The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"When You Are Not With Where a Majority of Americans Are, Then, You Know, That Is Extreme"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iquGx_rbdk
Here's the full context, from White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre yesterday:
Q But specifically with regards to limiting these freedoms — I guess my question is: The Supreme Court created this space for the anti-abortion movement at the state level and also perhaps at the federal level to try and restrict this freedom. Where do they fit into all of this? How would the President describe them after that decision? Were they just extremists, or were they, you know, part and parcel of a semi-fascist —
MS. JEAN-PIERRE: Look, here's what I'll say: We continue to — continue to see attacks on people's fundamental rights — right? — of Americans with new abortion laws across the country.
And when you have national Republicans who are — who are leaders in their — in their political party; who sit in office; who say that they want to take away the rights even in case of incest, in case — and not — and in case of rape; and taking away a woman's right to make a decision on her body — that's extreme.
And — and, you know, the President is going to call that out. He's going to continue to do everything that he can to make sure that we protect people's freedoms. He's going to do everything that he can to call that out. And, you know, that is important to call out. That is important to talk about.
And, again, we see a majority of Americans who disagree. And so, when you are not with where a majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking.
I'm not going to — that's what I have for you, Phil.
I should note that forbidding abortion even in cases of rape or incest is indeed the view of only a minority, though the results vary from 35% (the "oppose" in "Please tell me if you support or oppose a law that allows abortion at any time during pregnancy in cases of rape or incest") to 14%-16% ("illegal" in "Do you think abortions should be legal or illegal when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest?," "illegal" in "How about when the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest? Do you think abortion should be legal in that situation or illegal?"). And "taking away a woman's right to make a decision on her body" more generally, which I think roughly fits the "abortion should be illegal most of the time" or "always illegal" seems to poll at about 32% to 46%, depending on how the question is worded.
Likewise, allowing abortion on demand generally, including in the third trimester, is supported only by 20% of the public (up from 13% four years ago), and allowing it in the second trimester (basically the Roe v. Wade rule) is supported only by 36% of the public (up from 28% four years ago). Saying that some versions of those views are extreme, whether because they really do have the support of only a small fringe, or because they are logically at the ends of the spectrum (e.g., "always illegal" or "always legal") may be descriptively defensible, though I'm not sure that this is what the President's representative should be saying.
But the particular thing she said was:
We see a majority of Americans who disagree. And so, when you are not with where a majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme.
And that strikes me as hard to defend.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
A former president has been credibly accused in court of misappropriating the contents of dozens of classified information folders, after being revealed to have lied to the government about possessing and mishandling government secrets;
a Federalist Society leader has invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions about un-American conduct;
a lawyer for the Oath Keepers has been arrested for insurrection-related conduct;
lawyers for former Pres. Trump seem destined to encounter disciplinary proceedings for preparing and signing false affidavits;
a frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination has been ruled to have engaged in unconstitutional restriction of speech for partisan political purpose;
a former President is promoting QAnon nonsense;
a bunch of clingers are attacking children's hospitals with deluded nonsense;
a judge has rejected Lindsey Graham's silly attempt to dodge testifying concerning election subversion;
and this white, male, right-wing blog wants to talk about . . . this.
Hard to defend, indeed.
The only un-American conduct comes from you Groomers.
The press secretary was a bit inarticulate. She may be more fluent in Ebonics.
Revvie Boy. Law school, please.
On Twitter, i can pay $5 a month and edit my tweets. I suggest that here.
Jane Fonda has cancer.
https://variety.com/2022/film/news/jane-fonda-cancer-lymphoma-chemo-1235358719/
I wish her the best; that the chemo is not too rough and that she survives with good health. I loathe her politics and I don't like her; but the worst I would wish on anyone would be to have my current health problems for the rest of your life.
Simple rule, don't wish for anything to happen to someone else unless you are willing to have it happen to you too.
'The only un-American conduct comes from you Groomers.'
See, this is why we know they're crocodile ears and it's all performative outrage.
Corcodile ears, hah.
Does a "Corcodile" have tears also, or only ears?
But, yes, it's how you "know" all that you do know:
Republican: ""
Democrats: "Wrong!"
My crocodile has no nose!
How does he smell?
Terrible!
You left out Penn State pulling it out (Reverend Sandusky loves Pulling it out) against Purdue..."Reverend"
What’s up with you guys always bringing homosexuality into the situation when it’s not a part of the conversation?
Frank obviously has the intellect, analytical abilities, and sense of humor of a fifth grader. Feel sorry for him -- as we all do -- but it's best to let him be. Maybe someday his mother will let him leave the basement.
Why are you bringing up those extremists? They aren't part of the majority so they must be extremists according this administration, who themselves are extremists according to their approval rating and support for their policies.
At this stage do we even know that Trump himself is the target of the classified documents investigation? As opposed to say a member or members of his team, whether staffers, lawyers, etc? I haven't seen a anything listing Trump himself as the target.
Trump's the target because he's the GOP frontrunner and the FBI & DOJ always meddles in our elections.
That is correct. He good news is that the lawyer jihad of nitpicking lawfare is making people angry. It is unfair. It will benefit Trump and his party.
Trump's the target because he's been caught violating a few federal statutes. Possible next step: search warrants for Bedminster and Trump Tower to find the classified documents that are missing from those empty folders found at Mar-a-Lago.
"Hard to defend, indeed."
You certainly haven't tried to defend it.
Note that all of the examples you give but one concern people out of power. Biden is in power, and his spokesman has labelled extreme anyone in the minority. Which is of a piece of his fascist rhetoric.
So, yes, this is more important. When Biden is out of office, his ranting can be safely ignored.
As Eugene at least felt it necessary to allude, the off the cuff comment was in the context of a position that (no exception for rape or incest) that has the support of as little as 14% of the public, and certainly no more than 35%. So when she said "majority", context makes it highly unlikely that she was referring to a bare majority rather than a super majority of 70-85%.
Eugene is pretty clearly trying to position himself for a Trump judgeship. What's your excuse?
(And your attempted defense of the deep dive into an off the cuff remark that, if interpreted most uncharitably and ignoring the context, is inaccurate is, frankly, pathetic. I have not seen any post by Eugene about Trump's many inaccuracies in his recent speech, including things such as this gem: "Putin was not going into Ukraine" while he was President. The Donbas region would like a word with the President. No, the comment by the White House spokesperson was not the Eugene chose to post on it. He can post about whatever he wants, but there's a clear political bias in the things he parses and the things he doesn't.)
*"No, the comment by the White House spokesperson was not the most consequential one this week, much less this month or year. Yet, Eugene chose to post on it.
The history of the "War in Donbas" is listed as 2014-2022 and has been subsumed into the Russian Invasion of Ukraine 24 Feb 2022-present.
The Insurgency in Donbas (2014-2022) was supposedly ethnic Russian-Ukrainian insurgents rebelling against the Ukrainian government.
Trump was president Jan 2017-Jan 2021 when most of the world was not officially acting like the Donbas insurgency as a Russian invasion.
Russia officially recognized the Donetsk and Luhansk "republics" (Donbas) on 21 Feb 2022 and invaded Ukraine 24 Feb. Supposedly Russia was rescuing the Russian-Ukrainian insurgents from the mean old Ukrainians. The Battle of Donbas officially started 18 Apr 2022 after Russia failed to put Russian tanks in the streets of Kyiv the Ukrainian capitol..
The Wat in Donbas was not official Russian "boots on the the ground" in Ukraine until 24 Feb 2022.
from: .. insurgency as a ...
to: .. insurgency was a ...
from: ... The Wat in Donbas ...
to: ... The War in Donbas ...
This post was about examining statements through the lens of hyper literal interpretation. As you've ably shown, Putin absolutely was going into Ukraine throughout the entirety of Trump's Presidency. Thanks for agreeing with me.
I’n addition to being hard to defend, it seems like an extreme characterization of what might qualify as being extreme - even based on a more conventional understanding of what extreme means as opposed to her seemingly (extremely) broad understanding of what it means,
Edit: …means[.]
She is the poster child for why affirmative action is a bad idea.
Did you give a moment of thought that this might not have to do with her race?
You're correct here, S0.
She is an extremist herself and a sop to the Dem far left. That is the only explanation for her appointment. A Sarah Huckabee of the Left
I haven't heard of her till today.
So far I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt - we all bobble wording and press secretaries need to speak more than most.
FWIW, I did the same thing for SHS - it was an accumulation, no single thing, that made me realize how little substance she had.
She was on PBS many times commenting on domestic policy using pair with a Republican mouthpiece.
Otherwise I would not know anything about her.
I have known too many competent African Americans to take that broad brush comment seriously.
I agree she used the wrong word. It would have been more accurate to use "repellent," "abhorrent," "misguided," or "misogynistic."
Biden approve/disapprove
54% disapprove — a majority!
38% approve — extremists according to the Biden Administration reckoning of today.
Tomorrow they will have new word definitions for extreme, recession, etc. So be sure to read the latest propaganda dictionary before speaking or writing. You won’t believe what the new word for "woman" is.
Assumes 'disapproves of Biden' means 'thinks the election was stolen, all liberals are groomers and that threatening civil war is the correct response to the FBI finding stolen government documents at Mar A Lago.' A dubious proposition.
It assumes none of that. It simply takes the logic of the Press Sec ("when you are not with where a majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme.") and applies it to a standard poll that is broadly representative of other polling on similar questioning (Biden's approval). This simple example to show that the principle expressed by the Press Sec is utter dogshite (unless ofc we assume that the Press Sec thinks she herself is an extremist, a dubious assumption to say the least).
I take issue with treating the phrase in isolation; she was talking about support for abortion versus Republican anti-abortion policies, not Biden's approval rating, and Biden himself was clearly referring to the sorts of MAGA extremists who believe extreme things, such as the examples I provided.
Dear Sir, whoever you are:
She said that any time you are not with the majority of Americans, you are “extreme.“ She did not say, “only with respect to abortion.“
Further, as the article demonstrates, the majority of Americans oppose abortion on demand in the second trimester. So, even if her comment was limited to abortion rights, the defenders of Roe are themselves “extreme” Buy her definition.
She was discussing abortion, answering a question about abortion. The majority of Americans support abortion. Extremists are driving the Republican anti-choice agenda.
And yet, Biden is still more popular and respected than Trump.
I have not been impressed with Jean-Pierre's ability to convey a clear message.
I mean, she's right that criminalizing abortion in all cases is an "extreme" position. But that has less to do with how it polls than the kind of violence it does to women.
The Biden administration is getting desperate ... and they're blasting through all red lines on their way to the bottom.
