CITATION FUCKING NEEDED BOB

I get it, you and your overlord have really hurt feelings over the fact that 8 MILLION more people wanted Biden in charge. That's not STEALING, that's WINNING. It isn't something Trump has ever actually done legitimately, so I can understand how he wouldn't recognize what that looks like.

There was no "steal" on the part of Biden or the Dems, no matter how loudly Trump whines about it. Donald and his goonsquad are attempting an actual, honest to goodness violent overthrow of the duly elected government of the US. That IS NOT ok. It isn't funny, it isn't cute. It isn't "protesting" anything to break into the US Capitol. It isn't bringing on liberal tears, it's tearing down the structures that have allowed this society to flourish. It's setting fire to the Constitution and pissing on the ashes.

If there's fraud, show the evidence. Don't bitch that they tried but judges said no standing - a lack of standing means there was no injured party. If there had been actual evidence of actual fraud, then there would be injured parties they could bring into court who would have standing. No one has standing though, because there's no evidence, because it was a good clean election and Trump fucking lost. Stop supporting the literal insurrection, and welcome to a few years of the grown-ups who listen to experts trying to steer the ship to safety before the chucklefucks inevitably seize the wheel again.

Congratulations! Your video, LegalEagle: American Insurrection at The Capitol, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 126 Badge!

Your video, LegalEagle: American Insurrection at The Capitol, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

How does he think an insurrection is going to be good for business?

Oh, he's an anti masker moron who just openly threatened a coup in America, he doesn't think at all. That's what comes from relaxing the requirements to join the military, now we have tons of Jethro Clampets who are veterans, but are not high school graduates and are not stable.
Yikes!

Lol. Quote CNN, it's "repeating what lying disgraced fake news CNN says". Don't quote CNN, it's "I don't hear that on CNN".
Anything to be dismissive, eh Bob?
Sorry, I think for myself. I understand that's a foreign concept to you....but you really should try it sometime.

So, you watch a right wing crybaby claim the right is too infantile and unpatriotic to accept a likely legal future, and claim they (you) are going to throw an adult tantrum if you don't get your way, and your answer is "the crybabies are from the left". *facepalm.
Funny, I don't recall those leftist crybabies threatening revolt and armed insurrection when Clinton was investigated unfairly by unambiguously anti Clinton investigators for years on end, then impeached over being a good lawyer with a good vocabulary ("is" doesn't mean "was").

24/7/375 anti Trump reporting, because he's a disaster 24/7/365. It's not propaganda if it's true.

Trump polls dropped to 60% disapproval. Duh.

I agree there...only the fake stories help worried conservatives in their resolve, because only fake stories support Trump. Honest reporting turns adults against Trump.

All the antifa protest, huh? Funny, I haven't heard about them except as a distraction or subject change mentioned by you in some time.
#walk away is not real, Bob, except the part describing conservatives #walkingaway from Trump. Hanging your hat on liberals leaving Democrats and joining Republicans because Democrats are too nasty, are overtly racist, and are hyper supportive of Russia simply isn't going to go well for you.

Bob, you represent what's wrong in America....1/4 of us have lost touch with reality and decided that any fact they don't like can just be dismissed as a lie, no matter how factual it is, and an industry has grown to sell you stories that reinforce that mindset. (No one said Murdoch isn't smart). You are firmly in that willingly self blinded group, still supporting a undeniably disloyal, honorless, petulant fraud and consummate liar and fooling yourself that you're in a majority. 36% (his approval rating) isn't a majority, 60% (his disapproval rating) is.....but unflattering numbers are fake news, right?

Nope.

The only effective way is to practically eliminate the prevalence of guns beyond say a hunting rifle across the general population. Everything else is wack-a-mole, and won't solve the problem.

I'm a political moderate, and I generally gravitate towards moderate "common sense" effective regulations when needed. I don't see any point in regulations that don't do any good.

