Over half of Republicans in a poll said they would support delaying the 2020 elections if Trump proposed it.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/346...n-if-trump

On one hand, you should always take a poll question like this with a grain of salt.

On the other, WTF?

(08-10-2017 01:39 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Over half of Republicans in a poll said they would support delaying the 2020 elections if Trump proposed it.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/346...n-if-trump

On one hand, you should always take a poll question like this with a grain of salt.

On the other, WTF?

I also take selectively quoted news titles with a grain of salt. The two questions that the Washington Post posed to people were:

If Donald Trump were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote, would you support or oppose postponing the election?

What if both Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote? Would you support or oppose postponing the election?

Frankly (if you take the question literally), the postponement of an election for that reason would be until the end of time, given the extremely high probability that there is at least one instance of voter fraud in every single election.

(08-10-2017 02:37 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 01:39 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Over half of Republicans in a poll said they would support delaying the 2020 elections if Trump proposed it.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/346...n-if-trump

On one hand, you should always take a poll question like this with a grain of salt.

On the other, WTF?

I also take selectively quoted news titles with a grain of salt. The two questions that the Washington Post posed to people were:

If Donald Trump were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote, would you support or oppose postponing the election?

What if both Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote? Would you support or oppose postponing the election?

Frankly (if you take the question literally), the postponement of an election for that reason would be until the end of time, given the extremely high probability that there is at least one instance of voter fraud in every single election.

I agree that the title is a bit misleading, but I think this is a really staggering response that indicates people obviously haven't thought their answer through. There would have to be a very legitimate, tangible, and frankly, short-term incident for there to be any reasonable reason to postpone the national election.

Thinking that is as vast and, really abstract, as stopping ineligible Americans is rationale for being able to postpone an election is terrifying. That opens the door for some massive manipulation.

(08-10-2017 04:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 02:37 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 01:39 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Over half of Republicans in a poll said they would support delaying the 2020 elections if Trump proposed it.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/346...n-if-trump

On one hand, you should always take a poll question like this with a grain of salt.

On the other, WTF?

I also take selectively quoted news titles with a grain of salt. The two questions that the Washington Post posed to people were:

If Donald Trump were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote, would you support or oppose postponing the election?

What if both Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote? Would you support or oppose postponing the election?

Frankly (if you take the question literally), the postponement of an election for that reason would be until the end of time, given the extremely high probability that there is at least one instance of voter fraud in every single election.

I agree that the title is a bit misleading, but I think this is a really staggering response that indicates people obviously haven't thought their answer through. There would have to be a very legitimate, tangible, and frankly, short-term incident for there to be any reasonable reason to postpone the national election.

Thinking that is as vast and, really abstract, as stopping ineligible Americans is rationale for being able to postpone an election is terrifying. That opens the door for some massive manipulation.

Considering how it is written into the United States Code, and partially embedded in the Constitution, I am troubled that you would allow for even:

Quote:a very legitimate, tangible, and frankly, short-term incident for there to be any reasonable reason to postpone the national election.

Sorry, if it is the law the way it is, and actually in the Constitution for a decent portion, there is *no* excuse to postpone an election in my book.

But I am a more 'rule of law' guy without the 'reasonableness in today's society' interpretation exception.

(08-10-2017 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 04:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 02:37 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 01:39 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Over half of Republicans in a poll said they would support delaying the 2020 elections if Trump proposed it.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/346...n-if-trump

On one hand, you should always take a poll question like this with a grain of salt.

On the other, WTF?

I also take selectively quoted news titles with a grain of salt. The two questions that the Washington Post posed to people were:

If Donald Trump were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote, would you support or oppose postponing the election?

What if both Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote? Would you support or oppose postponing the election?

Frankly (if you take the question literally), the postponement of an election for that reason would be until the end of time, given the extremely high probability that there is at least one instance of voter fraud in every single election.

I agree that the title is a bit misleading, but I think this is a really staggering response that indicates people obviously haven't thought their answer through. There would have to be a very legitimate, tangible, and frankly, short-term incident for there to be any reasonable reason to postpone the national election.