Biden's latest speech was reprehensible in its attempt to further fracture a deeply fractured country.
Not sure it quite matches up to Trump demanding either he be restored to the presidency or that the election be immediately rerun and calling for FBI agents to carry out some sort of putsch.
Nige,
But is its still bad.
As for Trump, he belongs in prison
It's not bad; not in the least.
We are all extremists now, at least in some areas.
I think we can start talking about Biden's extremist economic and crime and border control policies.
But it's hard to call republicans extremists on abortion because since the Dobbs ruling, abortion restrictions need majority to be implemented.
'I think we can start talking '
I mean, have you guys ever shut up about them?
The Federals are evil vile monsters.
Maybe it's time for you to tell us what "The Federals" did to you, crybaby.
Do you think you could remember that moment you became a bootlicker or have you also been one like its in your genes or something?
He got screwed by the Veterans Administration (prolly because the VA is/was really incompetent), but now blames the entire federal government.
Given that Jean-Pierre made an unartful political statement that was pure politics, this post strikes me as either ignorant or an unartful political statement worthy of Blackman. Please come back to us by making posts along the line of a Kerr, Baude or Adler.
Yeah, we should give the people of your political tribe as much deference and understanding as possible, but the people not in your tribe should be killed or put in prison because they threaten our Sacred Democracies.
Given Biden chose to give this speech...with this imagery...
I mean this looks like something a dystopian ruler would give in a video game, as he talks about how evil roughly 50% of the population is....
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/09/bidens-catastrophic-speech/
Not what he said, of course. Not all Trump voters are as partisan as you are.
Of course, I've never voted for Trump. But given how Biden is acting, well...
He's making it an easy choice.
*Tattoos swastika on arm*
'Look what Biden made me do!'
Funny story. Trump never sent the FBI after his political opponents.
Sarcastr0: "No, no, no! Suppressing your political opponents has nothing to do with fascism! Has Biden invaded Poland? See, he is not a fascist!"
Funny story: Trump stole secret government documents, lied to the FBI about giving them back and tried to hide them.
Nige,
He did not steal them. Stick to the facts. He defied a subpoena to return them after he had them legitimately.
Once he stopped being president he no longer had them legitimately, which he must have known was going to happen when he took them, ergo, stolen.
"which he must have known was going to happen when he took them, ergo, stolen."
That is VERY unclear. Mr Biden could have preferred that he have them at hand.
As usual you assert as fact things that you have no way of KNOWING. See how that works?
So he 'unknowningly' stole them, if you're going to give him the benefit of the doubt, which is certainly your prerogaative.
Once he stopped being president he no longer had them legitimately,
What's your next guess, counselor?
Are you foaming at the mouth for Obama to get the same treatment for precisely the same actions as well, or are you a lefturd hypocrite?
-jcr
First of all, Don, Trump did not have legal authority to possess classified information whatsoever once he was no longer President.
You claim to be familiar with classification. Your prior statement and this current one are in obvious contradiction with each other, as nobody who is familiar with classification would make sure a foolish remark like claiming the possession was legitimate without an appropriate level of security clearance.
Furthermore, he was not lawfully entitled to possess any of the Government records after he was no longer President, classified or otherwise.
He knowingly took documents that he was not entitled to upon leaving the White House. He then refused to return them, despite being in possession of the documents unlawfully.
When one takes property without a legal right to do so and with the intent to not return it, that is stealing.
So much for your claims of understanding classification and proper handling procedures.
It's no surprise that you'd deliberately omit the fact that the lighting at the event was in fact red, white, and blue.
Tan suit bullshit all over again from you people.
This is a real, unaltered picture of Biden's speech.
https://twitter.com/joeroganhq/status/1565756183050260480/photo/1
And yet the event was in fact, regardless of your cries, lit in the colors of red, white, and blue.
There's more to life than what you see on your TV screen, or maybe I should just do what you do and claim that the photo might've been altered, since it's just a tweet.
A tweet from Joe Rogan....
I'd agree totally if I could possibly understand what you are talking about.
About 2/3 the post is direct quotes, the other 1/3 is polling data, then EV closes with his own view which I guess is what you take exception to:
"And that strikes me as hard to defend."
Seems right to me, but then again I am an extremist.
That was a reply to Josh, of course.
What's the purpose of the post?
If he is making a serious argument that Jean-Pierre's statement is hard to defend, then he is ignorant that the statement was garden-variety politics which we already know is often nonsense.
If he already knew that, then he is taking political potshots at Jean-Pierre in the mode of a Blackman post.
Sure he could have ignored it, but what makes it worth noting is it's not a just an inartful statement out of the blue, it goes hand in hand with Biden's speech yesterday:
“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic...
“But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.
“These are hard things."
So her statement wasn't just "inartful" "garden variety politics" it was a planned coordinated message from the Whitehouse.
And the message is noted:
Joe Biden considers me and 74 million others "extremists" that "that threatens the very foundations of our republic".
You think of yourself as a MAGA Republican?
Or you think MAGA Republicans aren't a threat to the nation?
Or what?
Sure I'm MAGA, who wouldn't want to Make America Great Again? In fact I'm probably Ultra-Ultra MAGA because I'm a laissez-faire capitalist, 13 hour shifts for bakers and all. Not only that I donated to Trump in 2020, and made sure my donation would be reported so my friends and family could look it up.
I'm not going to be marginalized by a mediocrity and graft hound like Biden either.
Hunter Thompson Said it best,
"Joe Biden is a treacherous, gutless old ward-heeler who should be put in a goddamn bottle and sent out with the Japanese current.”
Frank "MAGA Again"
I am with you.
I haven't donated to Trump, but have donated to my state Republican Party.
And I comment using my real name.
Screw the fascists.
Sure I'm BLM - who doesn't think black lives matter?
Kaz, don't be facile.
I'm not going to be marginalized by a mediocrity and graft hound like Biden either.
Easy for you to say - you're not a baker.
Well my daughter was a pastry chef.
That's pretty cool.
Yeah it was cool, I used to get all kinds of great stuff.
But now she’s a pharmacist, and she never brings me home any treats from work.
Less likely to need to move back home, I'd wager.
Still, I'm always a bit chagrined to see people move from creative work to higher-paying other endeavors. Such is life, though.
You don't want to make America great again?
You think demonizing roughly 50% of the population is a good idea?
This is the Biden who supposedly promised to heal divisions.
America is great. Exceptional, even.
MAGA isn't about that, though. Any more than China is a republic. MAGA is about hating Dems. That's all; that's the entire thing.
"MAGA is about hating Dems. That's all; that's the entire thing."
Mmm... This is the classic example of a strawman.
You spend 90% of your posts on here saying Democrats or their policies are bad at best and mostly evil.
If you are an example of MAGA, you have become the strawman.
If you lick those boots any more, you're going to stain your teeth black.
This has zero to do with my comment. Did you just have an insult you couldn't wait to break out, or what?
You lick the boots of the power grabbers who push policies that are bad at best and mostly evil, and attack people who call that out. It's too bad you don't realize that's what you are doing.
I disagree with your take on what's evil, and point out shitty comments as your fail again and again to prove out your points.
You can't handle being disagreed with, and so make it personal. And take it off topic. Because insults are an arena you prefer to argumentation.
I think demonizing 50% of the American population is a bad idea. And that's what the current Democratic policy appears to be.
It's not exactly "unifying people." And Biden's speech, where he spent at least 50% of it, if not more, demonizing Americans was a bad idea, in my opinion.
No, stealing those documents was a bad idea, lying about the election was a bad idea, trying to overturn the election result was a bad idea, continuing to lie about the election was a bad idea and Trump demanding he be reinstated or the election rerun RIGHT NOW were all bad ideas. Pointing out that all this is a threat to democracy is stating the bleeding obvious.
That's not what happened, AL, no matter how much you repeat it.
But more directly - YOU demonize all the freaking time. It's all you seem to do around here - declare some liberal thing bad, and then attack liberals' motives.
What's up with that?
MAGA means make America Great Again, so it really has nothing to do with Democrats unless of course they oppose making America great again.
I’ll will also point out that Trump spent almost his entire public life as a Democrat, registration, voting, and donating, and was embraced by the Democrats, or at least his wallet.
Then he was promoted rigorously by liberal media, CNN, Morning Joe on MSNBC, etc, when he ran for President.
Then all the sudden he was literally Hitler.
Trump being rather thin skinned decided that made it personal, but I think most conservatives like me, have too many relatives and friends that are Democrats to feel that way, so let me rephrase that for you:
MAGA is about hating the chattering classes, establishment Dems, and to some extent Establishment Republicans.
That’s more accurate.
MAGA means make America Great Again, so it really has nothing to do with Democrats unless of course they oppose making America great again.
MAGA is about hating
Ahhh, there we go. None of the hiding behind taking the slogan literally, now we're at the good stuff.
MAGA is negative populist partisanship coming from the right. It stands for nothing else.
If you stand for something, you should probably find a group that stands for that, because MAGA won't get you there.
"America is great. Exceptional, even. "
There I take issue with you.
The US is a major culprit for a large fraction of the political instability in the world today.
We don't know the counterfactual, but it is quite possible that world stability would be worse without us around. As an example early on, and more directly in the modern era. Whither Israel without us?
Hegemons that seek to stay that way are inherently problematic, but all things considered we've done a lot better than just about any other example you're care to name.
And domestically, I have my issues, but I still think we're pretty special - tying our civics to basically being an anti-monarchy. And then making a promise that we had no intention of living up to, generations later working hard to live up to it.
I'm glad this is where I live, and I'm honored to work for the US.
I suggest that you look at the present situation in Europe which was provoked by decades of US pressure via NATO provoking Russia. The US behavior towards Iran is preposterous. It expects Iran to give up all aspiration toward being a major power in Central Asia, flying in the face of 3000 years of Persian history.
I am sympathetic toward the US backing of Israel, but aiding and abetting the KSA in Yemen? No way.
NATO didn’t provoke Russia. It is a defensive pact., Russia is their own country making its own dub decision.
We don’t know what would have happened to the world without NATO, but don’t blame Russias authoritarian imperialism on the US.
We suck hard in the ME and basically always have. But netting it out the fact that conflicts are largely local and not nuclear is a pretty good feather in our cap.
Our conflicts mean world conflicts.
NATO definitely did provoke Russia. Your comment is because you have been brainwashed by incessant US propaganda, gladly promulgated by the US press.
As a lawyer, you should know that every pancake, no matter how thin has two sides. You really should try to see the world from the other fellows' POV on occasion.
The provocation was them threatening to make Ukraine safe from invasion by Russia by letting them join NATO. Intolerable.
brainwashed by incessant US propaganda, gladly promulgated by the US press.