Universal background checks, banning assault rifles, three day waiting periods, banning bump stocks, stopping people who have been evaluated with psychiatric problems, all of it will insignificantly reduce gun violence.

I just don't see a way forward on this issue because what's needed is so politically impossible when people start declaring armed insurrection when a Democrat gets elected President.

@newtboy --

Yarr. I had a pretty long response typed up, and then accidentally clicked on a link and lost it.

So here's a short version:

I agree with you on pretty much everything, but "all statues and other monuments celebrating the insurrection should go" has some caveats for me.

Civic places like government buildings, city parks, etc.? Yeah, they should all go (including the State flags that incorporate the stars and bars). But museums (which you noted you are OK with), battlefields, and even a landmark or two like Stone Mountain I feel can be re-purposed so they aren't necessarily "celebrating the insurrection" so much as "reminding us of the evil that can exist in the hearts of men -- even men that some people respect".

Malcolm Reynolds in Firefly said "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another." Easier to remember that for Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee, and Stonewall Jackson, given that their roles in the Confederacy are pretty defining aspects of their legacies. But it remains true for some people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and many other founding fathers that were also slave owners, even though we often conveniently forget that aspect of their history.


--EDIT--
Oh, by the way, I love that Malcolm Reynolds quote from Firefly, and there's a rather similar one made by the Hound in the (leaked) S07E06 episode of Game of Thrones:
"Every lord I've ever known has been a cunt. Don't see why the Lord of Light should be any different."

Not as relevant as the other one, but I liked it.

Sorry, but you missed the point imo. Confederates were NOT real Americans, they were real traitors to America who renounced their citizenship and fought to destroy the Union....largely to protect their rights to own people.

I'm not for whitewashing history, but I do think all statues and other monuments celebrating the insurrection should go...because I'm a patriot and would never celebrate our enemies.
Funny enough, Robert E Lee agreed there should be no monuments, he knew they breed hatred on both sides.

As an American, it is pretty easy to say they were wrong, and I'm from Houston and I'm actually related to Lee through two separate lines. That changes nothing. Treason is wrong, period.

The unemployment numbers of 28, 29, 35, and 42% is a weird sequence. So he starts by jumping 1%, then 6%, then 7%. So if we keep the pattern going if could be: 1 6 7 13 20 33 53. It may have been 28, 29, I heard 35, maybe 42, could even be 55, even as high as 88 or *gasp* 141%.

Or it could be up by 1, then up by 5, up by 1 and then up by 5 as in: 1 6 7 12 13 18 19 24 25

But since he stopped at 42, let's get the range: 42 - 28 = 14

Since it's America and it's somewhat appropriate, in the mystical ways of presidential numerology (the only way to understand Trump), the range of 14 must be referring to the 14th Amendment.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I'm thinking you probably don't understand Star Trek. The TNG movies were no work of art, but they were still decent Star Trek movies. Now none of the Star Trek movies, not even the first 6 (with the exception of the Motion Picture, and arguably The Voyage Home) truly represent what Star Trek is with relation to their respective TV shows, as they choose to focus more on space action and conflict, but all of them stuck with the core premise that Gene Roddenberry laid out: To explore the human condition and show how mankind can better itself.
The TNG movies certainly could have done better, and while First Contact was pretty darn good (especially if you consider how it relates to the Borg "trilogy") I've come to see Generations and even Insurrection in a more forgiving light. Heck, as painful as it is to admit, even Nemesis had a lot of potential, judging by the scenes that were cut. (But that's being REALLY generous.)
However, none of the new movies come anywhere near what the old movies were. Yes, Star Trek 2009 was actually a better movie than several of the previous movies, but otherwise, all of them, even what I'm seeing in this new trailer, lack the vision laid down by Roddenberry. And also, it's very hard to appreciate a Star Trek movie that doesn't have its core points laid down in a TV show, as it really is best suited for the TV medium. Without that character and setting development, you can really only get by with nostalgia and action.

