be, as that's seemingly the only coherent argument we've all heard), then he has absolutely nothing.

JKIII promising to spend more time at his mansion in the state rather than in DC where his job actually is isn't an argument for electing JKIII. Your Senator represents you in DC, not Massachusetts.

And how can you seriously believe with a straight face that JKIII isn't the one in the race who looks like somebody who just wants power for power's sake (which, yes, is more than enough reason to deny it to him)?

Then he attatches his name to a bill introduced by an popular freshman congresswoman and he’s all of a sudden he’s this left wing darling? Give me a break.

Attached his name to a bill introduced by a popular freshman congresswoman? Jesus christ, yet another issue that's been made clear to you on this forum before: not only did he co-write the resolution with her (so, if anything, it's equally his bill), but it was a full 7 years before AOC was even born when he began to lead the charge for environmental protections in the House. His long record of fighting for the environment is clear as day, especially considering he has a perfect score from the League of Conservation Voters & authored both the 2009 cap-&-trade bill as well as the 1982 Nuclear Freeze Resolution. To imply that his environmental activism is nothing more than an attempt to get the left-wing to support him in the here & now is a disingenuous, outright lie.

But you don't care that it's a lie. You know it's a lie. The only way you can actually attempt to sh*t on Markey is to lie.

And if you think some 70 something year old soon to be retired Ed Markey  - will get more accomplished for Massachusetts or have more influence for Massachusetts then a young, vibrant, enthusiastic guy who yes has the publicity & resources of the Kennedy name then I can’t help you.

For the umpteenth f**king time, the Senate doesn't operate according to publicity. It operates on seniority. If Markey wins, he starts off this next term with 8 years of seniority under his belt; if JKIII wins, he starts off with nothing (or, near nothing, depending on how many non-Representatives become freshmen Senator next year). So if I'm a Massachusetts voter & I want my Senator to carry maximum influence in the Senate, where their influence matters most, then I go for the guy who's already accumulated nearly a decade of seniority over the guy without it.

Not to mention, Markey is the ranking member on both East Asian & Pacific Affairs as well as Environment & Public Works Oversight, & it's that latter committee that's particularly key in regards to his influence, considering Markey has - again - been Capitol Hill's premier environmental activist since 1982.

As for JKIII accruing real influence, how can anybody reasonably square him being able to do that with his obvious ambitions? He's clearly proven that his House seat was nothing more than a springboard to him, & his haste here now suggests that he feels like he needs a Senate seat sooner rather than later, so who's to say the intent here isn't to just attempt to use the Senate seat as another springboard, too, meaning he wouldn't even wanna be in the Senate long enough to gain any real influence in the first place?

So no, JKIII is not gonna be able to use his "publicity" to be more influential for Massachusetts in the Senate than Markey's seniority would be because, again, the Senate doesn't operate on publicity. Seniority is all that matters: Markey's got it, & JKIII doesn't.

If you can't be honest about Markey caring more for the people of Massachusetts than JKIII, then we can't help you.

[brucejoel99]

I don't really have an opinion of the McCloskeys as people, but there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to defend yourself and your property from trespassers who broke open your front gate and threatened you.

Didn't they "break open" a gate to the neighborhood, not something that actually belonged to the McCloskeys? I think this distinction actually makes a pretty big difference in how unreasonable their actions were.

Even if they didn't actually own the gate, it was still right next to their home. On top of that, the protesters were still trespassing on private property (meaning they shouldn't have been there regardless of whether they broke open a gate or not), and at least one member of the crowd directly threatened to kill them. With all of these things taken into account, I'd say the McCloskeys' actions were reasonable.

So it turns out the idea that the protesters tore down the McCloskey's gate to enter their property is false. The gate belonged to the neighborhood, and there is also video confirmation that they just opened it up and walked through without breaking/entering. The gate did end up broken so, maybe someone near the back of the line vandalized it or something, but it's a little different than the way the narrative is portraying it.