Thinking that is as vast and, really abstract, as stopping ineligible Americans is rationale for being able to postpone an election is terrifying. That opens the door for some massive manipulation.

Considering how it is written into the United States Code, and partially embedded in the Constitution, I am troubled that you would allow for even:

Quote:a very legitimate, tangible, and frankly, short-term incident for there to be any reasonable reason to postpone the national election.

Sorry, if it is the law the way it is, and actually in the Constitution for a decent portion, there is *no* excuse to postpone an election in my book.

But I am a more 'rule of law' guy without the 'reasonableness in today's society' interpretation exception.

Idk, I imagine some sort of, say, foreign invasion would result in an postponed election.

(08-10-2017 07:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 04:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 02:37 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 01:39 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Over half of Republicans in a poll said they would support delaying the 2020 elections if Trump proposed it.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/346...n-if-trump

On one hand, you should always take a poll question like this with a grain of salt.

On the other, WTF?

I also take selectively quoted news titles with a grain of salt. The two questions that the Washington Post posed to people were:

If Donald Trump were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote, would you support or oppose postponing the election?

What if both Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote? Would you support or oppose postponing the election?

Frankly (if you take the question literally), the postponement of an election for that reason would be until the end of time, given the extremely high probability that there is at least one instance of voter fraud in every single election.

I agree that the title is a bit misleading, but I think this is a really staggering response that indicates people obviously haven't thought their answer through. There would have to be a very legitimate, tangible, and frankly, short-term incident for there to be any reasonable reason to postpone the national election.

Thinking that is as vast and, really abstract, as stopping ineligible Americans is rationale for being able to postpone an election is terrifying. That opens the door for some massive manipulation.

Considering how it is written into the United States Code, and partially embedded in the Constitution, I am troubled that you would allow for even:

Quote:a very legitimate, tangible, and frankly, short-term incident for there to be any reasonable reason to postpone the national election.

Sorry, if it is the law the way it is, and actually in the Constitution for a decent portion, there is *no* excuse to postpone an election in my book.

But I am a more 'rule of law' guy without the 'reasonableness in today's society' interpretation exception.

Idk, I imagine some sort of, say, foreign invasion would result in an postponed election.

How would you suggest bypassing the legal and constitutional requirements? Say, 'hey lets do a little ouchie here'? Kind of like what Venezuela just did..

Sorry, there are things you just dont fk with.... for any reason....

I'm sorry, if you can do a 'little bypass' with a 'wink and nod' on anything in the Constitution, you have effectively destroyed that as a bedrock foundation for governance.

Not saying that your reasoning is bad, but it is downright dangerous (and to be honest, really stupid considering the consequences). Apologies for the last parenthetical, but I truly do feel exceptionally strongly about the inviolability of the Constitution, even those portions I might disagree with.

(08-10-2017 08:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 07:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 04:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 02:37 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  I also take selectively quoted news titles with a grain of salt. The two questions that the Washington Post posed to people were:

If Donald Trump were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote, would you support or oppose postponing the election?

What if both Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress were to say that the 2020 presidential election should be postponed until the country can make sure that only eligible American citizens can vote? Would you support or oppose postponing the election?

Frankly (if you take the question literally), the postponement of an election for that reason would be until the end of time, given the extremely high probability that there is at least one instance of voter fraud in every single election.

I agree that the title is a bit misleading, but I think this is a really staggering response that indicates people obviously haven't thought their answer through. There would have to be a very legitimate, tangible, and frankly, short-term incident for there to be any reasonable reason to postpone the national election.

Thinking that is as vast and, really abstract, as stopping ineligible Americans is rationale for being able to postpone an election is terrifying. That opens the door for some massive manipulation.

Considering how it is written into the United States Code, and partially embedded in the Constitution, I am troubled that you would allow for even:

Quote:a very legitimate, tangible, and frankly, short-term incident for there to be any reasonable reason to postpone the national election.

Sorry, if it is the law the way it is, and actually in the Constitution for a decent portion, there is *no* excuse to postpone an election in my book.

