The GOP is heading for a split, no? I think the Trump wing will ultimately become its own far right nationalist party. I would have scoffed at the idea of either party splitting just a couple years ago, but now I believe it inecvitable. And if it happens in the GOP it will very likely be followed by a similar split in the Dem party.
The level of venom for Pete by the far left has still not subsided (and he's not the only progressive getting it), and they are often quite ugly.
Since we are talking about where we align. I am probably as far left as this board gets. It's why I laugh when 8th is called a "Lefty" site or when someone suggests Biden is even in the realm of socialist. That said, I'm also very pragmatic and it drives several other lefty friends of mine crazy. Case in point is the 1400 dollar checks. Do I think the government should have done more/should be doing more from a standpoint of relief and stimulus? Hell [uck fay]ing yes. But for [uck fay]'s sake, pick a better fight. Dems have the capital right now, use it to get some relief passed now and try to do so without having to play the reconciliation card. Make the GOP Senators who supported the 2K number fight against relief and vaccine distribution and S&L Gov relief if they want to go that route.
Pete is too moderate for my personal tastes, but he's a damned good (and damned smart) man who should have a voice in the party. I support M4A, but by god I understand why people haven't taken that step.
Give me ranked choice everywhere and I'll take 4 parties. I can't imagine Dems won't find a way to shoot themselves in the foot when handed the keys to the kingdom anyway.
I understand where you're coming from. I consider myself a pragmatic progressive and although Pete was my guy I didn't fully agree with all his positions - typically because I didn't feel he was progressive enough. What bothers me is when folks slander and misrepresent folks simply because they don't fully align with their ideology. Pete may be a lot of things, but racist isn't one of them.
A couple things I don't understand: 1. The part that says "Rage-peddlers are going to try to whitewash the attack on the Capitol, saying that a few bad apples got out of control" followed, eventually, by "some of the rioters who stormed the US Capitol planned to kidnap and possibly assassinate the VP." Isn't the whole point of the "few bad apples" argument that the people storming the Capitol aiming to do physical harm don't represent the entirety of the group that was in DC for the Trump rally? "Some of the rioters" is literally a subset (some) of a subset (rioters) of the greater overall group (protesters/people attending the rally) that was there that day. It's like he's saying it wasn't a few bad apples, then turning around and saying it was a few bad apples. 2. If people had legitimate intentions of capturing and assassinating Pence, wouldn't they have been... umm.. armed? I mean, I know people were carrying all sorts of shit, but I haven't heard of any protesters being armed with firearms (If I'm off base here, please feel free to correct me). It's just difficult for me to imagine a plan for capturing and assassinating the VP of the US that doesn't involve some sort of firearm.
Part of what I've complained about all along (not last week, but more over the course of the last 4 years) was the unfair criticism he received because I felt like it added fuel to his followers' flames. I get and agree that he was deserving of a lot of criticism he received, but it always felt like people criticized him for that and then some, with the "and then some" not necessarily being deserved. I always feared that his followers would use it as a way to rationalize that his opponents were just "out to get him," and that in their minds, it would invalidate ALL of the criticism.
On your first point, I think it is fair that some large percentage of the crowd are not guilty of anything. but hundreds or more are. a significant portion. and those arrested are saying things that support the interpretation that they felt they acted as instructed by the rally speakers. on your second point, you may be unaware of the multiple pipebombs brought into the capitol.
things are about to get real for some members of congress. Pelosi has tapped retired Lt General Honore to lead the investigation. She got emotional while announcing that some members may face prosecution. Honore is the guy who went down to New Orleans after Katrina and got the response fixed.
Championing for the right for Pence to live without fear of vigilantism was not something I expected to have to do in 2021, but here we are.
You are falling into the trap of labeling an entire group based off the actions of a handful of nuts. I took you for more grounded than the resident drama queen lefties
The entire group is nuts. There was no stolen election. There was no widespread fraud. Anyone who showed up because of that... is nuts. Anyone who believes it is nuts. And anyone who follows anyone who believes it is nuts. Anyone who defends it is nuts.
Polosi in 2016: "election was stolen" Shockingly, wasnt mentionee here. Just act like it didnt happen is the best way.. And now you call 100k protestors nuts, because they think differently than you and didnt want biden, kamala, aoc and pelosi to be in charge. Keep acting like you arent part of the problem
