Who here supports political compass as the best online political alignment test?

Isn't that just dwelling on the thin shell?

The Conservative response to fauxlaw:

Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska)

"I listen to Nebraskans every day  and very few of them are as angry about life as the people on this [Nebraska Republican Party Central] Committee.  Not all of you but a lot.

The party can purge Trump skeptics but I'd like to convince you that'not only is that civic cancer for the Nation, it's just terrible for our party."

The sermonist response to oromagi:

Turn what Ben Sasse said on your Democrats, who have also said, "we've got to fight." Where's this commentary by their own toward them? Hmmm? By their words ye shall know them. By their acts ye shall know them. I'd say it's about time all sides step back, ponder, and then say, "There but for the grace of God,  go I." Only, we've been there in spite of the grace of God, so I think it's really time for some healing by admission that, grace of God, or not, we've all been down the road enough to know the road to good intentions is paved with hell.

Cuba, Russia, Venezuela, Vietnam, China, Guyana, Nicaragua and quite a few more.

The core of humanity is social.

We cannot survive as individuals.

What specifically are you proposing?

I'm not sure anyone could possibly disagree with this.

Every single one of those countries began as tribal communities.

Your precious "capitalism" didn't begin until money was invented and even then it didn't really start getting up-to-speed until the 1880's.

Almost as shameful as the Boston Tea Party.

And the road to heaven is paved with evil intentions?

Capitalism is a rule of nature; Socialism is an attempt to hyperevolve past our base nature, to stop us wanting to get more than others at all times, in any way accumulating more with our accumulated assets (since we are talking pre-money).

What you can do with money and interest rates already existed before, but it was literal human soldiers and workers that became the assets that were used to garner more, rather than 'cash', literal assets were used to make more. Land, water, food, shelter and women were the origins of patriarchal capitalism and it's something that ran deep in the veins of any and all dominant/domineering empires and regimes throughout history. It is an overassumption that we can undo that by saying 'okay, now everyone share'. The solution was never going to be that simple, we have to fuse selfish hardwiring in our DNA and neurology with net-beneficial 'selfless' dedication to the 'whole' community and/or society. The more mechanisms, both economically and sociologically, that there are to fuse selfish motive with benefitting the larger group, the better an overall society becomes over time.

Social Democracy is the optimal political system, you cannot change human nature just like that.

its not that good

You keep repeating that both Republicans and Democrats use the word "fight" and  are thereby alike in terrorist attacks upon our democratic foundations.  Mere whataboutism.

Fortunately, we have a contemporary example of when the tables were turned.  In 2000, an incumbent Democratic administration won the popular vote and the electoral college vote came down to a margin of 537 votes which mandated a recount.  When the government led by the big brother of the Republican candidate refused to perform his constitutional duty, the state Supreme Court insisted but then SCOTUS overruled saying it was already too late to count again.  All 3 major non-partisan studies of the Florida vote by the National Opinion Research Center,  the University of Florida, and American National Election Studies later concluded that any careful count of Floridian ballots resulted in a Gore win.

Let's examine the Democrat's use of the word fight in the same context:

Just moments ago, I spoke with George W. Bush and congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States, and I promised him that I wouldn't call him back this time.

I offered to meet with him as soon as possible so that we can start to heal the divisions of the campaign and the contest through which we just passed.

Almost a century and a half ago, Senator Stephen Douglas told Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency, "Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you."

Well, in that same spirit, I say to President-elect Bush that what remains of partisan rancor must now be put aside, and may God bless his stewardship of this country.

Neither he nor I anticipated this long and difficult road. Certainly neither of us wanted it to happen. Yet it came, and now it has ended, resolved, as it must be resolved, through the honored institutions of our democracy.

Over the library of one of our great law schools is inscribed the motto, "Not under man but under God and law." That's the ruling principle of American freedom, the source of our democratic liberties. I've tried to make it my guide throughout this contest as it has guided America's deliberations of all the complex issues of the past five weeks.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken. Let there be no doubt, while I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome which will be ratified next Monday in the Electoral College. And tonight, for the sake of our unity of the people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.

I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new president-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.

