Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

That wasn't a personal attack, it was an editorial comment. The thing about free speech is, others are also free to criticize what you say, goes with the territory.

Your response is gibberish.

[jeremyrh]

Your response is gibberish.

Says Lying Klein !!

[Robert Roaldi]

Your response is gibberish.

Too funny.

[digitaldog]

Your response is gibberish.

"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." -Euripides

[dreed]

\Then democrats will be free to legally ballot harvest and personally help people fill out ballots to mail in.

Again, Mr Alan Klein demonstrates that he is not in favour of full participation of the population in democracy and is thus in favour of voter suppression.

[Manoli]

Protecting the whole process from fraud and allowing all people who can vote to be able to vote go hand in hand. Reasonable rules protect both purposes.

Your inability to debate without fixating on a singular red herring, is evidence enough of your thinly disguised racist subconscious and your not so thinly disguised bias. Period.

The bill replaces the elected Secretary of State as head of the election board with someone appointed by the legislature, and it  increases the state’s power to remove county election officials it deems ‘poor performers’ thus potentially upending election boards in the populous, Democratic-leaning counties around Atlanta.

To put it in terms even you should understand - it permits a future candidate, in the vein of Trump, to legally upend and overturn a fair democratic election.

[Alan Klein]

Your inability to debate without fixating on a singular red herring, is evidence enough of your thinly disguised racist subconscious and your not so thinly disguised bias. Period.

The bill replaces the elected Secretary of State as head of the election board with someone appointed by the legislature, and it  increases the state’s power to remove county election officials it deems ‘poor performers’ thus potentially upending election boards in the populous, Democratic-leaning counties around Atlanta.

To put it in terms even you should understand - it permits a future candidate, in the vein of Trump, to legally upend and overturn a fair democratic election.

There you go pulling the race card.

By the way, isn't it Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi who wants to reverse the Republican win for Congresswoman even though the Republican got more votes? People in glass houses should't throw stones.
Pelosi's attempt to overturn Miller-Meeks' certified Iowa win: What to know
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-attempt-overturn-miller-meeks-certified-iowa-win

[PeterAit]

Either way, there's no point in discussing with Lying Klein.

This comment is out of place here, IMO. Alan seems earnest and well-meaning but he is so poorly informed and illogical that his post are full of ... well, you know. A "lie" is intentionally stating something that you know is false. I don't think Alan does that. He just thinks this stuff is true. Like his hero the Orange Menace.

[Manoli]

There you go pulling the race card. By the way ...

No, just your published posts and ‘whataboutism’ doesn’t constitute a debate - unless of course you’re admitting that you are/were in favour of Trump’s attempt to subvert the election.

[Manoli]

This comment is out of place here, IMO. Alan seems earnest and well-meaning

There’s history here ...

Slander someone with false allegations of racist statements; call them a coward; then act like you're the victim.

.. and refuse to apologise ‘en plus’ . Not the best way to engender a feeling of collegiality.

[Manoli]

By the way, isn't it Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi who wants to reverse the Republican win for Congresswoman even though the Republican got more votes?

Amusing.
A legally requested recount on a margin of just 6 votes doesn’t really compare with Trump pressuring Raffensperger to upend an election.

[Robert Roaldi]

Here's a podcast interview about US domestic terrorism from NPR's Fresh Air, https://www.npr.org/2021/03/25/981221720/the-threat-of-domestic-terrorism. The interview is with Elizabeth Neumann formerly with Dept of Homeland Security under Trump, but held office(s) in the Bush administration as well.

Trigger alert for alt-right aficionados, she is a critic of how Trump handled the problem of homegrown terrorism. They discuss what the various groups believe, how they differ, and expresses worry that a few of them were able to cooperate last January 6th, something not seen before as they tend to not get along. She makes some comments about militias, white nationalism, and groups who actively promote civil war as a way of cleaning house.

Blurb from Fresh Air: "Elizabeth Neumann resigned from the Department of Homeland Security in April of 2020. She says the Trump administration ignored the threat — and fanned the flames — of violent domestic extremism. She's now co-director of the Republican Accountability Project, which pushes back on conspiracy theories and false claims that the election was stolen and is trying to hold accountable elected leaders who have supported those narratives."

[MattBurt]

Amusing.
A legally requested recount on a margin of just 6 votes doesn’t really compare with Trump pressuring Raffensperger to upend an election.