Naw, I read RT enough to recognize a line from them in what you wrote.
NATO is a defensive pact. If Russia is threatened, that's their imperialism speaking.
Parroting Putin doesn't make you sophisticated. NATO did not "provoke" Russia, except in the way that Poland provoked Hitler: by existing. NATO went out of its way not to provoke Russia, refusing to do anything to advance Ukraine's bid for membership. Nobody with an ounce of common sense or knowledge of European politics thinks the invasion of Ukraine had anything to do with anything NATO did.
Can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.
And I can’t claim we are perfect, but the truth is since WW2 the world is more peaceful than its ever been in recorded history with the fewest percentage of people dying from war, starvation and disease, and the fewest number of people in extreme poverty ever, or at least since since the Pharaohs in the old kingdom.
Now go ahead and point out flaws, but acknowledge the overwhelming reality.
The reality is that you and I live well here. I suggest that you do more thinking of the 650 million in Africa without electricity. Consider the total fuckup of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen.
Yup the work is great where you and I live Kazinski.
I generally live between 2 and 4 months of the year in Cambodia, so I don’t need any reminders on how the rest of the world lives.
6 months of the year I live off the grid at my cabin using solar and a propane generator, so I have more reliable electricity and services when I’m in Cambodia than here.
So speak for yourself.
Bravo for you, Kazinski.
Do you have electricity where you live? If you do, then you do need a reminder or two.
You don't want to make America great again?
Stupid question-begging.
You assume that Trump will do that. He won't. He's a crook and a liar and an ignoramus.
And yes, I think his movement is a threat to democracy. It couldn't be clearer.
"He won't. He's a crook and a liar and an ignoramus."
You give him too much credit, bernard.
Lthrop - can you name a single progressive policy that has actually been beneficial
The social welfare system, public education, socialised health care, environmental protections and regulations, breaking up monopolies, certain nationalised public services, arts funding, science funding, funding for universities, etc etc. All policies routinely blocked, attacked, undermined, sabotaged and rolled back by conservatives to the severe detriment of the public and, usually, the extreme profit of corporations and billionaires.
Joe Dallas -- which is your favorite flavor of Republican-conservative-Federalist Society bigotry.
Is is the racism (race-targeting voter suppression, for example)?
Is it the misogyny (the handmaiden stuff)?
Is it the immigrant-hating (the white nationalism)?
Is it the gay-bashing (a shout-out to the gullible and superstitious!)?
I ask because you are seem to like a white, male blog that loves to toss vile racial slurs and sometimes sprains a wrist patting gay-bashing assholes on the back.
Carry on, clinger.
Republicans with some kind of integrity are not the extremists that Biden rightfully called out.
He could not have been more clear that the extremists are the "MAGA Republicans." Notably, the 74.2 million people who voted for Trump are not all "MAGA Republicans." Many of them were just too stupidly partisan to recognize the threat Trump, his lies, and his idiot followers represent to the Republic.
He's entirely correct on all counts. If you still support Trump and his lies, you are absolutely a threat and should be treated as such.
Well I prefer MAGA go on without Trump, but lets make it clear while I'd much rather vote for DeSantis, Cruz, Scott, etc, than Trump in 2024, I'd vote for Trump in a heartbeat against almost any Democrat.
Its the same tired playbook, Bush, McCain, Romney (he'll put y'all back in chains), Trump are all fascists, as were Goldwater and Reagan before them.
We've quit listening, because we've heard it all before.
Trumps worse only because he won, and could win again in '24.
DeSantis, Cruz and Scott would all definitely happily go fascist to capture the MAGA vote, where they haven't already. They're utterly dreadful human beings, only a few degrees further on from pond scum than Trump, and willing to get a lot closer.
When you're giving a speech against a blood red background, flanked by the military, talking about how evil 50% of the population is....
Well...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/09/bidens-catastrophic-speech/
A background! Soldiers! Not actually talking about 50% of the population!
The civil war threateners are sad.
You really like to link this opinion piece that cries about aesthetics, don't you?
Man, you really want to be actually oppressed by a tyrant.
Given how Biden is acting....stealing hundreds of billions from the Treasury to give to his supporters...sending the FBI after his political opponents....giving speeches about how "evil" a broad swath of Americans are....
I mean, it's starting to look like it.
JFC the FBI had, and has, every reason to be putting Trump in their crosshairs for deliberately stealing, concealing, and withholding government records, including top-level classified information and national defense information.
If you bothered to read the warrant, or any factual news source, you'd learn that there is evidence far beyond a reasonable doubt
that he not only did those things, but also has attempted to (again) obstruct justice.
You're a fucking liar.
Every dictator has a reason to send the state security apparatus after their political opponents.
Every democracy has the right to send the state security apparatus against corrupt politicians. It's when the politician is let off because his followers threaten violence that the democracy is in real trouble.
It's when the politician is let off because his followers threaten violence that the democracy is in real trouble.
You don't say...
https://californiaglobe.com/fr/blm-antifa-far-left-promise-rioting-if-trump-wins/
But in the end it was a bunch of Trump supporters who actually rioted.
You don't say....
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/inauguration-2017/washington-faces-more-anti-trump-protests-after-day-rage-n709946
Oh yeah there were demonstrations, and a bin was set on fire and a cop subjected to a wounding phrase. No State Capitols invaded in an effort to overturn the election and install their preferred dictator, though.
Followers threatening violence...check
Followers actual violence...check
Sending state security after political opponents...check
Stealing money from the treasury to give to supporters....check
Demonizing large sections of the public to cause division...check
Anything else I'm missing?
Grooming?
Pizzagate?
Let's go Brandon?
'Russia hoax?'
CRT?
Woke mob?
Great Replacement?
"Let's go Brandon..."
So, your response to sending state security after your political opponents is...a chant from a Nascar rally?
One of these things is not like the other.
You response to Trump getting caught stealing top secret government documents is to claim he's the victim?
And hey, my list was illustrative, not exhaustive.
Nige, you've been told before why "stealing" is wrong here. Why do you keep lying?
No, I've been told, and agree, that 'stealing' is not what he'll be charged with, if he's charged at all. It's still what he did.
“DeSantis, Cruz and Scott would all definitely happily go fascist”
See, you make my point for me.
When Mitt ‘He’ll put y’all back in chains’ Romney is a fascist then nobody is.
Hey, I didn't make that comment about Romney, but I stand by what I said about those other three stooges. You seriously need better Republicans,
Joe Biden made the comment about Romney during the 2012 campaign.
Such innocent days, before anti-CRT and anti-woke campaigns came along to show exactly how little Republicans think of black people.
Interestingly, all the European academics (all on the political left) I have spoken to recently, think that Trump will be elected in 2024, because there isn't anyone else.
Mr Biden and his entourage have not impressed except negatively.
Ms Harris is dismissed as a joke.
I mean, the Biden speech expressly said that most Republicans are not MAGA Republicans.
I'm not sure he's right, though. The Cheney primary result indicates otherwise.
Well I’m sure Biden doesn’t think most of us are irredeemable, they’ll weed out the irredeemable ones in the re-education camps.
Double down on the paranoia, why don't you?
Well I think in the end Biden isn’t an effectual enough leader to pull it off, but remember this is the administration that orchestrated a letter from NASB so Garland could order the FBI to start intimidating parents so they wouldn’t protest at school boards.
The Administration that even before they got into power got 100 intelligence officials to spread disinformation to keep real information out of the campaign.
The Administration that’s made hundreds of not thousands of requests, and implied threats to social media companies to censor opposing viewpoints.
It’s not paranoid to take Biden at his own words:
yesterday:
“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic...
“But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.”
“These are hard things."
I know what interpretation you and Joe Biden would put on those words if Trump spoke them.
Biden's speech ended asking people to vote. It did not talk about reeducation camps, you utter lunatic.
Literally every word of this is false.
Did the Biden Administration have talks with the NASB’s CEO about the letter before it was drafted and sent?
“ President Biden's White House was in discussion with the National School Board Association in the weeks leading up to the NSBA sending a letter demanding federal law enforcement crack down on the alleged harassment of school officials, emails show.
The emails show the school board group drew on conversations with White House staffers in drafting the letter. ”
https://nypost.com/2021/11/11/white-house-engaged-with-nsba-before-domestic-terror-letter-memo/amp/
Did Merrick Garland order the FBI to The Department to investigate not only threats of violence (which we all condemn) but also “other forms of intimidation arid harassment.”? Which are constitutionally protected speech.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-addresses-violent-threats-against-school-officials-and-teachers
There is nothing false about that sentence. It may be intimidating to threaten to throw school boards out of office, and swearing at them or calling them groomers may be harassment, but both are constitutionally protected.
Threats, harassment and intimidation are not constitutionally protected, and it's not intimidation to do take steps to prevent them. Also, if there's a lot of threat, harassment and intimidation going on, I'm not sure how authorities are to determine whether specific allegations are true or if they're actually constitutionally protected speech without investigating.
So did the FBI start intimidating parents? Because that seems a vital part of your story that didn't happen.
This was a letter directed not at speech but at intimidation tactics by chuckleheads at school board meetings. Often not even parents.
Your side has a real issue with schools, as it turns out - plenty of bomb threats and the like going on for political reasons to this day.
This is the funny the Gish Gallop. Whatever conspiracy there is takes far more time to dig into and debunk than it does to make up.
1) No, not a single thing in there shows that the Biden administration "orchestrated a letter from NASB." The NYP is lying when it says that emails show that the "school board group drew on conversations with White House staffers in drafting the letter."
Here's the actual facts: the NASB met with the administration over a bunch of issues — something perfectly reasonable and ordinary to do. One of the issues that NASB raised was what they considered to be threats of violence against their members. The administration told them to put their specific concerns with supporting evidence in writing. That's it. There's not the slightest evidence that the administration's role in the letter was anything more than that.
2) Nothing about the letter or Garland's memo applied to parents who "protest." This was about threats, harassment, and violence. As one should know if one has followed Prof. Volokh's posts over the years, the terms "harassment" and "intimidation" are often unconstitutionally vague, and thus are inappropriate to form the basis for a criminal prosecution. But that does not mean that they are "constitutionally protected speech," as you say. The reason that they're unconstitutionally vague is because they're broad enough to encompass both protected and unprotected speech.
3) Nothing in Garland's memo "ordered the FBI to start intimidating parents."
David,
You are being dishonest.
Conversations with the Whitehouse on topics that appeared in the letter is orchestration.
Look up thread at the Nebraska harassment decision invalidating most of the federal harassment and cyberstalking statute. Most harassment of public officials is constitutionally protected.