Let me say how grateful I am to all those who supported me and supported the cause for which we have fought. Tipper and I feel a deep gratitude to Joe and Hadassah Lieberman who brought passion and high purpose to our partnership and opened new doors, not just for our campaign but for our country.

This has been an extraordinary election. But in one of God's unforeseen paths, this belatedly broken impasse can point us all to a new common ground, for its very closeness can serve to remind us that we are one people with a shared history and a shared destiny.

Indeed, that history gives us many examples of contests as hotly debated, as fiercely fought, with their own challenges to the popular will.

Other disputes have dragged on for weeks before reaching resolution. And each time, both the victor and the vanquished have accepted the result peacefully and in the spirit of reconciliation.

So let it be with us.

I know that many of my supporters are disappointed. I am too. But our disappointment must be overcome by our love of country.

And I say to our fellow members of the world community, let no one see this contest as a sign of American weakness. The strength of American democracy is shown most clearly through the difficulties it can overcome.

Some have expressed concern that the unusual nature of this election might hamper the next president in the conduct of his office. I do not believe it need be so.

President-elect Bush inherits a nation whose citizens will be ready to assist him in the conduct of his large responsibilities.

I personally will be at his disposal, and I call on all Americans--I particularly urge all who stood with us--to unite behind our next president. This is America. Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done.

And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

While we yet hold and do not yield our opposing beliefs, there is a higher duty than the one we owe to political party. This is America and we put country before party. We will stand together behind our new president.

As for what I'll do next, I don't know the answer to that one yet. Like many of you, I'm looking forward to spending the holidays with family and old friends. I know I'll spend time in Tennessee and mend some fences, literally and figuratively.

Some have asked whether I have any regrets and I do have one regret: that I didn't get the chance to stay and fight for the American people over the next four years, especially for those who need burdens lifted and barriers removed, especially for those who feel their voices have not been heard. I heard you and I will not forget.

I've seen America in this campaign and I like what I see. It's worth fighting for and that's a fight I'll never stop.

As for the battle that ends tonight, I do believe as my father once said, that no matter how hard the loss, defeat might serve as well as victory to shape the soul and let the glory out.

So for me this campaign ends as it began: with the love of Tipper and our family; with faith in God and in the country I have been so proud to serve, from Vietnam to the vice presidency; and with gratitude to our truly tireless campaign staff and volunteers, including all those who worked so hard in Florida for the last 36 days.

Now the political struggle is over and we turn again to the unending struggle for the common good of all Americans and for those multitudes around the world who look to us for leadership in the cause of freedom.

In the words of our great hymn, "America, America": "Let us crown thy good with brotherhood, from sea to shining sea."

And now, my friends, in a phrase I once addressed to others, it's time for me to go.

Thank you and good night, and God bless America.

****************************************************

 I would compare Gore's concession to Trump's but Trump still refuses to concede.  In fact, Trump entire legal team walked out on him this week, just days before Trump goes on trial for seditious incitement because Trump insists that his defense must be that his adminstraton,  his Supreme Court  stacked with  Trump appointees and the political party he leads all conspired against him to deny him a second term- every scrap of evidence to the contrary.

“You’ve got to give Trump credit here,” said Chris Cuomo during a segment of his popular show on CNN last night. “Sure, he might be literally the worst president we’ve ever seen, but at least he’s willing to accept a democratic election...UNLIKE SOME PEOPLE.”

"There ain't room in this internet for the both of us," growled one CNN anchor on the air Monday evening. "There simply aren't enough people out there for us to fool with our fake news stories and The Babylon Bee to fool with their satire. There isn't enough clickbait and outrage traffic to go around."

Reporters at the media outlet also pointed out that their news was "much faker" than The Babylon Bee's. 

"They're obviously amateurs over there at The Bee," said Brian Stelter. "A lot of times, their reporting comes true. If you're gonna do fake news, do it right -- 100% fake, guaranteed, 24/7. They really should learn from the pros over here at CNN."

"Stay out of our territory," he growled.

A truly terrible analogy. 