Now some of the fan works, on the other hand, seem to do their source material better justice. I avoided them for quite some time, but after hearing about some of the good ones, I've started to look into them and have been pleasantly surprised. They are certainly rough around the edges, but they do seem to stick to Roddenberry's vision a lot better. Heck, that Axanar thing looks pretty compelling, if they ever get to complete it.

The problem is the GOP as constructed is already the minority party at least nationally. Since 1992, they've won the popular vote once in presidential races. Demographics favor voting blocs that track for Democrats. If the GOP splits into a moderate party and Tea Party, that is the effective end of the GOP, and the Tea Party would also be politically castrated. The people who built the Tea Party understood that the way to gain influence was as an insurrection within the GOP, not as a third party. For the Tea Party, it was a smart move. They've gained massive influence nationally compared to their numbers. But it is a cancer to the Republican Party that they've proven they're completely unable to control.

Every single problem or mistake you've listed is all due to one common thread - there are too many supporters of the GOP that are too radical. Why did McCain pick Palin? He was too moderate for the base, so he needed to up his conservative street creds, and he needed a minority splash to combat Obama being black. Combine those two, and you can't get Olympia Snow or Susan Collins, but you could get to either of them if you drop the "needs to be hard right conservative". Why did McCain move to the right in the first place? The base demanded it.

Why can't Obama do anything right according to no one in the GOP pretty much? Base is too rabid and demands it. Why did Romney shift to the right? Base.

You can blame the party for catering to the extreme too much, but the problem is the extreme makes up so much of what they have for support, they have no choice. Tea Party organizers astutely realized that, radicalized their supporters to threaten to not turn out for moderate candidates, and even to primary challenge even guys like Eric Cantor for compromising too much.

I mean this sincerely - the GOP party leadership is not at fault. Blame the original Tea Party organizers. Blame Tea Party candidates. Blame the media environment for increasingly favoring more radical candidates by creating partisan bubbles to carefully dissimenate information that suites partisan goals. Blame an electorate too stupid and/or apathetic to understand that neither conservative nor liberal ideology solves every problem (which is so painfully obvious that I can prove that in about 5 minutes), so you need to learn about each issue, and use those ideologies to form options, and then choose the one that's more likely to work, regardless of its ideological foundation. Yeah, that actually takes work and critical thinking, but you'll actually solve problems!

But that ain't happening, so it's time to sit back and watch the slow decline of the GOP as it eats itself alive, and Democrats will increasingly win because we'll keep being presented more with GOP candidates a majority of candidates can't stomach, and hope like heck the Democrats nominate at least someone semi-competent for office, because that's pretty much all we got.

I couldn't stomach voting for a single GOP nominee for president since George Bush, Sr. It's gotten worse because I couldn't stomach my choice for VA governor last year either. I had to choose between a batsh1t insane Cuccinelli or political sleeze in McAulliffe, and it was both the fastest choice to make for me, yet I was the least happy about having to make it for McAulliffe.

And just when I thought you couldn't get much lower from the GOP, they're on the doorstep of nominating Trump or Cruz for president of the entire country.

Wow.

This is why our police does not need to have access to military gear. You had one suspect with a weapon, you talk him out or you rush multiple parts of the home. What you don't do is blow out every wall in every room, tear down the fences all around, and make it look like a warzone.

Now, as a dog owner, I would be pissed because if they knocked down my fence, both of my beloved pets would run out and be hurt or killed. What if there were kids playing in those other yards? The sheer lack of consideration for the damage they were doing is atrocious.

The worst part of this is none of that money that is going to be paid on lawsuits over this is going to come out of those jackbooted thug's pockets. It's going to come out of the people of that community's taxes. That is horseshit. I would force them to sell their toys and demilitarize, then take that money to pay people.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR OUR POLICE TO BE ARMED WITH MILITARY GEAR!!! If you are going to police us with the same gear the military has, then you are basically the military and should be subject to Posse Comitatus and the Insurrection Act of 1807.