But I am a more 'rule of law' guy without the 'reasonableness in today's society' interpretation exception.

Idk, I imagine some sort of, say, foreign invasion would result in an postponed election.

How would you suggest bypassing the legal and constitutional requirements? Say, 'hey lets do a little ouchie here'? Kind of like what Venezuela just did..

Sorry, there are things you just dont fk with.... for any reason....

Being that I am not a Constitutional lawyer, I don't know off the top of my head. I was more talking about what rare circumstances could occur that would reasonably result in postponing an election because of the significant effect it would have on the voting population.

After doing a bit of quick Googling, it seems like Congress or the States themselves have the ability to change election dates as necessary.

I mean, just think about it, what if there was some major natural disaster that resulted in the vast majority of voters from one state being unable to cast their vote on election day? Wouldn't it be strange to not allow for a way to delay the election day to let the people have their votes counted?

edit: to your edit, I don't think the constitution or our laws are as rock solid on a single date as you seem to think.

Quote: For a postponement, though, Congress has recognized that the matter is best left in the hands of the states, just as with the congressional elections. The key provision in my view is 3 U.S.C. Section 2:

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

https://ricochet.com/archives/postponing...ional-law/

(08-10-2017 08:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 08:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 07:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 04:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I agree that the title is a bit misleading, but I think this is a really staggering response that indicates people obviously haven't thought their answer through. There would have to be a very legitimate, tangible, and frankly, short-term incident for there to be any reasonable reason to postpone the national election.

Thinking that is as vast and, really abstract, as stopping ineligible Americans is rationale for being able to postpone an election is terrifying. That opens the door for some massive manipulation.

Considering how it is written into the United States Code, and partially embedded in the Constitution, I am troubled that you would allow for even:

Quote:a very legitimate, tangible, and frankly, short-term incident for there to be any reasonable reason to postpone the national election.

Sorry, if it is the law the way it is, and actually in the Constitution for a decent portion, there is *no* excuse to postpone an election in my book.

But I am a more 'rule of law' guy without the 'reasonableness in today's society' interpretation exception.

Idk, I imagine some sort of, say, foreign invasion would result in an postponed election.

How would you suggest bypassing the legal and constitutional requirements? Say, 'hey lets do a little ouchie here'? Kind of like what Venezuela just did..

Sorry, there are things you just dont fk with.... for any reason....

Being that I am not a Constitutional lawyer, I don't know off the top of my head. I was more talking about what rare circumstances could occur that would reasonably result in postponing an election because of the significant effect it would have on the voting population.

After doing a bit of quick Googling, it seems like Congress or the States themselves have the ability to change election dates as necessary.

I mean, just think about it, what if there was some major natural disaster that resulted in the vast majority of voters from one state being unable to cast their vote on election day? Wouldn't it be strange to not allow for a way to delay the election day to let the people have their votes counted?

edit: to your edit, I don't think the constitution or our laws are as rock solid on a single date as you seem to think.

Quote: For a postponement, though, Congress has recognized that the matter is best left in the hands of the states, just as with the congressional elections. The key provision in my view is 3 U.S.C. Section 2:

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

https://ricochet.com/archives/postponing...ional-law/

Fair enough.

But are timetables enshrined in the Federal Election Code and in the Constitution that put a 'top end' on how long a state could postpone their own selection. So while the 'election date' can be demoted to the State date, it shouldnt run afoul of 3 USC Section 5 (Federal Safe Harbor Provision) and cannot be after an essentially 'drop dead' provision of 3 USC Section 7 that sets in stone the date of the Electors casting ballots.

There is *no* way of bypassing the latter date with a postponement.

If a state election is postponed, they either have to implement by state law an alternative balloting, or enable an alternative selection process (i.e. the state bypasses an election entirely) for the electors.

But the 'drop dead date' *is* the Electoral College ballot date -- there is *no* postponement of that by law. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. There is *no* possible postponement of this date in the law.

If the Electoral College fails to elect *on that date* (including not meeting even because of a war), the selection of President goes to the House in a contingent election specified in Article Two, Section 1, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, subsequently modified by the Twelfth Amendment.

