By speaking sanity even though many GOPers are too brainwashed to listen. :-(
I mean if they are okay with GOP Senators blocking an investigation of a violent insurrection and invasion of our national capitol, what hope does the GOP have of an influential future?
44 comments:
I think if they were offered a BIPARTISAN commission they would be OK with it. That's not what is on offer.
And Democrats don't want that, either.
Of course it is what is being offered, that is why some Republicans voted for it and many others avoided going on the record either way.
The GOP will pay for this irresponsible choice in 2022.
1000's of people invaded the US Capitol, many people were injured and some died, and the GOPers what to brush it under the rug...
Lie. Exactly why the Democrats want this PR spectacle, to continue the lie. How about a bipartisan commission to investigate the many massive riots, destruction and deaths done by BLM and Antifa?
Exactly why the Democrats want this PR spectacle, to continue the lie.
Maybe it's the iPhones which are lying. Big Tech striking again.
But no, the problem Republicans are having in so many areas is the truth. In this case, what Republicans are concerned about is that an independent bipartisan commission investigating the events of January 6th would have a credibility problem, that is it would be credible. So the Republican strategy is to move the investigation to Congress. That way they can shift their focus from the truth of what happened to attacking the credibility of the people who speak it.
What happened on January 6th was an attack on our system of government. Just out of curiousity, I would like to know what happened. It's important, I think, for all of us to know what happened. Why wouldn't Republicans want to know the extent of Trump's complicity before selecting their presidential candidate in 2024?
==Hiram
Hiram, you seem to be jumping to conclusions based on facts not in evidence. You are reciting the Democrat party line, that this was a massive and violent insurrection. Yet there are many reports that this was, at worst, mostly peaceful, far more so than any BLM event. Apparently ONE person died, minimum property damage, protesters were allowed in by the police, Congress resumed that evening. And protesters were there having a legitimate concern for the Constitution. There is a criminal investigation ongoing, and I doubt there will be more than a few minor charges filed.
"bipartisan commission" = "witch hunt propaganda exercise" Politicians should not be investigating an openly political event, especially when all similar events (attacks on federal buildings, etc.) are ignored.
So what do we do going forward. Is what happened on January 6th, one more thing America will have to "get over"? Will Republicans want to go forward with their presidential nominating process without knowing what the president's role was in those events? Will they be comfortable without knowing whether Donald Trump committed treason?
I don't know what that means for 2024. What I suspect it means is that people who object to the counting of ballots will have their concerns regarded as "legitimate". Legislators will find that when their prferred candidate loses, that irregularities will be found, that their constituents will not have confidence in the totals, and that they will withdraw from the process. Don't we all understand that that would be the end of our constitution? Is that the real goal? Is that what Republicans are terrified a commission will find out?
--Hiram
Did the president of the United States try to overthrow the government on January 6th?
Is that a fair question to ask, or do we have an answer to that question? Is it a question we have a right to ask? Were the actions of the president on that day, and the days leading up protected from an investigation by executive privilege?
Is it the position of the Republican Party that we should go into the forthcoming elections without having a satisfactory explanation of what happened on those days? Are Republicans content with that? Should the American people be content with that?
--Hiram
You have a very altruistic view that this "commission" is about establishing the absolute truth of the 2020 election. That is not only naive, but unlikely to the point of impossible. To judge the actions of the peaceful protesters at the Capitol, you would have to know for certain that the election was free of outright fraud, and that is looking less and less likely by the day. It is something this "commission" will not even TOUCH, and by design. BLM can riot nationwide based on the lie of George Floyd's death, but a few Republicans have a legitimate Constitutional grievance and we suddenly fear "domestic terrorists"? It's silly.
To judge the actions of the peaceful protesters at the Capitol, you would have to know for certain that the election was free of outright fraud, and that is looking less and less likely by the day.
In 2024, we will not be able to say the election is free of outright fraud. So what does that mean? Will legislators feel free to send electors of their own choice to the electoral college?