Next, it turns out that the idea that the protesters trespassed on the McCloskey's property is exaggerated and potentially false. Yes, they did trespass in the neighborhood since they weren't there by invitation, but they were walking on the streets and sidewalks. The crowd was in the neighborhood to protest at the mayor's house and no one knew or cared who the McCloskeys even were. The only connection is that they happened to walk by their house. I obviously don't have access to the property deeds to ensure that no protester set foot on any McCloskey property before the confrontation, but if they did it was inadvertent and inconsequential.

Finally, the idea that it was a violent, angry mob who threatened the lives of the McCloskeys appears to be false, at least almost entirely false with vanishingly few exceptions. The crowd was by all accounts peaceful until the McCloskeys revved it up by threatening them and pointing guns. Some protesters said some ugly things in response, including at least 1 threat on the level of what the McCloskeys were throwing at the protesters. However, had the McCloskeys just stayed in their house, the protesters would have just kept on walking by and everything would have been fine for everyone, because as I pointed out, the protesters weren't there for the McCloskeys. They were walking past that house to get to the mayor's house.

I'm just not seeing anyway for the McCloskeys to be in the right on this. The protesters had nothing to do with the McCloskeys until the McCloskeys decided to have something to do with them, and it was the McCloskeys who escalated the encounter to include threats and pointing guns. The fact that the Trumpist side has to make up a fake narrative about them in order to have a competent-sounding defense speaks volumes.

[SevenEleven]

This is an extremely L avatar thing to say but it's also psychotic — "protecting your property" is not a justification for the use of lethal force. Protecting your life or the lives of others, or otherwise preventing great bodily harm, yes; stopping some kid from getting away with some sneakers he stole or whatever, absolutely not.

A man tried to scare away looters last night using a fire extinguisher(non-lethal and mostly peaceful) and got knocked out unconscious. Id say the only way to stop them is using a gun.

Okay, so what? If the choice is between using lethal force and allowing someone to grab some stuff you should absolutely catch a manslaughter charge if you pick option A.

Maybe the onus and blame should be on the idiots trying to loot a sneaker? I would rather one looter get shot than one sneaker get stolen. Its their fault for valuing their lives below a sneaker.

Unfortunately for you, that is not how the American legal system works. One of the main roles of the prison system (albeit a small one) is isolation, incarcerating those who are so incompatible with life in a civilized society that their very presence in that society poses a threat to the people around them. Anyone who would choose to murder another human being over a sneaker — since you have wholeheartedly embraced that example — is clearly someone who has zero regard for human life; it serves the interest of the public to incarcerate that individual for a very long time, very far away from everyone else.

Since you seem to have indicated that you fall into that group, I would recommend spiritual counseling, or whatever other sort of therapy would allow you to discover the inherent value in the lives of the people around you outside of the property they may or may not possess. Failing that, it would be good to consult with your attorney about where your sense of personal morality deviates rather dramatically from expected conduct in society.

[YE]

All of these terrible hot takes about MN are mind numbing:

1) Duluth is mostly detached from the Twin Cities. It is hours north, and it has its own economy and a huge blue collar history.

2) Duluth's county will remain Democratic so long as Duluth is in it, but its surrounding municipalities have certainly slipped for Democrats.

3) MN has a heavily educated electorate with a humongous urban center that comprises nearly 2/3rds of the state's population. That area, which heavily favors Democrats and that strength grows stronger by the cycle, is also growing in population, while Republican areas in the state are shrinking.

4) There's still plenty of room to grow for Democrats in the Twin Cities' suburbs.

[lfromnj]

Pretty sure someone being murdered over a very highly prized collection of Barbie dolls (or whatever) would also cause disinvestment, rising insurance costs, and destroy family wealth.

This argument is concern-trolling. Any person interested in long-term health and economic vitality in these communities doesn't want to let property owners literally unload onto fellow community members people threatening their property without restraint. The proper response is to fix the underlying issues that cause people to riot in the first place.

Before this gets misconstrued into some dumb argument that I am not making, I'm not pro-looting. I'm not in favor of wanton destruction of private property. It just so happens that I'm even more opposed to senseless violence in defense of material goods. No healthy community thrives on violence of any kind. You are an absolute fool if you think that responding to violence with even more violence will guarantee any sort of prosperity in bleeding communities.