If the contingent election fails to produce a President, Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies that if the House of Representatives has not chosen a president-elect in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then the vice president-elect becomes acting president until the House selects a president. Section 3 also specifies that Congress may statutorily provide for who will be acting president if there is neither a president-elect nor a vice president-elect in time for the inauguration. 3 USC Sec 19 would then be utilized to provide that the Speaker of the House would serve as interim President until the House selects one.

Sorry, too many inviolate dates involved to play 'lets change it on the fly and postpone and do something completely not in the law'

(08-10-2017 09:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 08:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 08:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 07:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-10-2017 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Considering how it is written into the United States Code, and partially embedded in the Constitution, I am troubled that you would allow for even:

Sorry, if it is the law the way it is, and actually in the Constitution for a decent portion, there is *no* excuse to postpone an election in my book.

But I am a more 'rule of law' guy without the 'reasonableness in today's society' interpretation exception.

Idk, I imagine some sort of, say, foreign invasion would result in an postponed election.

How would you suggest bypassing the legal and constitutional requirements? Say, 'hey lets do a little ouchie here'? Kind of like what Venezuela just did..

Sorry, there are things you just dont fk with.... for any reason....

Being that I am not a Constitutional lawyer, I don't know off the top of my head. I was more talking about what rare circumstances could occur that would reasonably result in postponing an election because of the significant effect it would have on the voting population.

After doing a bit of quick Googling, it seems like Congress or the States themselves have the ability to change election dates as necessary.

I mean, just think about it, what if there was some major natural disaster that resulted in the vast majority of voters from one state being unable to cast their vote on election day? Wouldn't it be strange to not allow for a way to delay the election day to let the people have their votes counted?

edit: to your edit, I don't think the constitution or our laws are as rock solid on a single date as you seem to think.

Quote: For a postponement, though, Congress has recognized that the matter is best left in the hands of the states, just as with the congressional elections. The key provision in my view is 3 U.S.C. Section 2:

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

https://ricochet.com/archives/postponing...ional-law/

Fair enough.

But are timetables enshrined in the Federal Election Code and in the Constitution that put a 'top end' on how long a state could postpone their own selection. So while the 'election date' can be demoted to the State date, it shouldnt run afoul of 3 USC Section 5 (Federal Safe Harbor Provision) and cannot be after an essentially 'drop dead' provision of 3 USC Section 7 that sets in stone the date of the Electors casting ballots.

There is *no* way of bypassing the latter date with a postponement.

If a state election is postponed, they either have to implement by state law an alternative balloting, or enable an alternative selection process (i.e. the state bypasses an election entirely) for the electors.

But the 'drop dead date' *is* the Electoral College ballot date -- there is *no* postponement of that by law. Full stop. No ifs, ands, or buts. There is *no* possible postponement of this date in the law.

If the Electoral College fails to elect *on that date* (including not meeting even because of a war), the selection of President goes to the House in a contingent election specified in Article Two, Section 1, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, subsequently modified by the Twelfth Amendment.

If the contingent election fails to produce a President, Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment specifies that if the House of Representatives has not chosen a president-elect in time for the inauguration (noon on January 20), then the vice president-elect becomes acting president until the House selects a president. Section 3 also specifies that Congress may statutorily provide for who will be acting president if there is neither a president-elect nor a vice president-elect in time for the inauguration. 3 USC Sec 19 would then be utilized to provide that the Speaker of the House would serve as interim President until the House selects one.

Sorry, too many inviolate dates involved to play 'lets change it on the fly and postpone and do something completely not in the law'

I think everything you just posted goes back and supports my original, off-the-cuff thought that only a very tangible, short-term issue could (or should) result in a presidential election being delayed.

No need to apologize - I think we're in agreement now that the proper research into the legality of moving the presidential election was done.

(08-10-2017 08:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I don't think the constitution or our laws are as rock solid on a single date as you seem to think.