Intimidating public officials is protected activity, as long as it’s not violent intimidation. You can threaten to end their political career, expose what their policies are to the public, threaten to try to get them fired from their day job. You can even intimidate them by threading to demonstrate out side their home.
It’s pretty notable that one of the incidents cited in the NASB letter as violent intimidation was the father who refused to shut up about the coverup of his daughter being raped at school, and the school board violating the reporting law.
Don’t beclown yourself.
"Conversations with the Whitehouse on topics that appeared in the letter is orchestration."
I never saw you apply this standard to the conversations between Trump team members and Russian agents.
But better late than never, Kazinski may deny "collusion" but he's all in for Trump "orchestration" of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
There are not 74 million MAGA Republicans. Pretty clearly, some people held their nose to vote for Trump over Biden. There aren't MAGA.
Mitch McConnell, for instance, likely is one of the 74 million, but nobody confuses him with MAGA (odious as he is in his own way). The same for roughly half of the 74 million.
This post is about being literally accurate or being called on the carpet, so you complaining about besmirching 74 million is just as egregious as Karine Jean-Pierre's "misstatement" (if you ignore the context and, again, insist in strict literally reading).
I think the context is relevant here. Abortion was, until quite recently, a constitutional right. The position of the administration is that Dobbs was "egregiously wrong" and should be set aside, i.e., that abortion is a constitutional right in exile.
So, this isn't a policy dispute about like, whether the military should have its budget increased by 10% or 20%. It's about whether a constitutional right should be infringed.
Taking that as the mindset, it's fair to say that enacting a policy of infringing a constitutional right, especially when the right is supported by a clear majority of Americans, is extreme.
No. The right to abortion is supported by a clear majority of Americans, albeit not nearly to the extent that leftists claim. The idea that it's protected by the Constitution is not, if you really delve into it.
Abortion never was a "constitutional right"
Neither was or is sodomizing dudes.
Incorrect:
It was not an enumerated right.
You might find the text of the 9th Amendment interesting.
What was the state of the law when the ninth amendment was adopted?
Its hard to "retain" a right you never had.
Same with the state of the law when the 14th amendment was enacted.
The ninth amendment says nothing about limiting unenumerated rights to those considered to exist in 1789. Nothing in the text of the entire constitution requires an "originalist" interpretation. That's just made up garbage, usually used in bad faith to achieve a desired result.
What is the objective test to determine if a right is protected by the Ninth Amendment?
If you better understood the English language, you wouldn't ask such a stupid question.
Admittedly though, at least your question pretends to be valid. That's improvement from your normal content.
Progress!
Well you are wrong there, and I notice you didn't quote the 9th to make your point, it's plain text is clear that it doesn't protect new unenumerated rights, only existing ones:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
History and Tradition.
Kazinski, you have no idea what the actual history and tradition regarding abortion was at the time of the founding. Nor does Dobbs make any rigorous attempt to address the question. I guarantee you that if you search legal records for cases where women were actually punished for abortions, or forcibly prevented from having them, you will find little. Do you suppose that means abortion was not practiced then? How would you know?
Alito does say, and excuse the formatting from the cut and paste from the pdf:
Butaswehaveseen,greatcommon-lawauthoritiesLikeBracton,Coke,Hale,andBlackstoneallwrotethatapost-quicken.ingabortionwasacrime—andaseriousoneatthat,More-over,HaleandBlackstone(andmanyotherauthoritiesfol-lowingthem)assertedthatevenapre-quickeningabortionwas“unlawful”andthat,asaresult,anabortionistwasguiltyofmurderifthewomandiedfromtheattempt."
That's surely enough to show it wasn't a right, just because there wasn't a robust record of prosecutions is meaningless in asserting unlawful conduct as a right.
Stephen Lathrop
September.3.2022 at 12:32 am
Flag Comment Mute User
"Kazinski, you have no idea what the actual history and tradition regarding abortion was at the time of the founding. Nor does Dobbs make any rigorous attempt to address the question. I guarantee you that if you search legal records for cases where women were actually punished for abortions, or forcibly prevented from having them, you will find little."
Based on the medical technology that existed in the 1700/1800's , do you really think it was common.
Your grammatical comprehension of the Constitution is just as poor as your understanding of Biden's message yesterday.
I suggest you look into conjugation a bit more.
Kaz, I don't think that's the slam dunk you think it is.
Normal people don't see retained and say 'Oh it's a snapshot of right then.'
In fact, I don't think you do either; you just want to believe.
His problem is that he has the tense of the statement completely wrong.
It is not past-tense at all. He's ignorant of both what a modal verb is, and its function.
"Normal people don't see retained and say 'Oh it's a snapshot of right then.'"
That's sure how I read it. The normal meaning of 'retain' is precisely to maintain the status quo, not acquire more later, or lose more later.
Maintain is the word you're thinking of. Not retain.
Retaining water is not a snapshot of current water in your body.
Not convinced, e.g.:
"‘Maintain’ means more to preserve the quality of something, which also often means ‘taking care of something.’ ...‘Retain,’ on the other hand, means to ‘keep something as is.’"
Or from some place called 'wikidiff':
" As verbs the difference between retain and maintain is that retain is (transitive) to keep in possession or use while maintain is (obsolete|transitive) to support (someone), to back up or assist (someone) in an action. "
etc, etc.
Ah, the timeless argument that telegrams, radio, television and the Internet have no Constitutional rights because they didn't exist in 1787.
And by "timeless" I mean classically ahistoric.
Absaroka - I really don't see the text suggesting this was a snapshot of the late 1700s due to the word retain.
But if that textualism doesn't convince you, what about a bit of originalism:
I once again cite Baude, whose research on the Founding era understanding of constitutional jurisprudence was very much based on common law precedent-based drift as a good thing. The actual framers at the time didn't insert much of anything that was explicitly locked into their own time (other than like ages of eligibility) with that understanding.
the timeless argument that telegrams, radio, television and the Internet have no Constitutional rights because they didn't exist in 1787.
Rights are negative - nothing possesses them; they prevent the government from acting in certain ways.
That's not what "negative rights" means.
Your argument implies that nothing prevents the government from acting as it wishes with respect to telegrams etc because those were not within the original public meaning of the Constitution or the relevant amendments.
I'm not an originalist, Michael.
But even originalists find that argument pretty lacking - rights like speech and freedom from search are not tied to any particular medium.
This is hilarious, Michael P is skewering Absorka's extreme originalist position, but thinks he's doing the opposite.
Red Queen constitutional construction:
‘When I use a word it means exactly what I intend it to mean, and anyone who disagrees is an extremist’
However original public meaning constitutional construction generally has 6 votes on the Supreme Count, when the issue gets that far.
And both Johnson’s and Webster’s dictionaries agree retained as retained its meaning over the years. Which kind of makes arguing for newly discovered unenumerated rights moot.
“To RETAI'N. v.a. [retineo, Lat. retenir, Fr.]
1. To keep; not to lose.”
Once again, you're focusing on the wrong verb. You're completely wrong about the tense of that statement.
It is simple future continuous tense, because of the modal verb "shall."
That means, since you've evidently ignored every other time I've tried to point you in the right direction, that "retained" is not to be read in the past tense as just a snapshot of what was understood in 1789. The same goes for "construed." The entire sentence is referring to rights which are understood to exist at the time the sentence is read, whether that happens to be in 1789, 1861, or 2022.
You are wrong.
Disagreeing with you does not mean discarding the English language. Quit with that kind if delegitimizing rhetoric.
The very definition you quoted would seem to address my part of the argument - it says nothing about a snapshot in time. You can retain something any time, especially given the shall construction.
Heh, tell me you realize you’ve lost the argument without telling me you lost the argument.
Pivoting from the key word retained, by claiming “shall not be construed” can do the work required is a pretty effective way to concede.
Alpheus W Drinkwater
September.2.2022 at 10:02 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
"The ninth amendment says nothing about limiting unenumerated rights to those considered to exist in 1789. Nothing in the text of the entire constitution requires an "originalist" interpretation. That's just made up garbage, usually used in bad faith to achieve a desired result.".
Same with the claim that abortion is / was a constitutional right.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Balkin makes a pretty good case for it being a constitutional right. I'm just saying it could easily be an unenumerated right retained by the people today.
Alpheus W Drinkwater
September.2.2022 at 10:02 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
The ninth amendment says nothing about limiting unenumerated rights to those considered to exist in 1789. Nothing in the text of the entire constitution requires an "originalist" interpretation. That's just made up garbage, usually used in bad faith to achieve a desired result."
That doesnt create a constitutional right to abortion
The 9th Amendment can only possibly refer to rights retained by the People that were recognized at the moment of ratification?
Why does it exist as written then, instead of simply listing out the rest of the specific rights understood to exist in 1789?
That's pretty simple, they didn't want to play the gotcha game of "you forgot that one", or take a decade for a group of learned scholars argue about it.
But it's very clear what the meaning of retained is, then and now.
As I commented above - you are incorrect in your understanding, and should do a more thorough job of examining verb tenses, and specifically, modal verbs.
In other words: You got something which you claim to be "very clear," very wrong.
Check out Conspirator Will Baude about the original public meaning regarding how a Constitution is supposed to operate.
Because you are certain of stuff that isn't true.
I don't really understand your argument concerning the word "retained." And the whole "history and tradition" paradigm is just as made up and atextual as originalism itself. And I suspect used with just as much bad faith.
I am informed that "the people" as used in the Bill of Rights actually refers to the government (see Second Amendment.) So, by this logic, the 9th Amendment perhaps includes a right to abortion, but it's the government's right.
So banning assault weapons is extreme.
Going to the grocery store armed with automatic weapons is extreme.
No one's doing that you moron.
Sure, and Trump won in 2020.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/27/981980772/man-with-6-firearms-arrested-at-grocery-store-following-tip-from-startled-shoppe
Google "Going to the grocery store armed with automatic weapons" and check out how many there are!
Stop nutpicking...to use your phrasing.
So was Biden! Plucking the MAGA nuts to seperate them from the rest of the Republicans!
It's not nutpicking when its a counterexample, AL.
BCD: "No one's doing that you moron."
Me: "Here are people doing that."
If I said 'this proves that everyone is bringing guns into stores' that would indeed be nutpicking. But I did not.
So nuts doing something count when you're doing the nutpicking. Got it.
So what did you mean when you said no one?
That only nuts are bringing automatic weapons into supermarkets?
It's.... EXTREME.
"check out how many there are"
I found a lot of links to the incident in your link, but the other incidents in the first few pages were garden variety robberies, a report of stores in South Africa with armed guards, and other miscellany.
Really? Your Google is different than mine.