Something I have talked about a lot here and elsewhere is that when a politician says he is for something, but only if an impossible precondition is fulfilled, that politician is against that thing. We see that principle in operation here. An investigation cannot be conducted we are told unless we are certain about things. Well things are never certain particularly before they are investigated. In 2024, we will be told that results can't be certified until everyone is satisfied. Well, everyone will not be satisfied, so election results will never be certified. And since that would throw the election to the house whose elections can't be certified, will be unable to reach a decision. Isn't that pretty much it for our constitutional system of government?
Trump supporters are now eager, they inform us, to investigate the riots. Do they really want to investigate Trump's role in inciting violence last summer?
--Hiram
Jerry,
That Capitol invasion / insurrection is a Federal issue.
The local protests / riots are local /state issues.
Are you recommending that the Feds interfere in Local / State affairs?
You supporting Federal over reach more every day it seems.
I believe that Trump had a role in the inciting the violence last summer, passively surely, but also actively. Do Republicans really want a commission to look into the violence of last summer? A modern version of the Kerner Commission? If they do, they are certainly free to propose one.
--Hiram
Remember there are Republicans and Democrats at the State level, too. Blue states and cities seem to have no interest in investigating or even curbing these domestic terrorist "insurrectionist" activities, clearly the work of leftists of one stripe or another. But let a few "Republicans" raise a constitutional question, and "mostly peacefully" demonstrate on its behalf, and it must be stopped, forever a black eye on Every Republican! Is the double standard really that difficult for you to see? Democrats are desperate to paint some sort of moral & legal equivalency here, and it is a ridiculous stretch of credulity.
Jerry,
Only the conservatives invaded the US capitol, killed an officer and injured dozens more.
And you want to down play the historical significance and how bad it was. Shame...
Now we are being told we can't investigate what happened at the capitol because there is other stuff we are not investigating. What really did happen to Judge Crater?
--Hiram
1. Prove it.
2. How about a stolen election, is that of "historical significance"? And the murder of dozens of black children, just in Minneapolis, NOT by police but by black criminals is not of historical significance, but it is very bad and some people (ahem) don't seem to care about it. Shame.
The fact that lots of stuff can be investigated is now an argument that nothing should be investigated. Trump supporters are comfortable with not knowing what happened on January 6th, it seems, because murders in Minneapolis are uninvestigated. Ignorance is a goal to be sought after.
The reality is different, of course. We all know the events of January 6th will be investigated. That's a given. So we have two choices of action. We can have a bipartisan commission where the goal is to reach a credible result. Or we can have Congressional investigations. That's the path preferred by Republicans, not because it's more credible, but because it's less credible. They know that whatever Congress finds, however true it might be, the results will be far easier to discredit, and that's of paramount importance to Republicans because the results will be so politically damaging to them.
--Hiram
" We can have a bipartisan commission where the goal is to reach a credible result." Really? That is one of the choices?
We have criminal investigations still ongoing. I'm guessing the results of those will not receive the publicity this "commission" is intended to get, because it won't show how "terrible" this "insurrection" really was. More like a couple sparklers during the Fourth's fireworks show.
I didn't know sparklers could kill 5 people and injure 100+.
And Jerry does not want to know why or how to prevent it in the future.
Prevent it? Easy. Stop stealing elections. To me, if you really want to investigate something, it would be the MOTIVE for whatever took place, and the truth of that.
That's assuming you have no desire to investigate the deaths of dozens of black children in Minneapolis alone.
Something I find myself talking about a lot are the limitations of the criminal justice system. For one thing, it isn't really about justice, and isn't a very effective system. That people don't understand that helps to explain why people are so dissatisfied with it.
--Hiram
Jerry,
No election was stolen. The States and Congress agreed.
Now if you support assaulting and killing people because of your conspiracy theories, I think you need help.
And I am all for stopping the illegal flow of guns and the resultant death of innocent children as you well know. As for finding the specific criminals, that is a local or state matter.
"No election was stolen" So, if the States and Congress agreed that men could be women, would that make it true? You cannot prove the election was valid if you do not look for the invalid, and I've already told you there are reasonable suspicions about 20 times the Biden margin of victory. Prove me wrong. That would "help" me a lot more than your unfounded claims to the contrary. I'll even give you a hint. Until somebody comes up with more evidence, I'm not going to blame the machine counters. I am going to blame the ballots put into the machine-- somewhat easier to falsify, without any known point of responsibility.