*promote

Yes, that is apparently what Napolitano said...but this statement is foundationally incorrect.
Lincoln did not 'engage in war' as you seem to indicate, he responded to a violent armed insurrection, attack, and secession. Most reasonable people would see that as the South engaging in war and the union responding to attack.
(perhaps I misunderstand your use of the word 'engage'. Technically he did 'engage' after being attacked, but I think you are implying he started the war. That sentiment is incorrect.)
You seem to want to ignore those facts and the implications that logically follow them.

You are confusing me with others you are 'debating'.
I have always thought that the Union went to war to preserve the union...they did not go on a crusade to eradicate slavery. I'm not sure anyone here has ever made that claim.
And yes, the north sent in the army because the south attacked federal forts and took federal property.
Not sure what you're saying here, you now seem to admit that Lincoln tried compensated emancipation before joining the war, only to be rebuffed by the states...I'm not sure where you get the idea it was only tried in Delaware.
And yes, that's how government works, the federal reps and the 'local' reps hash out the laws...in this case the locals said 'not now, and on our terms if and when' to compensated emancipation, and the federal reps had little backing besides Lincoln.
As I see it, Americans did all of those tactics employed by the British etc. Perhaps the federal government didn't try them all, but Americans did.
Contradictory sentiment, false implication, and simple ridiculousness in the 'charitable' paragraph. "Get one over on the south"? Hmmmm.
When a violent insurrection starts, the present government will nearly always engage in kind.
Peaceful secession may have worked...too bad the south had to get violent first.
Again, to you, are you saying it was all about slavery, or about preserving the union? You seem to flip flop there.
Again you intentionally miss-state the obvious, not when faced with a problem, but when faced with an ATTACK. He didn't go to war with Mary Todd Lincoln, and she was certainly a problem!

I know very little about Syria beyond what is part of the major consensus narrative aka "history". But it's an interesting discussion to have, so my vote goes to "horrible idea", and here's why.

It's a civil war between bad guys on one side and bad guys on the other side, with civilians, as always, caught right in the middle of this meatgrinder. Foreign supporters of both sides keep adding fuel in the form of cash, weapons, training and personnel, all for their own geopolitical gains, of course. Nobody truly gives a fuck about the population, never has.

If any action is supposed to to be carried out for the benefit of the local population, the refugees and regional stability, I'd say two basic questions need to be answered first:

1) What's the situation?
2) What actions by exterior forces can improve this situation?

Judging by most articles these days, the modus operandi instead seems to be based on two entirely different questions: what actions would benefit our geopolitical/economical situation and what should this conflict's narrative look like to support our intentions.

If you look at all the major players involved, it seems clear to me to be a "stay-the-fuck-outta-this" situation.

US, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia + Emirates vs Syria, Russia and Iran. Egypt and Lebanon are "involved" on both sides -- Muslim Brotherhood and Lebanese Sunnis against Assad, General Sisi (neutral?) and Lebanese Shia pro Assad. Not to mention Al Qaeda against Assad and Hezbollah pro Assad.

Anytime the US finds itself on the same team as Al Qaeda, the situation needs to be reevaluated. And don't even get me started on those barbarians that cut off people's heads and eat their hearts in front of cameras.

And what's the primary geopolitical angle here? To cut the connection between Iran and the Lebanese Shia (Hezbollah)? I figure if they get isolated, they might lash out - violently. And those guys are much more capable than the rabble that makes up significant parts of the Syrian insurrection.

Once the Alawites and Shia in Syria get chopped up by those "rebels" after Assad was removed, things will get ugly real fast.

My suggestion: stop treating Iran like a pariah and start talking. Their regime might be a disaster, but the Persian people are well educated and much closer to our Western way of life than anyone else in that region. Get them, the Russians and the Chinese involved.

Then again, that's the White Man trying to solve the Brown Man's problems from the outside -- has that ever worked? Besides, it would reduce the threat of terrorism and war -- that's bad for business.