Quote:
For a postponement, though, Congress has recognized that the matter is best left in the hands of the states, just as with the congressional elections. The key provision in my view is 3 U.S.C. Section 2:
Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.

https://ricochet.com/archives/postponing...ional-law/

Which is, by the way, the reason the Florida recounts were shut down and the state's electors awarded to Bush in 2000. At the recommendation of James Baker, Jeb Bush had called the Florida legislature, which was dominated by republicans in both houses, into special session for the purpose of appointing electors. If you follow the statutory structure all the way through, once the legislature convened, the best outcome that Al Gore could have gotten was to have the election thrown back to Jeb Bush as final decision authority.

What happened in C-ville is messed up and downright disgusting.

I'm encouraged that so many from both the left and right have come out with strong language of condemnation, and some are even pushing for an investigation into the act of domestic terrorism (Cruz). Unfortunate to see that POTUS has not yet joined in vehemently denouncing the white supremacists who instigated and perpetrated violence against those on the correct side of the divide.

In the vein of comment of "all lives matter", I think that all who perpetrate violent acts at any peaceful march, demonstration, or college lecture should be punished at law. Period.

I am also for a free expression of opinion, even from disgusting viewpoints, if that expression is done in a non-violent manner. While I personally dont think much of either offensive viewpoints or offensive actions in support of a viewpoint, the absolute unfettered right to express that viewpoint must be preserved. A perfect case in point is most aspects of the Charlottesville March. Not really into the white supremacist message of Spencer and company, but their ability to speak their point of view, and even march *is* sacrosanct *if* they adhere to obeying the law.

As for "white supremacists who instigated and perpetrated violence against those on the correct side of the divide", I think my comment above is more of a superset of your comment without the "divide because of political stance" language. I think that anyone who instigates and perpetrates violence against others (period) should be denounced and punished, without reference to 'correctness' (or incorrectness as the case may be) of either 'their' side or the 'other' side.

Someone may be 'correct' in their stance and wholly incorrect in their actions for that stance, and others may be 'wholly incorrect' in their stance yet absolutely correct in their actions.

(08-13-2017 03:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In the vein of comment of "all lives matter", I think that all who perpetrate violent acts at any peaceful march, demonstration, or college lecture should be punished at law. Period.

I am also for a free expression of opinion, even from disgusting viewpoints, if that expression is done in a non-violent manner. While I personally dont think much of either offensive viewpoints or offensive actions in support of a viewpoint, the absolute unfettered right to express that viewpoint must be preserved. A perfect case in point is most aspects of the Charlottesville March. Not really into the white supremacist message of Spencer and company, but their ability to speak their point of view, and even march *is* sacrosanct *if* they adhere to obeying the law.

As for "white supremacists who instigated and perpetrated violence against those on the correct side of the divide", I think my comment above is more of a superset of your comment without the "divide because of political stance" language. I think that anyone who instigates and perpetrates violence against others (period) should be denounced and punished, without reference to 'correctness' (or incorrectness as the case may be) of either 'their' side or the 'other' side.

Someone may be 'correct' in their stance and wholly incorrect in their actions for that stance, and others may be 'wholly incorrect' in their stance yet absolutely correct in their actions.

Ok.

I too agree that defending the right for racists bigots to be racist bigots is important. Sorry that me stating that one side in Charlottesville is vile, disgusting, and wrong led you to feel the need to clarify that.

Both sides were (and have been) itching for a fight for months. Explicit and overt Spencer followers v Antifa. [sarcasm]What an awesome choice for rationality.[/sarcasm] I find both factions "vile, disgusting, and wrong", to be honest.

Very definitely Spencer et al showed up to instigate. And very definitely at least some (more than a couple) Antifa came prepared to rumble and shed blood, either offensively or defensively. To say that one faction is snow pure white and one faction is dead black wrong would be way off the mark. But that is clearly your point.....

A heavy number of videos suggest that the “antifas” were at least as responsible for the initial and continuing violent clashes as the white supremacists. Both deserve repudiation. Fascists (swimmingly self-monikered 'antifas') who advocate (and practice) rioting in order to shut down other people’s speech are just as reprehensible as racists and white nationalists.

Terrible as hell outcome, and the final result shouldnt be minimized.