So, no desire to prosecute people who fire-bomb federal buildings, or conspire to riot, or to deny federal and state authority? How much violence and anarchy are you willing to accept, just to pretend that the only incident worth talking about is a few hours on Jan. 6?
It's certainly not my job to prove anyone wrong. It isn't my job to relieve anyone of their reasonable or unreasonable suspicions.
Trump was incompetent, and so the amount of damage he could do was limited. But what about next time? What if this idea that all reasonable suspicions must be saitisfied before an election result is certified takes hold? What follows if we give reasonable suspicioners the power to hold up election procedures?
I am interested in the logic which argues that if we can't investigate everything, we shouldn't investigate anything. Before we investigate whether President Trump engaged in seditious behavior, we must at least make an effort to determine the current whereabouts of Judge Crater.
--Hiram
I believe our country is failing. I have felt that for a long time. The basic reason for that feeling is that we can no longer decide things. Congress is completely dysfunctional. It's members spend almost all their time raising money for the next election. Health care issues are deadlocked. For decades. Elderly Supreme court justices have delusions that the founders discussed health care at their convention in 1787. Now legislators are seriously acting son the theory that elections people choose to say they lack confidence in are therefore invalid. If this line of thinking is allowed to prevail, surely President Biden will be the last president whose legitimacy is not reasonably disputed.
-=Hiran
It is odd that folks still believe that a very unpopular President lost the election.
It's hard to explain. My own theory is that there is an underlying belief here which is mostly unspoken because it sounds in racism. The idea is that too many of the wrong people are voting. In 2020, those people did vote, in large part and the perception, not completely supported by the actual results, that they would vote Democratic.ins
We see hints of this view all the time. When people talk about how voting should be just a little bit difficult in order to discourage marginal voters, that's a reflection of the wrong people thing. Historically, the measures were far less subtle. We had literacy tests and poll taxes, and even now there are proposals to suppress voting in the same ways those no discredited practices try to do.
Sometimes, we see the opposite of voter suppression. Instead of creating formal barriers to voting, we increase the powers of voters we prefer. The way you do that is with gerrymandering, reducing the power of city voters, and with the effective gerrymandering of the states which gives disproportionate political powe the few residents of largely unpopulated states, residents we choose to thing are more "American" than the rest of us.
--Hiram
This whole "who votes" thing is a load of malarkey, to use Biden's word. Example: Down in Mississippi, the Congressional lines got redrawn some time back, to create a "majority minority" district up in the Delta. That District 2 was 70% black. Unfortunately that made Jackson county and its neighbors, District 3, 70% white. District 2 elected the white guy, and District 3 elected the black guy. Folks in District 4 were actually denied a seat in Congress, for two years, because of the suspicion that the election was conducted improperly, due to a minor technicality.
Districts are gerrymandered. Or are people now having "reasonable suspicions" that they are not? As I understand, the claim is that would should drive our policy isn't what is true, but what we choose to say we have confidence in.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Jerry thinks it is a good idea to gerrymander and keep those minorities out of the voting booths as we realize.
And he also wants to deny their will regarding kicking Trump out of office.
Remember the GOP and Jerry's plan, make it hard for the poor and ignorant to vote.
You persist in willful ignorance or slander, I'm not sure which.
As for gerrymandering, to some degree it is true, but look what happened in Mississippi and you will find it isn't working. Besides, courts have consistently ruled that extremes of such are unconstitutional. What I want to see is to turn it over to computer programs which cut out all of that. I've worked on some of those algorithms and they work great. Of course that is "reasonable" and I don't expect the DFL to go along with anything like that.
Odd, I did not know that black people were too stupid to have a photo ID, yet smart enough to vote for Democrats, mostly, but a lot voted for Trump. Now if THEY had to produce photo ID, maybe Trump would have received FEWER votes?
And just a hypothetical, is it really desirable that the "ignorant" should be voting?
Democrats Need to Focus on Election Administration
"And just a hypothetical, is it really desirable that the "ignorant" should be voting?"
That's a good question. Perhaps you're correct. So...how would we decide who is ignorant? I guess we could ask if they watch Fox News.