I saw an actual mass shooting in Buffalo,
a tweet about an Oklahoma Trader Joe's,
and a discussion of opposition to Texas open carry laws with a number of anecdotes.
There will be none. This man had semi-automatic pistols and a semi-automatic rifle, a revolver and a shotgun. But facts are inconvenient to your in-group bias and narrative. Criminals with automatic weapons don't take them shopping. They use them to commit crimes. People who legally own machine guns and automatic rifles don't take them shopping.
When people stop committing murders in stores I'll stop carrying (semi) automatic weapons.
See? Too terrified to go to the store without an arsenal hanging off him.
This is a good point. But it shows that the people who are saying "extreme" haven't given consideration to any view but their own. They have not considered others' perspectives using any humanity.
The world is a diverse place with many different perspectives. Zealotry and insular elitism goes against the grain of a diverse and pluralistic society. That's why Dems are so unhappy.
Turn back toward liberalism, tolerance of differences, humanism and empathy.
"Liberals" have gotten so far from liberalism, they can't even see it in the rearview mirror. And they're racing further away from it year after year...
And look how happy and contented they are.
Look at what they anticipate for their future. They tear down the people of the past, declare the people of the present a danger, and then can’t figure out what went wrong and why they also dread the future. (Hint: it’s because you guys made your life about searching out opportunities to complain and to justify grievances.)
The irony of this comment while Trump supporters rend their garments and gnash their teeth over Biden's speech is... entirely familiar.
In other words: but... but... those other people are 90-110% as bad as us!!.
They're not 'as bad as us.' They're just awful.
112% as bad then. Awesome argument.
Worse, frankly.
Continued brilliance.
Thanks for being an example.
Well, I don't want to boast, but you could find worse role models. Trump supprters for example. Way worse.
I believe it was Laird Wilcox who defined extremism as a matter of style not minority status. A minority with "fringe" beliefs could be quite reasonable, trying to win people over with persuasion and trying to understand the other person's point of view. Conversely, a majority (or large minority) with "mainstream" beliefs could be determined to stomp on adversaries to achieve their aims, cannot imagine the need to even attempt persuasion with those evildoers who hold different views, and so on.
The first example - the minority fringe advocate - is not an extremist while the second example - the mass-movement militant - is an extremist.
Can you spot the extremist?
https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/august-landmesser-1936/
The first half of Biden's speech was hate speech.
It is deeply pessimistic to say that the USA is 50/50 divided and that the two sides hate each other. But that's close to the real truth.
Both sides see the other side as immoral and evil.
Nobody prominent from any side dares to suggest genuine compromise where both sides give up something important to them. Anyone who did would get crushed. The last two Senators who dared suggest compromise were John McCain and Joe Lieberman. They both got crushed.
If polarization continues to increase, how the heck can this country stick together?
By the way, similar things are happening in many countries; not just here.
That's why all smart people know civil war is coming.
You are precisely the type of commenter the Volokh Conspiracy's right-wing law professors attract and cultivate, IsaacDanielcm.
Disaffected, bigoted, antisocial, conservative, a stain and drain on our society.
Carry on, clingers. So far and so long as your betters permit, and not a step beyond.
That's like the gazillionith time you've used that last sentence "Reverend". And I'm sure when you've buggered hundreds of boys, the 698th isn't especially memorable, (how's it feel to be on the other end of the Cock, "Reverend"?) at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
but C'mon (Man!) pay Jamaal in Cellblock "D" a carton of smokes for some better material (Man!)
Frank "Better than Some, Worse than others, but not in Jail"
You’re extrapolating a small sample size. I’m running around Houston regularly and interacting with a lot of people. All races, gay and straight, educated and not. I’m sure there’s a mix of political views as well, there’s just too many people to think otherwise.
Somehow, not a single one of us hates the other.
We all get along fine. It’s you politically intense people who need to grow up.
Hate speech?
You do know where you're posting, right?
'It is deeply pessimistic to say that the USA is 50/50 divided and that the two sides hate each other. But that's close to the real truth.'
Not remotely true, but that certainly is the counter-argument. Biden's trying to isolate the MAGA extremists from the rest of the Republicans and turn Trump into an electoral liability. Not sure if it'll work, but I expect just being seen to stand up to them will benefit him.
the 74 million "MAGA extremists"....
We'll see how many non-extremists can be carved off from that.
Interesting phrasing....
Well, he'll take a stab at it anyway.
All he's doing is driving more moderates to the opposite side.
Yeah, moderates are lining up to support the guy who still claims he won the last election and wants to be reinstated RIGHT NOW.
I'm just sad he missed the whole thrust of that exchange.
I think he's losing his edge.
It's really telling how committed you are to the idea that MAGA extremist applies to all Trump voters.
I'm sure plenty are into that. But I know plenty of Republicans, CPAC attendees even, that wouldn't associate themselves with that term.
Your side isn't a monolith; we contain multitudes.
The GOP is not a monolith. Unless it's Biden and friends characterizing them....
Unless a Republican criticise Trump, for example, then out they go. And no Republican is ever going to vote for anything that adresses climate change, for sure for sure!
Plenty of Republicans have criticized Trump and are still members of the GOP.
Sure, so long as they changed their tune.
Or their name, in the case of the RNC chair.
As long as they crawled to Mar-a-Lago and kissed the ring and begged forgiveness, a la McCarthy and Graham.
The GOP is not a monolith. Unless it's Biden and friends characterizing them....
Do you have anything to back this up? Because it is the opposite of my interpretation of what MAGA troops means (as I explained above, which you seem to have misunderstood).
"Now, I want to be very clear, very clear up front. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know, because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans."
Well actually to be clear, I have never been a big fan of Trump personally, however I was pleasantly surprised by most of his administration, despite his personality and incompetence in picking personally.
But the biggest thing that put me solidly in his corner was the Russiagate hoax, it made me willing to overlook a lot of failings I might otherwise focus on.
Russiagate was at its heart a coup attempt much more serious than Jan. 6th.
And a few months ago when Biden started using the term Ultra-MAGA I embraced that term.
It is Democrats that are making Trump and MAGA a hill to die on, so OK let them.
'Russiagate was at its heart a coup attempt'
A coup attempt by Russia? That's a bit extreme.
'And a few months ago when Biden started using the term Ultra-MAGA I embraced that term.'
Don't forget to label yourself a domestic terrorist, too, like they did at CPAC while palling around with Erdogan. Oh, and like one commenter here was wont to say, if youre white and a nationalist, why, that must mean you're a WHITE NATIONALIST and if others assume you're identifying yourself as a racist, that's on them! It's a great way of blaming others for your supporting terrible people.
A coup attempt by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Justice Department.
The Hilary Clinton campaign had nothing to do with it. It was Trump's own Justice Department. Should they have ignored concerns and allegations just because Trump won?
Sleepy Joe just standing up was a surprise.
You jumped out of your chair and waved a gun around in shock.
Don't work so hard to make yourself look like a dickhead.
Ok I promise I won't carry automatic weapons to the grocery store.
I don't hate anyone.
I do think certain people in the Democratic leadership are focusing on "hate" and "hating" other people as a way to keep the focus off of the job they are doing. Villification as a way to "change the narrative", rather than look at the reality of how they are actually doing.
You sure do a great impression of hating Biden.
Calling out hateful rhetoric is not hate, Gaslight0.
Oh, I don't just mean on this thread.
You've got a bit of a hate-on for liberals yourself, as I recall.
"Nobody prominent from any side dares to suggest genuine compromise where both sides give up something important to them. Anyone who did would get crushed."
That's because every time somebody has TRIED a genuine compromise, where both sides give up something important to them, the deal got violated.
Reagan's trade of an amnesty in return for border enforcement.
Motor voter in return for cleaning up voter roles.
Raising social security taxes to make SS financially stable.
These grand bargains don't WORK. They get reneged on. Nobody enters into a deal with somebody they know isn't going to keep their end of it.
That's why the only Republicans who entertain "grand bargains" these days are the ones who don't CARE if the deal gets reneged on, because they personally WANT the Democratic end of the bargain, and making a trade is only an excuse to defect from their own side.
every time somebody has TRIED a genuine compromise, where both sides give up something important to them, the deal got violated
No, Brett, that's your revisionist history and confirmation bias.
When I was a kid, Reagan and Clinton got lots of stuff done both domestically and overseas by dealmaking and somehow that compromise didn't render America into a communist hellscape like you seem to think compromise leads.
In reality, politics isn't a 1-D continuum where everything is a zero sum. Alas, too many see it like that now and thus insist our elected officials act like that.
Actually, everything Brett said was true.
Amnesty was promised for border security. Then there was no border security
The MVA act was supposed to clean up voter rolls. That never seemed to happen.
Raising SS taxes was supposed to make SS viable. Then...it wasn't
Do you know what confirmation bias means? It doesn't mean I was accepting (for the sake of argument) his examples.
You're so bad at this!
Saying "revisionist history" and then insisting that you really meant "confirmation bias" is a scummy equivocation even for you.
I mean, I said accept for the sake of argument, but if you want to argue:
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672
Peter Robinson, a former Reagan speechwriter: "It was in Ronald Reagan's bones -- it was part of his understanding of America -- that the country was fundamentally open to those who wanted to join us here."
""I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," -Ronald Reagan.
I loved her criticizing people for questioning elections when KJP personally did so in 2016 and 2018.
Well I think the first thing is we should make sure we are working with a common vocabulary, so here is my attempt to define extremism as Jean-Pierre is using it, and I think its a workable definition for today's political discourse:
"Extremist:
Someone who disagrees with me and at least 50.1% of Americans are closer to my view than theirs."
She is correct, and everyone here knows what she means.
In her vocabulary, as in anyone's, "extreme" means "out of touch with reality", or "beholden to hateful conspiracy theories". Most of the Republican Party is there now, and it is a minority party.
“Everyone on the other side is evil”. That’s an extreme position. You’re as much of the problem as the people you hate because you’re an extremist.
And she’s shameless. She says that banking abortion under all circumstances is way out of the mainstream and she’s right. But she’s a democrat, and they favor abortion being legal up to the 9th month - it was in the bill they proposed after Dobbs. That too is way outside the mainstream. She criticizes extremism while ignoring her own. Not good for her credibility.
That's not extreme - that's to allow for medical interventions when the life and health of the mother is threatened in late stages of pregnancy but the baby cannot survive. We've already seen how abortion bans put mothers at appalling risk and through appalling suffering potentially at every stage of pregnancy when those conditions arise. Claiming that babies will be aborted in the 9th month for any other reason IS extreme.
There is literally zero health reason to abort a nine month baby. If it is already dead, it is non-viable and, thus, not an abortion.