You do realize that people's businesses and livelihoods are being destroyed, right? Did you see the photos of the used car dealership that was burnt to a crisp? These are likely family-owned businesses we're talking about here, which represent generations of accumulated wealth and a source of pride for the people who built them. They are not "Barbie dolls or whatever," regardless of your flippant and callous dismissal of what these people have contributed to the society you live in.

Your comment demonstrates such a wealth of ignorance about this situation that I don't know where to start. Can you imagine telling someone who is trying to defend their property from a group of molotov-wielding criminals that "The real solution isn't violence, it's fixing the structural problems"? You might be right about that, but it does nothing to solve the immediate problem-- which is that this person's livelihood is about to be annihilated for no good reason. This country was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and property. If you are attempting to take away someone's life (murder), their liberty (kidnapping), or their property (looting), then you have forfeited your own rights to those three things. Your victim is more than justified in defending themselves in any way they see fit.

And no-- to answer your ridiculous assertion, I don't want business owners to "unload on the looters without restraint." Ideally, none of this would be necessary because the police force would be doing its job properly-- both treating black citizens fairly and protecting the property of community members. But because we live in a country where this very basic function of government seems to be non-functional, the latter responsibility has fallen on property owners. I do not like the situation any more than you do, but the difference is that I will not begrudge people the right to prevent their lives from being destroyed just to spare the lives of a horde of looters, thieves, and criminals.

You know, my granddad was a trucker. He never went to college. He spent his whole life working with his hands, fought in WWII and Korea, and often had to make a living fixing up old cars and selling newspapers down by the racetrack. Eventually, he saved up until he could afford to buy a coffee and donut shop with my grandmother. In 1966, race riots broke out in Hunter's Point, and he drove down to the coffee shop to sit out front with a shotgun to make sure the looters didn't destroy it. Nobody dared to mess with that building. But if that coffee shop had been destroyed, who knows what would've happened? Insurance probably wouldn't have made them whole again (just like it didn't for the business owners in Koreatown during the Rodney King riots). A huge portion of their wealth would've been gone in the blink of an eye, just to satisfy the violent cravings of a mob for one night. Without that money, my dad probably would never have been able to stay home studying for college-- he would've had to get a job right out of high school. Which likely means that he'd never have found his current job, and I'd never have any of the opportunities afforded to me now. Would he have been able to afford my college tuition? Who knows? It'd all be up in the air.

This is how generational wealth accumulates. It is a slow, arduous process, and it can all be wiped out in mere minutes. I mean it when I say that I fully understand how lucky I am. But what you are saying is that property owners should care more about the lives of the swarm of violent looters-- people who very transparently don't care about their rights in return-- than the lives and well-being of their children, and their children's children. That really takes some gall.

I do feel the tone especially early on is a bit condescending and harsh but its still a very interesting story even if it is anecdotal.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It’s amazing. It truly is.

Ed Markey:

— Voted for NAFTA
— Voted for the 1994 crime bill
— Voted for the Iraq War
— Didn’t support busing back in the day
— Is an old career politician in office for about 50 years

Alex Morse:

— Has been accused of inappropriate sexual behavior

Joe Biden did all these things or similar, and was crucified by self-styled “progressives” for them. Yet they give a free pass for the same things or worse to these two and twist their brains into knots trying to pretend it isn’t the blatant hypocrisy and double standard that it is. We all know damn well that if these two were considered the “establishment” pick, progressives would be screaming bloody murder about these horrible, evil, corrupt, corporate Democrats. Instead they are actively rooting for them. Celebrating the victory of Markey and lamenting the loss of Morse.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The “progressive” label is fake. The word has had its original definition stripped and been rebranded to mean “whoever Bernie and/or AOC and/or TYT endorses, or whoever isn’t who I think is ‘the establishment’ candidate.” It is all style, no substance. No ideological consistency. No integrity. It is literally just about sticking it to “the man” and absolutely nothing else. At least nothing else with any consistency or conviction whatsoever.

