Gosar and AOC
So, why exactly is this up for discussion?
If I'd make a clip like that about a female colleague I'd get booted out my job faster than I can say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It's funny the Republicans accuse the Democrats of abuse of power when in fact protecting a man from the consequences of his actions because it's politically expedient is the actual abuse.
If I'd make a clip like that about a female colleague I'd get booted out my job faster than I can say Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It's funny the Republicans accuse the Democrats of abuse of power when in fact protecting a man from the consequences of his actions because it's politically expedient is the actual abuse.
Comments (65)
Another example: A few years back, a minister in the Croatian government was found to be involved in some illegal business. He was investigated by the police. Several other politicians and ministers (who were from other parties) called for him to step down. What did the prime minister do? He removed those ministers from office, on account of not supporting their colleague.
It's how right-wing politics works.
That's why they shortened it to AOC. :grin:
Anyway, stand by for the inevitable whataboutism. 3 . . .2 . . . 1 . . .
P.S. The real danger is not what the right does to the left; the real danger is what the right is doing to keep their own in line. That's what I want the DOJ and the FBI all over.
The only one I know of with the balls to stand up is Cheney. I disagree with her on 97% of the issues but I'd almost support her just for standing up to threats of violence and getting kicked off committees and disowned by the WY Republican Party.
? Can you rephrase that? It's not clear what you mean.
Here is my read on it: The "right" will have created a monster. It will have awoken a sleeping giant. When "the right goes low" the left will only "go high" for so long. Sooner or later the left is going to stand up on it's hind legs like it did in 1776, 1860, and 1941. Hopefully, if there is a victory, they won't be so "left" or magnanimous in victory. Hopefully they will finish the job this time. You know, so their kids won't have to deal with it again in another X number of years.
Either way, the right will have brought it on themselves. Time for them to be a little more tolerant and inclusive of those who don't think, look, act or pray like them.
On the other hand, it could be too late. The left may have neutered itself. I guess we'll see.
P.S. Can anyone imagine if Biden started taking a page from the right's play book? None of the BBB would be going to any state that didn't kiss his butt. The list could go on. And on.
I know, right? I mean people have meltdowns over Dr. Seuss and Big Bird. What's up with that?
(Que my own whataboutism. :wink: Karma.)
AOC was once depicted as a superhero in a comic book and I bet she thought she could fly after reading it. It’s nonsense; one has to wonder how they cope with real problems.
Yeah, ask Kathy Griffin. :roll: Or Devin Nunes suing cartoon cow.
Imagine if Gosar held up an AOC or horse mask with blood dripping from it.
They'd probably do what the Republicans did and get their panties all up in a knot. :rofl: The point here is, the Right has the thinnest skin in the game. They talk tough but they are the first to start bawling when they have to eat their own medicine.
It may be nonsense for people who can think for themselves, but Gosar has influence over weak and potentially violent minds.
It would be worse than that. This was just a fake cartoon that was obviously not supposed to be taken literally. They took it literally, alright. Him holding a severed head would be grounds for violent reprisal. You’ve already evoked notions of violent revolution because of it.
If they’re so weak-minded it should be easy for someone such as yourself to change them.
Get back to me when the left storms the capital, or starts taking over state houses with their M-Forgeries, or threatening their own with violence for not holding the party line, or cancelling like a Republican in a cake bakery, or denying federal assistance based on affiliation, etc.
Your side is bringing it on themselves, if it ever comes.
You can't fix stupid. Well, Covid can. Maybe a bullet. But the left doesn't like guns and they go high when the right goes low. Unless they use a cartoon, but then the right loses their shit. And they wonder why the left gets verklempt. DOH!
An anime meme is grounds for violence and revolution, apparently. But it might be better for all involved to stick to memes, that is if they could make a good one.
Anime meme, or reality T.V. host, or a plastic head held by a known comedian. I think you parse the hair too thin. Besides, it's not the left looking for violence and revolution. I think, wait, let me check the record, oh yeah, they are going for a House Censure. DOH!
But we can agree, it should be well done, or not done at all: at least by elected representatives or the POTUS.
Censure has zero effect beyond political finger-wagging, anyways. So, along with the press and woke social media CEOs, congress will make a big show of it, but that's about the end of it.
You don't understand what influence is?
Well, it has you in here raising a ruckus. LOL!
Anyway, we all know how the left will jump on the bandwagon with the right, all to burn their own down when they screw up; while the right will circle the wagons, and defend their own to the death. Anyone that fails to kneel before the godfather will be exorcised, ala Cheney. Kind of shows you who the patsy's are.
I like that.
Either way, it is worthy of a laugh, just as it is with the Kathy Griffen thing, as you pointed out.