Moose
All hypothetical, again, but one solution I would have is (not sure how it would be enforced) is if you cannot name at least one candidate for an office, you should not vote for that office. "The Benenson Strategy Group in Washington, D.C., surveyed 1,000 people between the ages of 18 and 34 and found that while 91% of those surveyed claimed they were likely to vote in the next presidential election, 77% could not name one of their state's US senators." So, 14% NOT ignorant? Heck of a way to run a railroad, or a country.
As for gerrymandering, to some degree it is true, but look what happened in Mississippi and you will find it isn't working.
It can be hard to tell if gerrymandering is working. We are largely in the area of conventional wisdom than verifiable fact. Whether it works or not I do know both parties put a lot of effort into it.
In broad strokes, you can see how gerrymandering can work in the results of the 2016 presidential election. Despite winning the popular by over 3 million votes, and by over 2%, Hilary lost in the electoral college vote by 304 to 227. Clearly, the way the districts were drawn worked to her disadvantage.
if THEY had to produce photo ID, maybe Trump would have received FEWER votes?
Many millions more people voted for Donald Trump in 2020, than in 2016. Democrats were hardly the only ones who benefitted or who were affected by the lowering of barriers to voting. Often that worked out to the advantage of Republicans, and I don't have a problem with that. When my candidate has the most votes he should win. When the other guy has the most votes he should win.
--Hiram
There are a variety of computer models used by both parties to draw legislative models. Both parties use them. That's how they know what the impact of how there gerrymanders will be.
" I did not know that black people were too stupid to have a photo ID"
I did not know that either. Lots of Republicans don't vaccine ID's. Is it because they are stupid? I know I have talked with a number of them and what they tell me is that have done a lot of research on this issue. They cite charts and numbers and statistics and provide links to articles in learned journals as evidence. I am often dazzled by the level of intellect on display.
More:
"Key Findings
Less than half of Americans can name their Representative, ...
Just two-thirds of Americans who voted last November believe they had the opportunity to elect a U.S. Representative when they voted. Males are significantly more likely than females to believe they had this opportunity.
Self-described conservatives are more likely than liberals or moderates to know their Representative’s name and/or party affiliation.
Twenty-three percent of Americans who voted for a Representative last November cannot name their current Representative. Self-described liberals are more likely than conservatives or moderates to have voted “blind” in this manner.
Self-described moderates are less likely than conservatives or liberals to have contacted their Representative."
This idea is looking better (hypothetically).
Laurie, good to see you again. Question: have you ever heard of the George Soros Secretary of State project?
I have not heard of the George Soros Secretary of State project
Statement of Concern
The Threats to American Democracy and the Need for National Voting and Election Administration Standards
Millions of Americans voted for Donald Trump. That raises a lot more questions about who we allow to vote for me than the fact that most people don't know who their state representative is. It is several magnitudes more scary.
--Hiram
The "George Soros Secretary of State project" that existed from 2006-2010? That's your boogeyman?
All I can say is that I heard of it, and then observe that our DFL SOS unilaterally changed election rules to make it easier to cheat, without consent of the legislature.
And Laurie, all your article does is insist that attempts to make elections fraud-free amount to voter suppression are simply the same old hokum. For example, mail-in balloting is, if widely used, subject to the fact that voter rolls are generally about 10% in error, especially if the SOS does not regularly "clean" them. We have found quite a number of folks over age 100 who voted. Possible, sure, but how can we be sure? Answer, voter ID for all ballots, and clean voter rolls. No unattended ballot drop boxes (or none at all). Bipartisan observers for all mail-in, absentee ballots and the counting thereof. Full reconciliation of ballots, just like in the polling place. None of these things "suppresses" legal votes at all. But until we preclude, by law, the many opportunities for cheating, there will and should be suspicions that it is taking place.
All I can say is that I heard of it, and then observe that our DFL SOS unilaterally changed election rules to make it easier to cheat, without consent of the legislature.
The rules applied to everyone. On the whole, I would say in Minnesota Republicans benefitted more from them than Democrats. In the Seventh Congressional District, the changes made it a lot easier for a lot of old people to get out and vote for Michelle Fischbach.
--Hiram
I am moving my responses to GOP Voter Suppression Update
Post a Comment