So with that in mind, the so-called “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party would be more accurately called the “contrarian” tribe. Because that is exactly what it is. It’s a bunch of people who never grew out of their high school phase of being non-conformists who hate authority, or are still in it.

[brucejoel99]

It’s amazing. It truly is.

Ed Markey:

— Voted for NAFTA
— Voted for the 1994 crime bill
— Voted for the Iraq War
— Didn’t support busing back in the day
— Is an old career politician in office for about 50 years

Alex Morse:

— Has been accused of inappropriate sexual behavior

Joe Biden did all these things or similar, and was crucified by self-styled “progressives” for them. Yet they give a free pass for the same things or worse to these two and twist their brains into knots trying to pretend it isn’t the blatant hypocrisy and double standard that it is. We all know damn well that if these two were considered the “establishment” pick, progressives would be screaming bloody murder about these horrible, evil, corrupt, corporate Democrats. Instead they are actively rooting for them. Celebrating the victory of Markey and lamenting the loss of Morse.

Breaking news: political types alleged to 'minimise the flaws of the better candidate in one race while maximising the flaws of the worse candidate in another race'. Never before has this been seen outside of this dangerous faction.

Markey was the more progressive candidate (though not by that much) in MA-SEN and Neal was the less progressive candidate in MA-01. Fans of more progressive candidates therefore rallied around Markey's and Morse's candidacies while the likes of you started cheering for Kennedy despite decrying the most prominent backers of the ideas he claimed to believe in. Biden would probably have caught less flack to begin with if the only other candidate in the presidential primary was someone to the right of him, like Manchin.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The “progressive” label is fake. The word has had its original definition stripped and been rebranded to mean “whoever Bernie and/or AOC and/or TYT endorses, or whoever isn’t who I think is ‘the establishment’ candidate.” It is all style, no substance. No ideological consistency. No integrity. It is literally just about sticking it to “the man” and absolutely nothing else. At least nothing else with any consistency or conviction whatsoever.

There's certainly some performative outrage/dishonesty in online political rhetoric, but not much more than in the biases prevalent in traditional forms of media. The support for the more progressive candidate in a given race seems fairly consistent.

So with that in mind, the so-called “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party would be more accurately called the “contrarian” tribe. Because that is exactly what it is. It’s a bunch of people who never grew out of their high school phase of being non-conformists who hate authority, or are still in it. Except ironically they are the ultimate conformists, because they just go along with whatever the Twitter mob tells them to without thinking for themselves.

At what point would a free-thinking incrementalist start cheering for a Ways & Means Chair with little interest in any sort of incremental progress?

[Battista Minola 1616]

Unfortunately, having an all-minority-jury is probably necessary to get a guilty verdict and avoid the riots and destruction nationwide that would come with an acquittal.

You don't get to predetermine the racial makeup of a jury in order to affect a trial's outcome, no matter how destructive you feel the results of said verdict may be; in addition to completely going against all established notions of justice, it's literally the textbook definition of racism

For cops, yes. Cops don't deserve due process. They lost that right after Amadou Diallo's death, let alone more recent police killings of minorities, in my opinion.

Then you don't support due process at all.

Cops don’t deserve due process because due process always lets them get away with it. Cops take turns beating up Rodney King on video and a jury of racist white people lets them off. George Zimmerman executes Trayvon Martin for walking through his own neighborhood and a jury of racist white people let’s him off. Michael Slager shoots a man in the back 8 times and a jury of racist white people lets him off. Darren Wilson mows down Mike Brown for walking in the street and he doesn’t even get charged. See a pattern here? FTP ACAB

Okay, let's go through these examples here.

In the Rodney King case, in addition to the prosecutor being black, the jury was composed of ten whites, a half-black man, one Latino, and an Asian. The verdicts were based in part on the first three seconds of a blurry, thirteen-second segment of the tape that had not been aired by news stations in their broadcasts.

George Zimmerman wasn't even a cop, so there's no point in even looking into this example; however, of the six jurors, one was half-black.