:up: It would be nice if more effort was put in to a laughter that would get both sides rolling on the floor. I don't know if that can even be done any more. In the old days, the roasts at the White House Press dinner were self-depreciating and funny. We've gotten jaundiced.
...and should be terminated for harassment or?
Double standards is the other name for politics.
The double standard is there. But I'm also seeing this:
And this:
https://stochasticterrorism.blogspot.com/?fbclid=IwAR2EQTHDuXuFWR7UHejmofUrYOn3LIRMXg-qIj4FsWOJObOBMtwTHqwYL64
And as I've said before, the real threat is not what they do to the opposition, but what they are doing to the colleagues on their own side of the isle. If Republicans are forbidden to think or act independently in support of traditional Republican values, even when that would require them to support actions which fly in the face of traditional Republican values, then we have a problem. The FBI and DOJ should be looking at that.
It's one thing to agree with Trump;
It's one thing to disagree with him but stay with him because you want his base;
But it's a whole 'nother thing when you disagree with him but stay with him because of threats of violence against you or your family. This latter category may be small, but it may be enough to create a monolithic personality cult that has nothing to do with traditional Republican values.
Liz Cheney is the only one I know of will the balls to stand up. If there are others, they need to stand up and push back. FBI? DOJ? I hope you are doing your job. You know, so we can all respect the rule of law.
P.S. A distinction can be found here: There was some guy who shot up a bunch of Republican legislators while they were playing a game of baseball. I'm pretty sure that guy did not find his incentive to act in the violent rhetoric of a bunch of Democrat politicians. Both sides have wingnuts, but only one side is inciting violence. Wait . . . before I'm corrected with some isolated example that might be out there in the weeds, let me correct that: Only one side has that pattern reference by AOC, above.
You are correct about the double standard, but that issue pales in comparison to what is really going on here.
Being threatened, even as a joke and even aside from what appears to be becoming a tactic, by a peer, who is supposed to be part of the common legislative process in a country is simply in a different ballpark.
And while I support the inviolability of anything said within the legislative body, this in my view doesn't fall within the scope of that protection.
Unfortunately, we've got a jackass in parliament here who is only too happy to emulate this style of "politics". Comparing non-vaccinated to the new Jews, those promoting vaccination as nazis, spreading disinformation while all the while pretending he's "telling it like it is".
Meanwhile, there's definitely stuff to be critical about. They're now discussing the "2G" access rules, which I think is an infringement of personal rights. In that event, only vaccinated or recovered people can enter all sorts of locations (these change continuously because we have a hopeless government with no vision or clue of what they're doing). Currently, if you're not recovered or vaccinated, you need to show a recent PCR test to gain access to various locations. Under 2G testing no longer grants you access.
Personally, I'd rather be in a room with recently tested people who know they were negative yesterday than a room full of vaccinated or recovered people who might be infectious but don't know it. So the rule is also bullshit and just designed to force people to get a vaccination.
EDIT: well, that was a tangent...
:up: Agreed. Makes you wonder if there is something in the water. I can't imagine being a Holocaust survivor listening to all these equations. :roll:
I think Mitt Romney is another of those rare Republicans.
Again, I'm hoping that local politicians here don't mimic the ways of US politicians. The Media surely tries to...
Quoting James Riley
They tend to be old and rare these days. When you make an international investment here, they don't ask anymore if you have participated in the holocaust or not anymore (something obviously that American legislators had successfully pushed forward earlier in Europe).
I think a man of violence is the type they need. Bullies tend to stand down when called out. You'd think that former SEAL with the eye patch would stand up, but maybe he's actually a true believer. Can't believe he'd follow a coward like Trump, but it's not my party. They made their bed so burn 'em all down as far as I'm concerned.
They also took away two of his more important committee memberships. That's not "zero effect."
That’s the effect of their blind, censorial rage. Censure requires no compulsory action.
You wrote:
Quoting NOS4A2
I just pointed out that Gosar's punishment, justified or not, is more than just a "big show." It has a substantive impact on his role and effectiveness in Congress.
Dan Crenshaw? He has criticized Trump's actions on Jan 6th and basically for the ex-soldier Trump "isn't the Devil, but isn't Jesus either". I think that is actually a very representative attitude of how Republicans really think of Trump, when you toned down the hype.
Never underestimate the tribalism of US politics (and how that tribalism is instigated and perpetuated by both sides). The vast majority of Americans put their party before the consistency of their values, just as the politically oriented media shows them. And they just love the politicians who make the other side fuming in anger and NEVER, ever agree that the other side would have a point. That would be like giving your little finger to the devil. And naturally Trump makes democrats and other pinko-liberals like those in Hollywood absolutely crazy. For many that is the real thing they like in Trump.
