One step forward, maybe?

[David Garner]

There is no drift.  This is what you said.

Second, I would like every Democrat to find someone - anyone! - from the Trump side of the political spectrum and say: "I will listen to you. If I disagree, it will not because I do not want to hear you or that I do not hear you. If I agree, or partly agree, I will say so. With you (I hope) I will denounce any action involving violence, destruction of property or use of weapons."
I would like to see that.

The problem is you back away from that last sentence immediately when you accuse people of not listening to protesters as tacit justification for rioting and occupation of private property by violent extremists on your own side.

That is, as is typical, you don't mean it.  It's just words you put together in a power move to get concessions from people.  You have no intent on living up to your end of the bargain.  You simply want to control the language of other people for your own ends.

We aren't falling for the banana in the tailpipe.

[Charles Austin]

And you don't want to take the steps that you need to take, which begins with denouncing  the madman still in the White House and his actions. As to the others and what I might do in further discussion, try me. But first we need to agree that we have been in the hands of a madman and one who, Because of his incendiary words, bears responsibility for what happened last Wednesday.

[peter_speckhard]

And again we drift.
My main concern is the next ten days. Word "out there" is that supporters of The President are planning more activities not unlike those of last Wednesday.
This ought to be a priority concern. I remain convinced that the right words from the president could turn aside some serious trouble. He would have to say "Don't come. Stay home. Do not protest at the inauguration." And he might have to say "It's over, our side lost." If he keeps saying what he has been saying for the past two months, I fear trouble lies ahead.
Much is in his hands.
Peter says he "believes" something was wrong with the election. But no proof has satisfied numerous courts. Politically, we do not take serious action only on what we (or some) "believe." And if we are to show any respect for our government and our system of governing ourselves, it is now time to move on, not driven solely by what we may "believe" to be true.
At least I think that should apply for the next ten days. Everyone say it together: "Biden is the president-elect. He won the election. If there were irregularities, they did not illicitly throw the election his way. He won. Nothing can change that fact."

No court has agreed to allow for an investigation, which would take time. There is evidence, not proof. Most of the suits were thrown out technicalities-- lack of standing to sue, improper timing of the suit, etc. In no case that I no of has the substance of the allegation proven false after having its day in court. Recounts are similarly useless. The argument "out there" is that if you argue that I underpaid you because some of the bills I paid you with were counterfeit, it does not address your concern if I recount the money and say I've settled it because it adds up to the right amount. In most cases the argument is not over the count, it is over the legitimacy of some of the ballots being counted. Signature match requirements were ignored, rules were changed by improper authorities, etc. and the courts did not deny it, they just said it wasn't their problem or that there was no redress. It was all done because of the emergency of Covid-- just blanket the nation with ballots and then count whatever comes back so that nobody has to risk their life voting in between trips to the grocery store. Your press immediately reports such things as the court finding no evidence of fraud. But generally that simply isn't what happened.

The next ten day are going to go just fine if people relax. The way to give them a chance of not going just fine is to push re-impeachment, media bans, etc.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Enlightening interview on 60 Minutes with Angus King, the independent senator from Maine.


https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/sSGIVWUJrBE7MvPnDXU_9jjBVBbHH0Yc/angus-king-the-60-minutes-interview/

[peter_speckhard]

But first we need to agree that we have been in the hands of a madman and one who, Because of his incendiary words, bears responsibility for what happened last Wednesday.

That isn't going to happen. And what you've written is proof positive that for you it is all about the narrative. I know you hate that word and probably don't understand it in context, but it is exactly what you're talking about here. We must agree to your narrative in order to begin having a discussion. You must first be recognized as vindicated in all the vitriol you've spewed these last few years, and then perhaps you'll listen to the penitents. Once we all agree that you have been right all along, you'll condescend to perhaps have a discussion. Until then, you don't want to hear it. The idea that you have been outrageously wrong all along will not be admitted for discussion.

You either have no interest whatsoever in taking a step forward toward anything resembling a healthy body politic or you have no clue how obvious your disdain for those who disagree with you really is.

[David Garner]

And you don't want to take the steps that you need to take, which begins with denouncing  the madman still in the White House and his actions. As to the others and what I might do in further discussion, try me. But first we need to agree that we have been in the hands of a madman and one who, Because of his incendiary words, bears responsibility for what happened last Wednesday.

It's just words you put together in a power move to get concessions from people.  You have no intent on living up to your end of the bargain.  You simply want to control the language of other people for your own ends.

We aren't falling for the banana in the tailpipe.

Nailed it.

[Rob Morris]

Can anyone explain how this thread is not an example of the 100%-sociopolitical, 0%-theological disputes that the 2021 Rules of ALPB were designed to prevent? Asking for a friend...

[peter_speckhard]

Can anyone explain how this thread is not an example of the 100%-sociopolitical, 0%-theological disputes that the 2021 Rules of ALPB were designed to prevent? Asking for a friend...

No.