(08-13-2017 09:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Both sides were (and have been) itching for a fight for months. Explicit and overt Spencer followers v Antifa. [sarcasm]What an awesome choice for rationality.[/sarcasm] I find both factions "vile, disgusting, and wrong", to be honest.

Very definitely Spencer et al showed up to instigate. And very definitely at least some (more than a couple) Antifa came prepared to rumble and shed blood, either offensively or defensively. To say that one faction is snow pure white and one faction is dead black wrong would be way off the mark. But that is clearly your point.....

A heavy number of videos suggest that the “antifas” were at least as responsible for the initial and continuing violent clashes as the white supremacists. Both deserve repudiation. Fascists (swimmingly self-monikered 'antifas') who advocate (and practice) rioting in order to shut down other people’s speech are just as reprehensible as racists and white nationalists.

Terrible as hell outcome, and the final result shouldnt be minimized.

We'll have to agree to disagree about which is more reprehensible when it comes to Charlottesville - spouting racist ideologies, intimidating other, and physically assaulting others versus just physically assaulting others.

In the case of Charlottesville there was really only one side that deserves condemnation - none of this both sides are bad crap. That has not always been the case (as with Antifa in Berkley a few months ago), but in Charlottesville, trying to draw similarities between the two is really a bad, bad take. Like, really bad.

I saw just as many baseball bats in the hands of the antifas as I did in the hands of the Spencerites. People who are not out to start trouble do not walk through downtown areas with baseball bats in their hands with hoods and masks. That the protestors (both Spencerites and Antifas) had these weapons ready at hand showed that they were not Boy Scouts out for a lark, but essentially, rioters. That applies to both sides here. And they proved that by both sides being more than willing to wield them.

Quote:spouting racist ideologies, intimidating other, and physically assaulting others versus just physically assaulting others.

Glad to see that in your comparison the antifas with the baseball bats were *not* engaged in 'intimidating others'. Nice judicious deletion of that from the antifa side of the ledger there.

The proper comparison is:

masked goons : masked goons
armed with weapons that could kill : armed with weapons that could kill (especially enjoyed the aerosol flame throwers, great touch)
body armor or shields ready : body armor or shields ready
using weapons to intimidate : using weapons to intimidate
hiding identity : hiding identity
physically assaulted others : physically assaulted others
had one unpermitted march : met with unpermitted march
had one permitted 'march' : met with unpermitted counter 'march'
yelled bad things about opponents : yelled bad things at opponents
spouting racist ideologies : tried to meet yelling bad things about race with violence, intimidation, and weapons

SPENCERITES : ANTIFAS

Yeah, there is a crap ton of difference there.... FIFY.

And, as disgusting as it is, the *only* difference between the fing nationalist 'fascists' from Spencer and the fing 'fascists but anti-fascists' is that the nationalists when they 'spouted racist ideologies' engaged in (disgusting but) protected activity. Of course, it would be nice if there were even marginally better poster-boys for the First Amendment than the Klan and the Neo-Nazis.

The street violence *was* due to both (essentially equally repugnant) sides.

[sarcasm]But yes, one side *is* lily-white.[/sarcasm]

And I will repeat: Fascists (swimmingly self-monikered 'antifas') who advocate (and practice) rioting in order to shut down other people’s speech are just as reprehensible as racists and white nationalists. Both were on full and unfettered display this last weekend.

Again, really bad take here.

Had some terrorist not driven his car into a crowd of protestors and murdered someone, your point may be better taken. But again, real bad take.

(08-13-2017 10:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Again, really bad take here.

Had some terrorist not driven his car into a crowd of protestors and murdered someone, your point may be better taken. But again, real bad take.

Charlottesville had two prongs: a) the street fighting between right-wing and left-wing extremists; and b) the mowing down of protesters by a Nazi (or Nazi sympathizer).

The second component looks like an open and shut case. Local investigators and prosecutors should have no difficulty handling it.