I learned the tribalism actually when Obama came into power. During the Bush years, the democrats and left-leaning media were in my view totally correctly pointing out the illegalities of the War on Terror. But when Obama came into power and basically continued the same policies, they all fell silent. Totally silent. Suddenly such investigative reporters like Seymour Hersh didn't continue reporting on the War on Terror. He uhh...had some other book to write. That Obama permitted the killing in a drone strike a 16 year old American citizen who hadn't done anything else than had been borne to his father (who had radicalized only after being tortured in an Egyptian prison, and then himself been killed by a drone strike), was hardly reported. Did not stir up a debate on how even American nationals ought to be treated. And all that time Afghanistan was getting worse and worse. Many become suddenly defenders of their side when in power and "understand" things that if it was the other party in power, would be totally against.
Liz Cheney gave her finger to the devil. As Trump and those who like him, yes. As one wag said some time ago: "The reason people like Trump is because he pretends to hate the same people they really hate."
Yep. He does say what a lot of people think. And I won't lie to you and say I did not thoroughly enjoy Trump destroying the other Republican candidates back in 2016 in the primaries, I loved it.
But then he won. And that became a problem. Man, to think people would want boring politicians back sure is something!
I liked when he pushed back against smarmy "journalists" playing "gotcha." But once the table manners return, it's time to settle down and act like adults. For Trump, being a jerk was not a tactic, but an actual personality/character trait.
Of course, you can be honest (while still maintaining decency) outside of official office hours, but once inside, just behave as expected. Bernie is good with this, I like AOC here (though some people hate her to an extreme which is crazy to me).
They can call her a communist or socialist all they want, but she would literally belong to the right wing in most European countries such as Germany, France, Spain - they don't argue against universal healthcare or maternity leave. These days they may want to trim it down in these countries, but they would not dream of privatizing it, they would vanish in hours.
I was thinking more of a situation where they are both on stage and Crenshaw (or anyone, really) faces Trump, looks him in the eye and says "You are a dishonorable coward and a liar. And I my honor won't let me abide your leadership. I encourage all good conservative men and women to find a better human being to represent them and their principles." Then stand there, silently, facing him, waiting, smiling.
Then I woke up.
I do too. I just hope the years in contact with politicians doesn't turn her into one. Bernie seems to have been *relatively* human, so it can be done. But politics has a way of sullying the best of people. She seems so young, and clean, and smart. I'd hate to see her turn into a conniving game player. You want to know who else is sharp as a freaking razor (and without notes or teleprompters)? Pete Buttigieg.
He is. I'm not a fan, but I have to give him credit he is quite capable.
If AOC were a man, she would not get nearly as much crap. I'm pretty confident about that.
That's the other thing about politics: She's forced to stand on her own. And I guess that is as it should be. And I think she can do it. She's tough. But in the old school, a real man would not let another man treat her the way she's been treated. Yeah, if a woman kicks you in the balls for no reason, I see no problem with punching her in the face. But I don't see AOC kicking anyone, being disrespectful or otherwise "asking for it." She's been acting like a lady, and respectful, just speaking some truth: if that hurts some Republican or challenges his masculinity, tough. He's the pussy. Let Trump grab him.
Anyway, I know full well I sound like a sexist POS but that's the way I roll. I don't want to see her end up like Hillary or Nancy or Mitch McConnel. They got tough, which is not bad, but they also got conniving. Sad, really.
When I look back at what I just said, I realize how naïve and stupid I sound. It is, after all, politics. I guess that's why I stay out the kitchen: I can't handle the heat. :lol: Good luck to her (and Bernie).
Agree, although Republicans distort even this as if she were speaking rudely.
Quoting James Riley
I don't think it's sexist, it makes sense to me. I doubt she will turn into Nancy, though one never knows. Just look at the complete 180 Tulsi Gabbard did in like 3 or 4 months, that's kinda disgusting.
Quoting James Riley
It's politics. We need all types of views. Nothing wrong with how you see things. I agree with it.
:100:
Censure doesn’t involve removing people from committees. This particular resolution includes both the censure and removal in two different parts, but the removal doesn’t follow from the censure.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/house-to-vote-on-censuring-gosar-over-tweeting-violent-anime-video
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amp/ncna1283716
Censure still has zero effect.
That's what's known as a distinction without a difference.
It just takes one dude in a basement yo. And 'civic' doesn't mean 'doing everything according to the law' - its why disobedience can be 'civic'. And yes, thrashing politicians for being shit - or for being politicians at all - is absolutely civic. Politicians should feel threatened by their constituencies, always. A vote means: 'you are worthy of my contempt', not 'I support you'.