Michael Slager? Currently serving a twenty-year sentence for second-degree murder. So much for your "due process always lets them get away with it" narrative.

Wilson never faced trial because the grand jury, composed of six whites, two black women, and one black man, failed to indict him.

But let's assume you're right. Let's assume that every one of these cases was a clear-cut example of white cops using excessive force against unarmed blacks, and racist jurors all let them get away with it. That still wouldn't advance your argument in the slightest, because not only is due process a constitutionally-guaranteed right for everyone, regardless of whether or not the jurors in question reach their verdict "fairly", but also because due process literally exists to ensure that people are not punished for crimes for which there is insufficient evidence that they are guilty of.

For every cop involved in a lethal force case (which, by the way, can and does happen to any race), is there always incontrovertible evidence that they are guilty of the crimes for which they are convicted? You know the answer to that question. There are plenty of instances (not just for cops, but for anyone accused of a crime... again, the reason why we have due process in the first place) where there is insufficient evidence, and therefore the principle of innocent until proven guilty prevails. Otherwise, any cop accused of killing a black man, even if it was justified or in self-defense, could easily end up in prison despite being completely innocent. Is this what you would prefer, mob rule to the rule of law?

This is why I saw that if you don't support due process for cops, you do not support due process at all. Period. Full stop. And if you say to yourself, "Hm, maybe I don't then, I'd rather run the risk of an innocent man going to prison than having a guilty man go free (because of these "racist" all-white mixed-race juries)", then what on earth makes you think this principle possibly couldn't be used against you, or against, say, a black man convicted of a petty crime with little to no evidence? "Civil rights for me, but not for thee."

Look at the argument you just provided me. "Cops don’t deserve due process because due process always lets them get away with it. Cops take turns beating up Rodney King, etc..." I could just as easily replace "cops" with black people, or even terrorists, given that they are both disproportionately more likely to commit violent crime, and therefore have often been acquitted for these crimes (even though I'm sure many of them have been innocent), and make the argument that these groups don't deserve due process either. There was an example of this in Wilkes-Barre where Stephen Spencer was acquitted of killing a white man in a "race dispute". There are also a ton of cases of these for accused terrorists. But I'm not here to cherry pick examples. I support, as a matter of principle, due process for anyone and everyone convicted of a crime. You have to recite examples of police acquittals (or, neighborhood watch acquittals, or grand jury non-indictments, whatever) in order to justify your belief that "all cops are bastards". Gotta love that typical Democrat hypocrisy—stereotypes are harmful and negative, unless they are towards a segment of society that you happen to dislike.

And guess what? I dislike the police too, not just on a personal level, but on an institutional level. And there clearly are instances of cops getting merely a slap on the wrist, while lesser crimes are given harsher, more punitive sentences because the perpetrator was poor, or black, or both. And this is wrong, and unjust, and I'm just as much of the belief that we need to correct this as soon as possible. But the way to do that is not by removing the civil rights of those who you perceive as the aggressors, hell, even if they are the aggressors. Just like it'd be wrong to strip voting rights from white people because they were denied to the colored for so long, does not mean that due process can be stripped from anyone—regardless of what their occupation is, regardless of whether you like them.

I'm not here to tell you how great and lovely our justice system is—quite the opposite, it's f—ed up in many ways. But what you're advocating here is not only bad policy, it is itself an injustice, and a gross violation of human rights.

Sorry for the overlong post, but I felt the need to say all that in case there's anyone else here who feels similarly to you, in the hope that I show what a dangerous precedent that can set.

[Coastal Elitist]

No because it's obviously a false story by someone who's very bitter and badly wants Trump gone. This is the same crap they did with Warren and CNN coordinated smear against Sanders. Anonymous sources, no credibility - journalism is a joke in 2020.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I note your signature and your screen name, which I heartily endorse on its face. 

Still, how can you equate the Mobs in the streets with large crowds of Trump supporters?

I'm like you in that I'm not a "crowds" guy, but I can't see the equivalence.