There are some who say the guy was trapped amongst the antifa faction and was trying to get away from them. I dont know which is the case. If he mowed them down with intent to do so he should be punished to the extreme limits of the law. Period. (In Virginia that involves the death penalty, and although personally against the death penalty, I do think if intent is shown this should be an example of a state having the freedom to mete the highest penalty they allow for the most extreme types of crimes, which, if an intentional act, this would be an example of.) If intentional, then the nationalists do have to bear that cross to an extent.

The street violence was definitely produced by both factions, was anticipated by both factions, and was wanted by both factions. The burden of the street violence should be borne by both factions.

(08-13-2017 10:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Again, really bad take here.

Had some terrorist not driven his car into a crowd of protestors and murdered someone, your point may be better taken. But again, real bad take.

The terrorist was still a single actor, who has been arrested, and will now undoubtedly be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

None of this had to happen. The revisionist history of treating Robert E. Lee with the same broad brush as Nathan Bedford Forrest, etc., when Lincoln, Grant and most contemporary Americans viewed him in a light that would find the current outcries about Lee's statue appalling, gave unnecessary opportunity for idiots and supremacists to protest. As I've pointed out before, the difference between Thomas Jefferson and Robert E. Lee and their stances on Virginia and where they land on the issues of the time, was simply the specific years in which they lived, and the fact that Lee freed his own slaves and Jefferson impregnated his.

Oh and Lee led his men in battle and was loved by them, and respected by his opponents. Which of course is why he was so revered in the South, not because of any political stance.

You are correct in that white supremacists are on the wrong side of history. But your post that started this day's string off, painted with a huge, broad brush the hundreds of people on both sides in Virginia.

While there are obviously people there that could be characterized as wholly wrong, and many in control and blameless; labeling groups as wholly virtuous or wholly evil is an emotional response to a horrible tragedy and a crime committed by one person (as far as is known now).

With regard to statues, there is one on our campus of a known slaveholder, citizen of the Confederacy who bequeathed a fortune to an institution of higher learning for 'white Texans'.

Given the nature of the tragic events, I view your posts as a properly emotional response to a horrible crime.

But generally speaking, viewing large numbers of people as wholly virtuous or wholly reprehensible is a self-perpetrating exercise that only succeeds in escalating tension and does not foster understanding or reconciliation.

Lincoln understood this, as have other leaders throughout history.

(08-13-2017 10:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-13-2017 10:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Again, really bad take here.

Had some terrorist not driven his car into a crowd of protestors and murdered someone, your point may be better taken. But again, real bad take.

Charlottesville had two prongs: a) the street fighting between right-wing and left-wing extremists; and b) the mowing down of protesters by a Nazi (or Nazi sympathizer).

The second component looks like an open and shut case. Local investigators and prosecutors should have no difficulty handling it.

There are some who say the guy was trapped amongst the antifa faction and was trying to get away from them. I dont know which is the case. If he mowed them down with intent to do so he should be punished to the extreme limits of the law. Period. (In Virginia that involves the death penalty, and although personally against the death penalty, I do think if intent is shown this should be an example of a state having the freedom to mete the highest penalty they allow for the most extreme types of crimes, which, if an intentional act, this would be an example of.) If intentional, then the nationalists do have to bear that cross to an extent.

The street violence was definitely produced by both factions, was anticipated by both factions, and was wanted by both factions. The burden of the street violence should be borne by both factions.

Watch the video of car if you haven't. As disturbing as the act is, I think it's almost necessary to watch it because in order to understand how intentional the act was and how there is no both sides in that regard.

The violence on the first night was instigated and perpetrated by white supremacists and Nazi-sympathizers wielding torches, who used the removal of a statue of a confederate general as a guise for them to publicly display their hateful and vitriolic message of a supposed racial superiority and then beat counter protesters with tiki torches.

And come Saturday, I did not see photos of those opposing white supremacists wielding guns and full body armor (that was the intimidation I was talking about earlier).

Again, Charlottesville is NOT the poster child for the whole "both sides are bad" argument - choose those Berkley riots instead where the Antifa were true instigators and, honestly, deserve the lion's share of the burden. The only side that needs to be condemned after these events are the racist POS's who descended upon Charlottesville to spout off hateful rhetoric.