But this is a good point to bring up. The key here will be what happens if her legal appeals run out.
If she starts trying to install loyalists there and pressuring officials to "find" votes that were not in the recount then she has crossed the line.

[Manoli]

But this is a good point to bring up. The key here will be what happens if her legal appeals run out.
If she starts trying to install loyalists there and pressuring officials to "find" votes that were not in the recount then she has crossed the line.

Yes, but dealing with ‘today’, her legal appeals haven’t run out and we’re discussing an ‘if’.
Sadly faced with the shenanigans of the recent election, nobody will be surprised that they end up fighting ‘like with like’.

Jen Psaki, in today’s White House Presser, discussing the Georgia issue, put it well:

“ I think it’s important to remember the context
The Georgia legislation is built on a lie.
There was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
Georgia’s top Republican election officials have acknowledged that, repeatedly, in interviews.
What there was was representing turnout especially by voters of color.
Instead what we’re seeing here, especially by politicians who didn’t like the outcome - they didn’t change their policies,  instead they’re changing the rules to exclude more voters. “

Succinct and to the point.

[Peter McLennan]

He just thinks this stuff is true. Like his hero the Orange Menace.

No. We can excuse Alan's ignorance, he's just a bored and ill-informed keyboard warrior from NJ.

But not Trump's. We can't excuse his lies. The Orange Menace doesn't "think this stuff is true", he knows he's telling lies, yet he does it anyway, daily.  Thousands of them. Mostly transparently idiotic. 

Only the ignorant, those with something to gain from pretending to believe, or the gullible believe these lies.  Seventy-odd million of them, apparently.  A sad reflection on America.

[faberryman]

Please try to keep up with the news. Rita Hart gave up her challenge against Mariannette Miller-Meeks last week.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rita-hart-backs-down-iowa-election-challenge-miller-meeks

[chez]

. 

Only the ignorant, those with something to gain from pretending to believe, or the gullible believe these lies.  Seventy-odd million of them, apparently.  A sad reflection on America.

Amen.

[John Camp]

No. We can excuse Alan's ignorance, he's just a bored and ill-informed keyboard warrior from NJ.

But not Trump's. We can't excuse his lies. The Orange Menace doesn't "think this stuff is true", he knows he's telling lies, yet he does it anyway, daily.  Thousands of them. Mostly transparently idiotic. 

Only the ignorant, those with something to gain from pretending to believe, or the gullible believe these lies.  Seventy-odd million of them, apparently.  A sad reflection on America.

I am a reasonably cynical former newspaper reporter who covered a lot of crime and government and I've actually seen how the sausage gets made, and I am constantly amazed by my naive inability to simply accept Trump as a criminal. I don't want him to be a criminal because I love the US and I hate to think that we had a dirtbag like that as President. But, to the news:

I was shocked all over again by a Sunday NYT story about how Trump and his campaign cynically ripped off his own supporters in an effort to raise campaign funds in the waning weeks of the election. In their election appeals, scattered far and wide by the internet, they "pre-checked" a small, obscure box that made voluntary one-time campaign donations recurring. So somebody would donate $100 or something, and only much later find out that the $100 was coming out of their bank account on a weekly basis and sometimes more often. Given the financial status of most of his supporters, this was a truly evil thing to do.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/03/us/politics/trump-donations.html

Here's a quote from the opening first few paragraphs:

Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaugh’s dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trump’s campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500. It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution — federal records show it was his first ever — quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge — until Mr. Blatt’s bank account had been depleted and frozen. When his utility and rent payments bounced, he called his brother, Russell, for help. What the Blatts soon discovered was $3,000 in withdrawals by the Trump campaign in less than 30 days. They called their bank and said they thought they were victims of fraud...

[Robert Roaldi]

... who wants to reverse the Republican win for Congresswoman even though the Republican got more votes? ...

As someone else pointed out, the vote was very close and they asked for a recount. Now compare that with the National Enquirer phrasing you used. Do you think you were justified in putting it that way?

I have nothing against hyperbole, but it works better with an example that's actually outrageous.

[Alan Klein]

Amusing.
A legally requested recount on a margin of just 6 votes doesn’t really compare with Trump pressuring Raffensperger to upend an election.

Amusing.
A legally requested recount on a margin of just 6 votes doesn’t really compare with Trump pressuring Raffensperger to upend an election.

You're lying. Pelosi want to reverse the election results by Democratic controlled congressional fiat.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pelosi-attempt-overturn-miller-meeks-certified-iowa-win