You're not going to like this take, Fuzzy, but the BLM rioters and the hardcore Trump supporters have quite a lot in common. Both groups are comprised of people who view themselves as victims of a system that's rigged against them. Both groups have suffered from economic and educational disadvantages, and feel as though they've been left out of the American dream. And when they feel like they're not being listened to, both groups feel the need to smash something-- for BLM, it's local businesses; for Trump supporters, it's the institutions of government.

With both groups, I'm sympathetic to the situation they've found themselves in. Rural whites in the Rust Belt have had their livelihoods destroyed in the last 30 years. Urban blacks have found themselves the victims of an indifferent system that limits their economic opportunities and throws them in prison. However, in both instances, I cannot condone the outlets that they have chosen for their anger. These people see themselves as downtrodden, and so they feel justified in doing just about anything to hurt, harm, and antagonize those who they consider "the enemy." Because of their self-righteousness (and their stubbornness), they can't be reasoned with. At the very least though, BLM is addressing a real problem with our government. The other group is going after the fictional Satanic pedophile Reptillian cabal of Jewish goblins that exists only in their schizophrenic nightmares.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I prefer the other weak old bumbler to Trump, but plausible answers occur to me:

#1. Trump is a Holy Fool and can't be expected know better. People don't expect what he says to cohere in the sense that viewing this as a scandal assumes.

#2. "Preventing panic" is a standard for public health officials. That's what they tell politicians to say, and that's what public health campaigns emphasize. This might be why Fauci's comments on the tape were so conciliatory.

#3. The COVID death rate has been lower than many of us were fearing in March, and mortality is extremely low for children and most adults below the retirement age.

#4. Many of us are so cynical about the motivations of American politicians that we assume that their actions are guided by politics anyway. We assume that most of them would throw away thousands of lives for political gain if they had the power to make that choice.

#5. Many Americans believe that media and politicians have been exaggerating the risks of COVID. Their "lived reality" of the pandemic has not been consistent with what they see on their televisions and smartphones.

When it comes to Trump, speaking personally, I'm not outraged by any particular comment, I'm outraged by his existence. I fail to understand how anyone can keep their sanity while remaining critical of him without adopting this attitude.


The more pressing question is "Why do people who talk as if they believe that the country needs a strong leader continue to support this idiotic buffoon?", and the answer is that Trump's success has always been more about identity politics, distrust in the political system, and pissing the right people off.

The branding of his personality isn't meant to be anything more than superficial and that's why, with few exceptions, his most damaging political acts are consistent with what might happen under any other particularly corrupt and incompetent GOP administration.

In the case of this coronavirus, I think it's clear that a better president could have  pulled the country together well enough that most of us would feel substantially better now, and that is no small thing. But the death rate in the United States isn't the result of policy choices at the federal level. The policy failures that have occurred come out of the states, our geography, and the structure of our government.

The other point to remember is that elections are choices. Trump is likely to lose the upcoming election but he's equally likely to receive well above 40% of the vote. I'm not telling anyone not to be disturbed by that. But a vote for Trump in a two-party system isn't really an endorsement of his politics, just as my vote for Biden will not be an endorsement of his politics. It's an expression of a preference and no more.

I'll go further and say that even many of the seemingly hardcore people parading around in MAGA hats aren't necessarily deeply invested in Trumpism in a way that betrays any serious political conviction, at least aside from the same tribalism that underlies corporate fandoms such as Star Wars or the Boston Red Sox. This is no less stupid and dangerous.

[Joseph Cao]

Why are stories about one crazy person or family relevant to the presidential election?

Because IndyTX himself exemplifies the attitude that he describes in the opening post by holding up the most extreme behavior that he could find as defining anyone who is not on his side.

The national politics of our country are now defined by these mutual hatreds feeding on one another. Much of this stuff reads like material that played on Rwandan radio before the genocide. It's as if they were trying to foment civil unrest. These people are not in the majority on either side, but they're numerous enough to cause trouble, particularly when they are amplified by partisan media. (Also, it would help a great deal to have a president who isn't one of them.)

Two Averroës posts in a row!