We're talking about it. So there's that.
I would hope that a civically educated citizen would know how to spend their time more productively. In any case, it takes very little education to manipulate anime video so childishly.
It’s either true or false. That’s enough of a difference for me.
Yes, meanwhile, Amazon pays an unlivable wage and Jeff sends Captain Kirk into orbit for shits and giggles. Great politicking!
Quoting StreetlightX
I haven’t stood up for any politicians in this topic, with my nose or any other part of my anatomy.
Well argued.
What is politically expedient is to satisfy the insatiable demand for transgressive performance. There is a market demand for that and suppliers are working to meet it. The carnival of mutual disgust consumes all surrounding resources. The credit line of opportunity costs accrued indulging in the catharsis keeps getting bigger but there is no income coming in to balance it against. It is the condition of people who have nothing to do with what keeps them alive. And if they cannot survive they will have at least taken down their enemies with them.
Normalization of deviance is a term used by the American sociologist Diane Vaughan to describe the process in which deviance from correct or proper behavior becomes normalized in a corporate culture.[1]
Vaughan defines this as a process where a clearly unsafe practice comes to be considered normal if it does not immediately cause a catastrophe: "a long incubation period [before a final disaster] with early warning signs that were either misinterpreted, ignored or missed completely".[/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance
That is an interesting perspective about the limits of what can happen in a corporate environment.
But the vulgarity being embraced in this case is done with the assumption that that environment could never be breached by such incitements as performed by Gosar, etcetera. You can have your cake and sell it on Ebay at the same time.
Really? When has AOC, or any Democrat, put themselves in a situation where they have to debate someone on the other side, or not on any side as they now exist in the U.S. (the number of independents now outnumber both Reps and Dems), like Maher, Rogan and Rubin? Will AOC accept the invitation of Maher to be on his show - doubt it. And the fact that they are unwilling to expose their ideas to criticism. Both sides have taken indefensible positions on many issues, which is why we won't ever see a real debate between them and someone isn't part of their choir. This idea that one is righteous and the other is to be demonized just exposes ones own biases.
No one appointed them as the 4th estate gate-keepers. They must earn credibility before truth will spend time with them. Truth will need to vet the sincerity of curiosity before deigning to satisfy it. One way to do that would be: 1. Contract 100% editorial control over the work-product generated as a result of interaction. That will not happen because work-product is ratings- and/or ego-driven. 2. Submit questions in writing and expect responses in kind.
Since you mentioned "debate" then parties must be willing to agree to a moderator and conditions so the exchange does not devolve into a Maher, Rogan, Rubin ratings-driven circus where the truth is lost on "gotcha" and "whataboutism" and other fallacy-driven, ratings-driven, ego-driven children's games.
It is not the truth which is afraid of falsehood that we are talking about here. Refusal to subject oneself to those you would set up as gatekeepers, is not a refusal of truth to engage falsehood. AOC is a person, not the truth. Maher is a person, not the truth.
I did not know AOC had refused to subject herself to Maher but now that you told me, she just jumped another notch in my estimation.
Quoting Harry Hindu
That is simply untrue. AOC, Sanders, Warren, et al, have all had their ideas subjected to criticism. The question is, do their counterparts on the other side have any ideas to subject to criticism? Donald Trump? Gosar? Marjorie Taylor Greene? Lauren Boebert? Matt Gaetz?
Quoting Harry Hindu
We won't know if their positions are indefensible if we don't research the defenses. It is incumbent upon those who want to know what those defenses are, to do a little reading, and not rely upon carnival barkers in the press to elicit the truth, or to do their thinking for them. This takes analytic thinking skills. Not just critical thinking skills. It takes the latter too, but you don't get to be critical and taken seriously unless you've done the analysis first.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Do some analysis. The truth has a liberal bias that should be exposed. There is nothing more fundamentally stupid than to think that 50/50 is righteous, or that it is not itself a demon. But it sure is good for ratings. Heaven forbid the truth should win. If it did, we might have to progress to another subject.
Why do something that might make you look bad, get you into trouble, and in the current American political climate you don't have to do?
Even some Trump supporters felt disappointed when their hero backed off from having a debate with Bernie (which, now knowing the guy would been a disappointment). But then why would Trump do it? Attacking a caricature of the opposing politicians seems to be all what you need to do, not have a debate about actual policies with them. Or then trying to get points from being 'viciously attacked'.
Just think about this thread. In a way proof of it.
Are you saying that Gosar fantasizing about the death of a colleague is part of a protest against a tyranny of civic conventions imposed by a group who reject some other set of civic conventions?