You're incredibly wrong on this. Seems to be a pattern.
Him: "Claiming that babies will be aborted in the 9th month for any other reason IS extreme."
You: "There is literally zero health reason to abort a nine month baby."
Good job agreeing with what he said.
If a baby is dead or non-viable and a health crisis arises late in the pregnancy, then an abortion ban could well prevent an intervention to save the mother's life or health. Better not to have the ban at all.
Um, albeit wildly "extreme", multiple 9 month babies HAVE been aborted "just because". Ref: Dr. Kermit Gosnell, providing abortion services in Philadelphia. Just as one worried about safeguarding the woman's health can find prohibitionists "extreme", one worried about the killing of entirely viable infants for comparatively trivial reasons can find the "all abortions are permitted for any reason" position equally "extreme". Neither fear is groundless, though.
He did all sorts of things, then got sent to prison.
He got away with it for so long because abortion is a sacred cow to some people.
Got any proof of that causal connection?
No. Because there isn't one - just a narrative.
The Wiki page for Kermit Gosnell details and provides links to quite a number of frank admissions that actions were taken to preserve abortion access.
One quote (of a number of different statements):
In 2011, it was reported that none of Pennsylvania's 22 abortion clinics had been inspected by the government for more than fifteen years.[58] Inspections (other than those triggered by complaints) had ceased under the governorship of Tom Ridge, a pro-choice Republican, as they were perceived to create a barrier to women seeking abortion services.[59]
He got away with it because health care for poor black people sucks.
Partially true, but not an honest read of the number of statements from folks who tried to blow the whistle on the practices (or even report on the crimes committed in the clinic).
I think authorities ignoring people complaining about a clinic in a poor black area is entirely consistent with that.
Hmm, seems like a lot of folks profited from performing late term (illegal in that state) abortions (hundreds) and committing infanticide in a non-trivial number for something "that would never happen".
That it happened in a hellish crime-clinic that had to be shut down after causing immense suffering is an definitely indictment of something, however that something is not allowing women who are at risk in the latter stages of their pregnancies to undergo appropriate procedures.
It's a minority party same as the Democratic party.
Gallup has been doing this a while:
Currently as of the end of July Gallup says:
28 GOP
41 Ind
29 Dem
But before the 2020 election it was: 29-38-31
And it shifts around:
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- On average, Americans' political party preferences in 2021 looked similar to prior years, with slightly more U.S. adults identifying as Democrats or leaning Democratic (46%) than identified as Republicans or leaned Republican (43%).
However, the general stability for the full-year average obscures a dramatic shift over the course of 2021, from a nine-percentage-point Democratic advantage in the first quarter to a rare five-point Republican edge in the fourth quarter."
So no she's not correct.
How's that 'civility standard,' which you claim to rely on when censoring liberals, coming along, Prof. Volokh?
Any chance it will be applied to meteoralinkinp's contribution to your white, male, right-wing blog?
Or will it continue to be nothing more than the limp pretext of a hypocrite and coward?
Asking for Artie Ray. To whom you still owe an apology.
I've come to the conclusion that Joe Biden is an extremist.
But actually I'm kinda wondering about what Joe Manchin thinks of Biden's speech. Biden virtually declared war on more than 2/3s of WV:
2020 Trump 68.6% Biden 29.7%
Joe Biden has classified his position, in response to a question from Peter Doocy: "I don't consider any Trump supporter a threat to the country."
Joe's got the Alzheimers, what do you expect, the whole dark lighting for Fearless Leader's "Speech" was to hide the piss stains.
Oh man, Biden was so MEAN to those nice polite MAGA extremists!
Trump did not attack all Hillary voters, even after they rioted in DC. Did not attack the voters at all. Cannot remember the last time a President attacked the voters.
Didn't hey? Or did nobody really notice or kick up a stink about it because what mattered were the things he was doing and promising to do and the horrible things his supporters wanted him to do? Dem voters are so used to being called 'libtards' and 'commies' and have been accused of wanting to destroy America and end Western Civilisation so often it all kind of rolls off.
then we did he say it the first time - why did his speech writers put it in the speech?
I don't think he remembered the speech he gave the night before.
Not that his defenders will admit that this shows he is either permanently addled, constantly pandering, or both.
He didn't.
Who do you think Biden was referring to when he said that "MAGA Republicans" drive and dominate the Republican party and threaten "the very foundations of our Republic" with their supposed extremism?
Multiple people have quoted where Biden explicitly said he didn’t mean all Republicans.
Repeating yourself won’t make that go away.
I think he was referring to MAGA Republicans.
"Now, I want to be very clear, very clear up front. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know, because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans."
Agree
He’s actually Ron Burgundy
Man, you are really into this.
Huh.
to wit: https://thenib.com/fault-right/.
'And that strikes me as hard to defend.'
As a formulation, yes, in the context of the current landscape, singling it out as a weak and insufficent way of phrasing the argument is as disingenuous as ignoring the kiwifarms issue when talking about Cloudfare.
“… and we count the votes with our Dominion voting machines!”
So Biden's speech didn't have the purchase required to claim victimhood, so you found a not great turn by the press secretary and are going off of that? It's clear from the comments that the right is picking up a lot more than an individual speech from what you're saying.
Trump's called Dems fascist before. Not worth a mention.
Yes, this is not a productive way to put the issue. But don't essentialize this while ignoring the constant drumbeat from the right. From Trump on down, Dems are not only all extreme and radical, but all Communist, all fascist, all racist, sometimes all demonic.
Captain Tone Police to the Rescue!
I'm not sure you know what tone policing is...because I didn't do it here.
"Trump's called Dems fascist before."
Statement without evidence to back it up. Based on past history, statements made like these require links.
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1565840959149117441?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Next time maybe Google for like 2 seconds before you accuse me of lying.
Enjoy!
A twitter link? Not even a real news story? Or even a transcript?
Hmm... Is it doctored? Perhaps.
Look at those goalposts fly!
Look at me...asking for actual stories, and not a twitter link
I provided an actual story. You don't wanna believe it so you're declaring twitter somehow not a source.
Childish.
Anyone can post anything to Twitter without verification, with all sorts of editing. So...yes, real sources are much better.
It was Chris Hayes. Not known for posting doctored videos.
Just go fuck right off if you're going to deny obvious evidence put in front of your face.
If Trump's own words and video isn't evidence enough for you, then nobody should treat you as anything other than a willfully ignorant piece of shit.
I should add that it's plainly clear to everyone, that if Sarcastr0 had put forth an "actual story" as you pretend you want, that you'd argue "that's just what some reporter says he said."
Instead he gave you audio and video proof of Trump's own words, and you're such a deliberately dishonest shitstain that you reject that evidence too.
No, Jason. Sarcastro is dishonest and leaves out context whenever useful. A short twitter clip is dishonest, when the full clip is available.
And Trump never actually called "Democrats" fascist in that speech. Or even Americans. So, Sarcastr0 has lied.
This is why we ask him for proof. Because he is dishonest. Absaroka provided the entire story below.
What is the context I left out? He's talking about the election, AL. How is that not about Democrats?
Jesus you're weak.
So you quote the part where Trump says Democrats are fascists.
You mad?
If you consider C-SPAN reliable, start listening at about the 5 minute mark. There is a sort-of accurate transcript if you click 'Show Full Text' under the 00:03:42 section.
(Sarcastro's twitter snippet had 'Mankato' in the upper left; googling 'trump mankato speech' found it pretty quickly')
Thank you for that. See, what that provides is the full context of the quote. Unsurprisingly, Sarcastr0 leaves the context out.
Trump does not actually call "Democrats" fascist. He doesn't even call Joe Biden a fascist. Or even "Americans" fascist.
He calls Joe Biden the "tool" of extreme left wing fascists. Like Xi Jinping.
Context is everything. And it's clear, Trump did not call "Democrats" fascist. So, Sacastro was indeed lying.
What I see: "JOE BIDEN IS THE PUPPET OF LEFT-WING EXTREMISTS TRYING TO ERASE OUR BORDERS, ELIMINATE OUR PULLEYS, INDOCTRINATE OUR CHILDREN, VILIFY OUR HEROES, TAKE AWAY OUR ENERGY. YOU KNOW ALL ABOUT THAT. TAKE AWAY OUR INJURY -- ENERGY, IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT, DESTROY OUR FOSSIL FUELS, RIGHT TO LIFE AND REPLACE AMERICAN IDEALISM WITH LEFT-WING FASCISM. WE ARE GOING LEFT-WING ALL OF THE WAY. FASCISTS. NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT THEY ARE GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER."
(caps in the original) So, OK, he isn't saying Biden is a fascist, only that he is a puppet of fascists. ISTM you are parsing things pretty finely there.
But the story was "Trump's called Dems fascist before.".
And...he didn't actually do that
This is why we ask for proof.
(apologies, the "puppet" not "tool" of fascists)
Biden is a Dem. His supporters (of whom he is a 'tool,' or, to put it another way, who he represents) are mostly Dems. You ain't gonna parse this away.
Sorry, it's hard to say that Biden is a puppet of his rank and file voters. That doesn't make any sense.
And Trump never calls Biden a fascist there.
Well, it's Trump, good luck finding any sense in any of it.
Biden didn't call Trump a fascist, either but, yeah, puppet of fascists is MUCH more unifying and undivisive.
Eliminate our... pulleys? Might want to double-check that transcription.
Wait. In the *original*? Wasn't this a speech? You're saying he speaks in capital letters? Wow.
They'll say anything if it serves their prejudices.
Jesus Christ, this is new height of pedantry.
Yeah, I know. When he said "in the original" what he really meant was "The first place I found it". If it was me I would have either found a better source with three seconds of google, or retyped it in lowercase. Probably the first, since the transcription was so obviously wrong.
He's didn't say the SAME THING as Biden he said SOMETHING DOFFERENT that's actually WAY WORSE.
None of what he said is about Xi Jinping. That's you (again) being deliberately dishonest.
The transcript is beyond clear that he's referring to Democrats. In fact he doesn't even say the word "China" until nearly 7 minutes later.
I encourage anyone who wants to know just how much faith to ever place in Armchair Lawyer's words to read the transcript, and see whom Trump is attacking whenever he talks about our country failing, rights being trampled, alleged fascism/fascists, or any of his other nonsense.
See for yourselves that AL is a liar.
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-transcript-minnesota-august-17
Jason, the truth is this.
Trump never directly calls Democrats fascist in that speech. He never directly calls any Democratic politician a fascist.
Read it. Read it again. It doesn't happen.
Biden doesn't call anyone a fascist in his speech either. Trump's speech is WAY WORSE than Biden's in terms of smearing opponents.
