0
Because they are emotionally unstable and have no place in the government.
One might even call them...snowflakes.
if only they'd melt from all that hot air.
Why? Because they are immature and emotionally stunted jackasses that care more about their own petty bullshit than they do about living in a civilized society and being decent human beings. And because they are spoiled shits who assume they will get away with it (which is unfortunately true).
This guy is full of shit though. We aren't seeing violence because Republicans are fractured and trying to keep their party in line. Mullin was picking a fight with the head of the teamsters over tweets. And this isn't even the first time Mccarthy has been accused of nonchalantly hitting someone while passing through the halls.
We're seeing violence because all the mechanisms of power at work in the Republican party have been pushing out those who value ethics, cooperation, or civility, and raising up bullies who value aggression, hostility, and the unrestrained use of power.
At this point Conan the Barbarian could run on a platform of crushing his enemies, seeing them driven before him, and hearing the lamentations of their women, and he'd still come across as reasonable compared to some of these asshats. Hell, that would actually be less threatening than many of Trump's speeches.
Dunno man. This Conan guy speaks to me. He sounds like he really cares about the average Joe. Sure he wants to murder ever ivory tower lib he can lay hands on, but aren't we all thinking what he's brave enough to say out loud?
He seems like the kind of guy I could share a goblet of mead with.
Shit Conan the Cimmerian can/read dozen of languages. That shit is impressive and makes him at least somewhat culturally aware and worldly.
He is also well travelled and adapts to other cultures. So totally not a republican.
Because they’re useless, petulant traitor cunts.
The GOP has been fostering conspiracy theories and fringe issues and now they are at the stage where their base is electing people who believe in the conspiracies. Those people aren't usually very stable, hence more disruptive behavior and fist fights. It is probably only a matter of time before one sneaks a gun in and shoots the place up.
It is probably only a matter of time before one sneaks a gun in and shoots the place up.
This is something that I'm surprised hasn't happened yet. When it does, there might be serious talk about doing something to prevent mass shootings, only because the "wrong people" were the victims this time. I'm honestly not sure which way that would go.
Well, that's easy to guess.
If it's a right winger shooting up the Dems, it'll be "A real tragedy, but could've been prevented if congress members were permitted to carry guns in the capital. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".
If it were a left winger shooting up the Republicunts, it'd be Mulford Act 2, Electric Boogaloo.
Would you trust the right-wingers to create gun legislation? I guess, if we're OK with only wealthy white people and cops having guns.
Im positive that would be the result.
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.
And if the table isn't working and democracy isn't on your side, pound the opposition.
Lincoln Lawyer?
When comparing today’s bitter politics and the runup in the 1850s to the Civil War, Freeman sees “more echoes than parallels” and cautions against taking the analogy too far.
Emphasis mine. The echoes are definitely concerning, and I'm not qualified to say we're not heading towards a civil war (and there are other signs besides), but I wish journalists wouldn't bury the lede and emphasize the doomerism.
Fuck, man. We need a little good news.
If the losers try to quit America again, the bitter loss while clutching their idiotic beliefs will be sweet schadenfreude.
They were banking on having slave labor, if they had won. The modern red states, likewise, do not have the wealth/resources required to sustain themselves apart from the blue states. It would be economic devastation.
The red states can't peel away. Imagine red Illinois leaving and trying to drag Chicagoland along.
Texas might be the only one that could survive separation, but it'd be a stretch at best. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, etc would be up shit creek.
deleted by creator
Well that's kind of what I meant by they could be the one to survive of the others. They have natural resources, shipping ports already operating on the Gulf, and a decent localized economy. Sure they'd run themselves into the ground with policy and nonsense, but they're positioned much better than other southern states, and that's all I'm saying; if they pulled their heads out of their asses, they'd have a better fighting chance than their neighbors.
deleted by creator
All good man. It's a trip to even consider it a possibility, yet here we are.
Can we please please just let them leave this time
You had one group of people in Congress who really didn’t care about the standards and rules at play. They were doing what they felt they needed to do to defend their needs and desires for their section of the Union.
Overall, it's not exactly the same, at least not yet, but this is absolutely what is happening.
Political sadism isn't viable on the long term. On the short term, you can rally up your supporters to be cruel against your political enemies for cruelty sake. On the long term, it breeds emotional instability.
I'm betting it's the sexual tension of dozens of closeted republicans coming out as violent frustration at the inability to chug dicks freely.
It's because they are even less mature than I am.
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 0001
0 points (NaN% liked)
0 readers
0 users here now
founded a long while ago