Jan 6th was a lynch mob explicitly seeking the public execution of Pence and Pelosi, without benefit of trial, and in response to those two upholding their constitutionally mandated oaths of office- all in the name of an obvious lie thoroughly debunked by every lawful institution involved (of which there were hundreds).  Jan 6th was an attack on the American public and on the American political system itself.  That mob's stated goal was the truncation or elimination of American Democracy in favor of unlawfully extending the incumbency of their defacto king.  Essentially, a reversal of the American Revolution.

A 17th Century analogy to Jan 6th would the Gunpowder Plot led by Guy Fawkes,  which is still celebrated in England 400 years later by burning that traitor in effigy every Nov 5th.

The Boston Tea Party, on the other hand, was a just counter-reaction to the denial of any legal recourse under British law- the bald insistence that Americans had no rights that the British Govt. was obligated to uphold. 

If you want a modern analogy, let's suppose that the question of whether Californians were also Americans enjoying the rights and privileges of US citizenship had never arisen until the California Wine market surpassed the existing French Wine market in volume, price and quality.   Suppose further that Walmart owned the monopoly on all French wine exports and paid Congress handsomely to shut down the manufacture and sale of any wine in California.  Worse, Congress then added a special wine tax for Californians while simultaneously exempting Walmart from any tax- essentially forcing Californians to subsidize their economic rivals.   Suppose California sued Walmart but SCOTUS ruled that California had no rights or interests that Walmart was obligated to respect.  Then California sued the government and the government sent in troops to reinforce the non-citizenship of  Californians.  In this context, would Californians be justified in breaking into every Walmart and smashing every bottle of French wine they could find?  Would Californians, having been surprised to discover that  were not the  legal US citizens they thought they were be justified in forming their own government in response and fighting off any force that tried to stop them? 

Britain had just ruled that Americans must pay tax and abide by British law but enjoyed no legal rights or representation or protection within that law.  Essentially, all Americans had been re-categorized as British slaves.

The Boston Tea Party was a mob of 5000 people raised in a town of 15,000 residents- a third of the population was in attendance representing the overwhelming consensus of that colony.  By contrast, MAGA stormed their own Capitol with a mob of 3000 representing an opinion supported by 3% of the constituency- that Trump had won the election.

There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs. Both surprises were the result of an informal alliance between left-wing activists and business titans. The pact was formalized in a terse, little-noticed joint statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AFL-CIO published on Election Day. Both sides would come to see it as a sort of implicit bargain–inspired by the summer’s massive, sometimes destructive racial-justice protests–in which the forces of labor came together with the forces of capital to keep the peace and oppose Trump.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that is NOT the case.  I can't seem to find anyone facing charges of attempted murder for this.

John Basil Barnhill said, "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."

This "mob" is a direct result of repeatedly lying to the public to the point where ALL FAITH is lost.

Excellent reporting.

Here is the long -term commentary as we rapidly descend into a totalitarian state.

Thanks for the link.

I've reposted it here, https://hive.blog/hive-122315/@logiczombie/perfect-god-perfect-world

What I like most about Tim Pool is that he Hates Trump but loves America (or at least the original idea of America with individual liberty due to a constrained government)

funny, the babylon bee never fails to dissapoint

We are not angels. But are the men and women of government angels themselves?

Funny, the U.S. and Israeli governments have similar M.O.'s. It's almost as if functioning as a good ("moral") person is independent of the institution known as government.

I think you may be onto something.

In Federalist Papers #51, Madison wrote,“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men… you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”  The latter is where we fall down because, of course, being fallible men, we do not frame a perfect government. Further, although we legislate to 'control' human behavior, and that is a laudable goal, it is one which is not going to succeed 100% because the 'control' is an illusion. There is always free will. Not everyone's free will is inclined to be lawful, because neither men nor man's government is angelic. Madison was well aware that the practical application of the Constitution would not be perfected, but it is still the best means to govern men yet established this side of heaven.

Full transparency is the best compromise.

But if this proposed necessity of government manifests from the imperfection of man, then how does anything less than a perfect government serve as a remedy? To regulate an imperfect people, it's necessary to impose an imperfect government? That's redundant and unnecessary. If we're going to tally up a score between man and government, the government would lose easily as it concerns which of them is closer to "angelic." Governments, for example, have been institutions perpetuation the largest mass murders, and there's not even a close second.

I suppose my question is, what is an imperfect government's value to an imperfect people?