Have you listened to Biden's speech? The full thing?
All the way to when he released the flying monkeys to swoop down on innocent MAGAs and carry them to the nearest volcano.
Enjoyed that part, did you?
I was shocked, shocked, and immediately got a swastika tattoo because Joe Biden.
Oh, so you joined Biden's brownshirts then?
I used to be liberal then Biden said 'semi-fascist' so now I think Trump was courageously keeping those documents safe from the Deep State.
Now that the transcript has been linked, and everyone can read it, your new goalpost is whether he "directly" called Democrats fascist.
The truth: He was talking about Democrats, and the Democratic Party.
Sarcastr0 is correct.
"The truth: He was talking about Democrats, and the Democratic Party."
Mmm...I don't view that as true. It doesn't make sense linguistically. See, Trump called Biden the "puppet" of the supposed fascists. But Biden is a Democrat. And the head of the Democratic party. Would you say Biden is a "puppet" of Democrats? No. He IS a Democrat. Would you say Biden is a "puppet" of the Democratic party? Again, no, he is the head of the party. It doesn't make sense. Linguistically.
Let's talk about the goalpost. My goalpost was this. Evidence for this statement "Trump's called Dems fascist before"
Now, it should be implied that Trump would directly call Democrats (or a Democratic politician) a fascist by that statement. If Sarcastr0 wanted to say Trump "implied" or "insinuated" "indirectly called" Democrats fascists, he should've said so. Then he'd be on firmer footing. potentially. But that would've been a weaker argument, so he chose to ....liberally bend the truth...let's say. He's got a history of that.
Which is why I asked for a link. Which indeed demonstrated that Trump didn't actually call democrats fascists.
Yeah, he didn't just call Biden a fascist, he called everyone who supports him a fascist.
Nige, AL just got done explaining to you that politicians are not normally considered puppets of their voters.
Why do you keep lying?
It is linguistically fine, not to mention that Trump is not known for his command of grammar or logic, not to mention that loony right wingers routinely argue that Biden is just a senile figurehead rather than the actual head of the party.
We're not talking 'normal.' We're talking Trump.
AL
It's amazing that you believe anyone will be convinced by your 'linguistic' argument when everything you say is a lie.
Plenty of idiots on this very blog have called Biden a puppet of the Democrats. I'd be surprised if you weren't one of them.
Linguistically, it doesn't make sense to be talking about 'far left fascists' and referring to Xi at all. Fascism isn't found on the left side of the political spectrum to begin with, and Xi is anything but 'far left.' It also doesn't make sense that you'd somehow interpret that comment to mean someone like Xi, when neither he, nor his country, are mentioned until 7 minutes later, at a campaign rally to try and beat Biden (and the Democrats).
He wasn't campaigning against China.
"You only call someone a name if you mention their proper name directly before the insult. Using any other pronoun means it was indirect, and therefore didn't happen at all."
The fact that you can't bring yourself to even conjure up a statement where you'd agree Sarcastr0 was correct says everything anyone needs to know about your disingenuous arguments.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/30/trump-biden-fascism/
As we've been reminded today, Trump always prefers to call Democrats sick and evil, anyway.
Thanks, Absaroka.
You're right, they are! Common Ground!!
Sarcastr0 is the type of guy who watches bullying and waits for someone to speak up against the aggressors. Then Sarcastr0 goes into action to attack the person who spoke up.
He’s a partisan contrarian.
Do you feel bullied, Ben?
It’s not about me.
But some people are getting bullied and some others are speaking up. And you attack the people who speak up.
Snowflake by proxy is an interesting move.
That speech wasn't bullying. Based on what I can read, those that have decided Biden is talking about them are *stoked* and hoping the government finally tries something, so their righteousness will be manifest.
Spoiler: the government won't try anything. And neither will most of you keyboard warriors.
Yes. Exactly like this.
The message is that everyone should just go along with it and let bullies have free reign to victimize. Otherwise get ready to be attacked by Sarcastr0, the social hierarchy enforcer and ardent ally of bullies.
The MAGA ideology looks at America and sees carnage and darkness and despair.
I see an America with an unlimited future.
An America that is about to take off.
Maybe you should work with the people who want to Make America Great Again rather than the ones who think the country was founded on white supremacy, and is so ridden with racism that it can only be purged by burning down all the police precincts and courthouses that represent its legacy.
The country was founded on white supremacy. Its history is riddled with racism. Police stations shouldn't be burned down, but police budgets and qualified immunity should.
If you notice the victims of leftists, Sarcastr0 will attack you for noticing.
The issue is less that and more that what you declare are victims of the left are generally bullshit and paranoia.
Yeah. Like that.
I’m certainly not going to condemn Trump for calling Democrats fascists, as many times as he’s been called a fascist by prominent Democrats it’s seems fair game to me, and now part of ordinary political discourse.
Democrats routinely call any prominent Republican racist or fascist, so turnaround is fair play.
I’m certainly not going to condemn Trump for calling Democrats fascists, as many times as he’s been called a fascist by prominent Democrats it’s seems fair game to me
Well then you probably shouldn't condemn Biden, if you're going full nihilist.
And also, don't do give up your moral principles because you're angry at the other side; that's a shitty way to be.
Rational , productive people are always a threat to revolutionaries
Taking the mantle of rationality is a sure sign you're not.
Hitler came to power democratically. In Nazi Germany, the majority of the population supported the Nazis. According to Ms. Jean-Pierre's logic, the Gestapo was absolutely right in rounding up those who didn't. (After all, they were "extremists"!)
I guess we know what to expect from the Biden administration...
FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!
No. He didn't. He was appointed Chancellor after the Reichstag fire, blamed, you might be familiar with the tactic, on Communists.
It's good to study history and give the best answers you can. I don't fault people if their memory is not accurate; it is easy enough to verify matters.
But if you are going to correct someone’s facts you should be especially careful to have your own facts right.
Note to self: Nige doesn’t check his facts.
He screwed up something. You're just twisting the knife into some general attack on more than that comment.
Would you want someone to treat you like that? No - don't be a piece of shit.
"He was appointed Chancellor "
Nige, you might say the same about Mr Draghi who never faced Italian voters.
So? I'm not the one making the Hitler comparisons.
Better check that fact Nige:
“ The Reichstag fire was an arson attack on the Reichstag building, home of the German parliament in Berlin, on Monday 27 February 1933, precisely four weeks after Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany”
Oops, brain fart. Still, Hitler was appointed Chancellor after losing to Hindenberg.
Interesting SS museum I visited in Cologne. The Nazis solidified their power by imprisonment of their political enemies. The common folks clammed up lest they be ushered off to re-education to cure their treason
I don't see the call to round people up in Jean-Pierre's words.
Wow lots of little commies out on the supposedly libertarian “Reason”
Name one Biden policy that was pro liberty vs Trump
Challenging the validity of an election is not extreme. At least it wasn’t in 2000, 2004, and 2016
So new rules?
Posts I'm making aren't showing up?
Hmm. Seems It won't let me make posts with links because I have one still stuck in moderation that had too many links.
We are already at war with communist China and its willing American agents, puppets, and co-conspirators who seek to overthrow our Constitution, as well as the international elites and other foreign enemies who have aided and abetted this war on our nation. They have infiltrated and taken over every branch of government at every level, state and federal. War isn’t coming – war is already here.
Through well-orchestrated mass vote fraud, the Communist Chinese and their domestic enemy allies are about to install their illegitimate puppet, Joe Biden, and his equally illegitimate puppet running mate, Kamala Harris, into the White House, with their treasonous fingers on the nuclear launch codes.
You must act NOW as a wartime President, pursuant to your oath to defend the Constitution, which is very similar to the oath all of us veterans swore. We are already in a fight. It’s better to wage it with you as Commander-in-Chief than to have you comply with a fraudulent election, leave office, and leave the White House in the hands of illegitimate usurpers and Chinese puppets. Please don’t do it. Do NOT concede, and do NOT wait until January 20, 2021. Strike now.
If you fail to act while you are still in office, we the people will have to fight a bloody civil war and revolution against these two illegitimate Communist China puppets, and their illegitimate regime, with all of the powers of the deep state behind them, with nominal command of all the might of our armed forces (though we fully expect many units or entire branches to refuse their orders and to fight against them) and with their foreign allies also joining in to assist in the suppression of American patriots.
This was an open letter from Stewart Rhodes (Oath Keepers founder and leader) and Kellye Sorelle (former prosecutor and Oath Keeper attorney) wrote to President Trump on Dec. 18, 2020. They called on him to invoke the Insurrection Act, among many other unprecedented steps, to make sure that Biden was not inaugurated. They concluded with:
Know this: millions of American military and law enforcement veterans, and many millions more loyal patriotic American gun owners stand ready to answer your call to arms, and to obey your orders to get this done.
Cool story, bro -- very poignant excerpting. But since nothing actually happened that even vaguely resembled that overblown rhetoric, using it as your grand crescendo ultimately falls just a wee bit flat. What exactly are you getting at? Nobody at all prior to 2020 (and particularly not lefties) ever said anything over the top?
Oh? We're talking about rhetoric, aren't we? A speech? And a one-line answer to a question? And YOUR response to them?
I wasn't able to link directly to that open letter, but I can't imagine it would be hard to find given how much of it I quoted. (As I said, it wasn't publishing my comment when I included a link, probably because I have a comment in another thread held up in moderation likely for having too many links in it.)
As for what I was getting at, that should be obvious. People on the Trump side as well as Trump himself were doing a lot more than "challenging the validity" of the 2020 election results. Their rhetoric and plans clearly included attempts to prevent Biden from taking office according to results that had been lawfully certified in every state and no court at any level was ruling in their favor on substantial issues.
There is absolutely no comparison between what Trump, the members of Congress that voted not to certify the Electoral Vote, and his extreme supporters among groups like the Oath Keepers tried to do and the objections made by a handful of Democrats in Congress in 2000, 2004, and 2016. In those prior instances, the objectors knew in advance that they didn't have anything close to enough votes to actually stop the certification. (I think 2004 saw around 30 House members objecting, and the other times far fewer objected.) Those cases truly were just protests against what they didn't like about procedures, and of course, the outcome. They shouldn't have objected, as that was not the purpose of Electoral Count Act, but the harm done by their actions was in giving Trump and his side the excuse to do something far more dangerous.
Peter Navarro has tried to defend their actions on Jan. 6, explaining that the violence was not what they wanted. They just wanted to delay the certification with the objections to put pressure on VP Mike Pence to not accept the disputed Electoral Votes needed for Biden to have a majority. They could then have GOP-controlled legislatures in those states 'investigate' the supposed 'fraud' and then vote to give Trump the Electoral Votes instead.
All of the facts and even their own words show exactly what happened and what the plan was. Bannon is on tape days before the election saying that Trump would declare victory on Election Night regardless of the vote count at that time, certainly before any of the 'evidence' of 'fraud' so commonly cited existed.
So yes, the actions of Trump and his side was extreme.
Limiting abortion is not extreme, On my recent European vacation I visited Germany, Switzerland 12 week limit and France 14 week all more extreme than the Roe 24 week limit and all more extreme than the MS 15 week law that gave us Dobb’s
Euro extremism?
The situation in those countries is not comparable to the pro-life position in the U.S. Those countries have not had states passing laws for the last 40 years making it harder and harder to keep abortion clinics open in those states. (So-called TRAP laws - Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers) Those countries all have universal health care of some sort so that lower-income women can access whatever health care they need more easily, whether it is birth control or abortion at early points in pregnancy, or pre-natal care so that low-income minority women don't have ~3 times the maternal mortality that white women do. Also, having paid maternity leave and guaranteed health care coverage, government support for child care, and so on probably makes having a child less financially difficult for low income women. That might lower the demand for abortion. I don't know; it is just a thought.
If the pro-life side would have been willing to make a compromise to make the reproductive health care of women in the U.S. equal to what exists in those countries, then maybe the pro-choice side would have been willing to agree to similar time-based restrictions. We'll never know, since the pro-life activists really want all abortions to be illegal and won't settle for anything less. Maybe the pro-choice side is equally adamant about the Roe and Casey timelines, but that would just mean that both sides would be equally inflexible.
If the earlier restrictions in those countries is some kind of compromise, then it takes both sides to make such a compromise. Would you accept that?
If you're going to lie about vasic, recent history, you could at least do it briefly. https://www.newsweek.com/dems-latest-challenge-2004-election-result-may-have-seemed-futile-those-involved-see-it-win-morality
Sorry, that was meant as a response to your previous long, dishonest comment.
Yesterday's protest was formally lodged when Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, a CBC member, objected to the counting of the state's electoral votes on the ground that they were not "regularly given," a shorthand reference to a litany of complaints about Election Day problems in Ohio. Many of those problems, from inexplicable shortages of polling machines to aggressive Republican challenges of thousands of voters' eligibility, echo complaints raised after the 2000 presidential election, prompting some critics to suggest the protest was motivated by lingering resentment over that bitter contest. That may have played a role--some of Bush's most persistent and harshest critics are also CBC members--but Conyers and his colleagues insist that the true purpose of their protest was to call attention to the need for nationwide election reform.
Uh, how is that inconsistent with my characterization of what happened in 2004 or the other two years that Democrats objected? I said that they did it as a protest, not with any expectation of actually stopping the certification. The article you linked backs that up. Maybe you didn't thoroughly read either my previous "long" comment or the article you linked.
Wanting women's teams to actually be restricted to women is not extreme
What extreme views does our incredibly dumb press secretary see?
According to the Real Clear Politics average, only about 42% of Americans approve of the job the President is doing. So according to the logic of White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, if you think President Biden is doing a good job, you're an extremist.
Uh, who the hell is the reporter who thinks the only options for being anti-abortion are you're either "extremist" or "fascist"?
Opposing the regime is extremism and treasonous apparently. I’m waiting for the emergency declaration
"Emergency declaration? We don't need no stinking emergency declaration! Our Democracy is in danger!"
Amazing the numbers of things that don't happen that still somehow prove Biden's a Hitler.
It was sarcasm I think?
Why do we expect the Press Secretary to be able to answer these kinds of questions?
This is really an unfortunate post by EV.
First, Jean-Pierre was responding to a question near the end of a press briefing, not a planned statement. I know Trump's press secretaries never did that, because they hardly had any briefings.
Second, it is plausible, at least, that she meant to refer to opposition to abortion even in cases of rape or incest. That is, indeed, an extreme position.
Certainly it was at least ambiguous on the matter. Maybe we can agree that that like a certain vigorously defended obnoxious tweet, the statement was "inartful," bearing in mind that tweets are not extemporaneous.
So EV is sinking further into the RW swamp.
So EV is sinking further into the RW swamp.
I think it is just a sign of how ideology infects political thinking. Not speaking about Eugene specifically, since I am going to generalize: for libertarians and libertarian leaning independents their higher priority positions and values are more shared with conservative Republicans than Democrats (less regulation of business, lower taxation and lower spending, especially - and on social issues, some of them may have sympathy with the cultural goals of the liberals on things like gay rights, they also highly value the type of religious freedom and anti-PC sentiment found on the right), so that makes the GOP a better fit for them in our two-party system.
Once they've essentially picked a side, normal human cognitive biases are hard to counter. It takes a lot of deliberate effort to do that, and no one is perfect at it. Everyone has opinions on political matters that they have strong, even passionate views for. Eugene Volokh, and I, are not exceptions to that.
It's also not one time - it progresses. The further you go the faster it gets.
We'll see how it gets when I get old.
All three of you are already well into the fever swamp, dude.
Somehow, I feel like your perspective is a bit skewed on this front.
That's because you are deep in the fever swamp.
Wait, hold up. Are you saying you're unbiased and nonpartisan?
By comparison with you, sure.
It’s impossible to take her comments as just a one-off gaff after Biden’s Philadelphia speech.
The two are completely consistent with each other and are obviously part of a coordinated Whitehouse message.
It's quite possible, since Biden's speech doesn't say what you keep saying it does.
obviously
As always, leaning on words like this is a sign you're following a narrative not actual evidence.
Well what the fuck did Biden’s speech say, all lit up in blood red up there? What did it say? Nobody seems to know, including him.
If nobody understands the point of your speech, then you just gave a terrible speech. The whole point of a speech is to make one.
Just because the victimhood-craving types haven't bothered to read the speech doesn't mean it wasn't clear. DMN has posted some transcripts, I'll do some as well, cutting a bit as I go.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/politics/biden-speech-transcript.html
Too much of what’s happening in our country today is not normal. Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic.
Now, I want to be very clear, very clear up front. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology. I know, because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.
But there’s no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. And that is a threat to this country.
And here, in my view, is what is true: MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people. They refuse to accept the results of a free election, and they’re working right now as I speak in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.
MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards, backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love. They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fanned the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.
But while the threat to American democracy is real, I want to say as clearly as we can, we are not powerless in the face of these threats. We are not bystanders in this ongoing attack on democracy. There are far more Americans, far more Americans from every background and belief, who reject the extreme MAGA ideology than those that accept it. And folks, it’s within our power, it’s in our hands, yours and mine, to stop the assault on American democracy.
Ladies and gentlemen, we can’t be pro-insurrectionist and pro-American. They’re incompatible. We can’t allow violence to be normalized in this country. It’s wrong. We each have to reject political violence with all the moral clarity and conviction this nation can muster now.
We can’t let the integrity of our elections be undermined, for that is a path to chaos. Look, I know politics can be fierce and mean and nasty in America. I get it. I believe in the give and take of politics, in disagreement and debate and dissent. We’re a big complicated country, but democracy endures only if we, the people, respect the guardrails of the Republic. Only if, we the people accept the results of free and fair elections. Only if, we the people see politics, not as total war, but mediation of our differences. Democracy cannot survive on one side believes there are only two outcomes to an election: Either they win or they were cheated. And that’s where the MAGA Republicans are today.
MAGA Republicans look at America and see carnage and darkness and despair. They spread fear and lies. Lies told for profit and power.
But I see a different America — an America with an unlimited future, an America that’s about to take off. I hope you see it as well. Just look around. I believe we could lift America from the depths of Covid, so we passed the largest economic recovery package since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and today America’s economy is faster, stronger than any other advanced nation in the world. We have more to go. I believe we can build a better America, so we passed the biggest infrastructure investment since President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and we’ve now embarked on a decade of rebuilding the nation’s roads, bridges, highways, ports, water systems, high-speed internet, railroads.
Our task is to make our nation free and fair, just and strong, noble and whole, and this work is the work of democracy, the work of this generation. It is the work of our time for all time. We can’t afford to leave anyone on the sidelines. We need everyone to do their part, so speak up, speak out, get engaged, vote, vote, vote!
And if we do our duty, if we do our duty, in 2022 and beyond, then ages still to come will say we, all of us here, we kept the faith. We preserved democracy. We heeded our words. We heeded not our worst instincts but our better angels. We proved that for all its imperfections, America is still the beacon to the world, an ideal to be realized, a promise to be kept. There’s nothing more important. Nothing more sacred. Nothing more American. That’s our soul. That’s who we truly are. And that’s who we must always be.
Does using your power as the head of government to suppress the speech of your political opponents threaten democracy? Yes or no.
Well, she said what she said. Again. If it keeps happening perhaps you should consider that she actually means it.
Or if you prefer to keep saying it’s “inartful” language, well, you’d think that being capable of consistently artful language would be a good characteristic for the WH press secretary to exhibit. Maybe he needs a new one.
"I know Trump's press secretaries never did that, because they hardly had any briefings."
Yeah, Trump typically talked for himself, rather than through his press secretary.
As you can see, Trump averaged twice as many press conferences per month as Biden. You're not as reliant on press secretaries when you're capable of talking for yourself.
Those numbers are skewed by 2020-2021, which had 36 of the 88 press conferences of Trump speaking with reporters either alone or alongside others. Trump also held 35 "solo-reg" press conferences in 2020 (Trump addressing reporters alone rather than alongside other officials), but only 9 total in the previous three years. Besides, it is debatable how capable Trump is at talking for himself, if being clear and understood is a goal.
For other White House press briefings, whether by the Press Secretary or other officials besides the President, Biden's administration has held over 600 of them, by that site's count (the link to the search is in the body under News Conference (or Press Conference) vs. Press Briefing) in a year and a half, compared to the Trump Administration's ~300 in four years. They only had 15 in all of 2019 and didn't start up regular ones again until May of 2020.
Biden is an evil dictator who seeks destruction of the country that raised him.
President Biden is an extremist.
The majority of Americans disapprove of his performance as president.
QED.
Ms Jean-Pierre is a left-wing extremist. I guess she knows what makes someone an extremist.
Hearing her comment was similar to hearing Menachem Begin say, "We know who is a terrorist." As he was an Irgun terrorist, I grant that he did know.
"I think Mr. Mellish is a traitor to this country because his views are different from the views of the President and others of his kind. Differences of opinion should be tolerated, but *not* when they're too different. Then he becomes a subversive mother."
Nice to see Trump pushing back against Biden's oh-so-divisive and insulting rhetoric with a calm, reasoned message of unity and strong reaffirmation of his commitment to democracy.