In other news, the Trumpies scheduled a million MAGA march for today to support Trumpster's claims of fraud. Okay, they had a permit for 22,000 people. How many showed up? MSNBC is reporting less than 2,000 protestors.
I didn't see any of these linked on this thread. Apologies if I missed something. They have the list of seditious Republican Congressfolk up to 126. And they're all named.
FYI: You will immediately meet an elephant at the top of that page. The poor thing has been labeled "SEDITION!". The Republican symbol/mascot is an elephant. Democrats have a donkey. Perhaps Democrats can rescue the poor elephant and relocate it to a reserve, far away from all the Congressional Republicans who've enabled T?
This Pascrell guy should just STFU. The Republicans are looking like idiots with their failed lawsuit, and demanding that the members who supported it lose their seats just comes off as doing the same thing undemocratic thing.
As moronic as the suit was, the litigants were using legal arguments to ask the court to intervene, they weren't asking the army to send in the tanks. The court said no, and now half the country is laughing at the Republicans. From the Democratic perspective, there's no need to complicate matters further.
Except ... All of this will only serve to fire up the Trumpista base even more ... The elections in 2022 aren't far away ... and Trump & Co. is already gearing up for 2024 ... This isn't over by any measure ... The Trump Devotees are not just mildly thinking/feeling/saying, "Golly goodness ... !!! Maybe we were wrong after all ... ???"
They kept on going because they weren't punished by their (Republican) constituents. Democratic House leadership withholding committee assignments is nothing compared to that. I don't think there's any effective penalty within the power of Democrats to levy.
I agree ... and the GOP, seeing knowing that there was NO "Blue Wave" in 2020 will be eager to oppose any and every Dem proposal going forward ...
They kept on going because they weren't punished by their (Republican) constituents. Democratic House leadership withholding committee assignments is nothing compared to that. I don't think there's any effective penalty within the power of Democrats to levy.
This is more or less why the U.S. included section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. After the Late Unpleasantness a lot of outright traitors tried to re-assume their roles in government like nothing had happened, as if the blood of thousands of Americans wasn't on their hands. You can't count on constituents to hold seditionists accountable when that sedition was committed to win the approval of those constituents, and letting people trying to undermine and overthrow the government to hold positions of trust within the government is . . . suboptimal at best. In other words, some penalty other than electoral consequences is required for politicians trying to overthrow the government.
Except ... All of this will only serve to fire up the Trumpista base even more ... The elections in 2022 aren't far away ... and Trump & Co. is already gearing up for 2024 ... This isn't over by any measure ... The Trump Devotees are not just mildly thinking/feeling/saying, "Golly goodness ... !!! Maybe we were wrong after all ... ???"
Except ... All of this will only serve to fire up the Trumpista base even more ... The elections in 2022 aren't far away ...
As mentioned elsewhere, the 2018 mid-terms indicate that Trump's supporters don't really turn out if Trump himself isn't on the ballot. Past performance is no guarantee of future action, but it's the best information we have to go on.
The deal od it is, these people tried to invalidate the legal votes of four different states. Our democracy has been shaken to its core. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is there to guarantee loyalty to the constitution. There have to be consequences. It is the only way we can deal with the insurrection.
The deal od it is, these people tried to invalidate the legal votes of four different states. Our democracy has been shaken to its core. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is there to guarantee loyalty to the constitution. There have to be consequences. It is the only way we can deal with the insurrection.
But ... the Right Wing(nut) White "Militia" guys seem t be spoiling for a fight -- with real guns ... Way back in 2014 the Bundy family and supporters stood off US Marshals trying to enforce a federal court order ... and they got away with it ... This insurrection could become the real thing ... *shudder*
They kept on going because they weren't punished by their (Republican) constituents. Democratic House leadership withholding committee assignments is nothing compared to that. I don't think there's any effective penalty within the power of Democrats to levy.
This is more or less why the U.S. included section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. After the Late Unpleasantness a lot of outright traitors tried to re-assume their roles in government like nothing had happened, as if the blood of thousands of Americans wasn't on their hands. You can't count on constituents to hold seditionists accountable when that sedition was committed to win the approval of those constituents, and letting people trying to undermine and overthrow the government to hold positions of trust within the government is . . . suboptimal at best. In other words, some penalty other than electoral consequences is required for politicians trying to overthrow the government.
That's the kind of punishment winners can effectively impose on losers after a decisive victory in a bloody war - but that's not the situation we're in now.
I don't think withholding committee assignments from 60% of Republican representatives would do anything to restrain them.
And that probably didn't win the Feds any fans. The Western side of the country has a long-running, underlying current of "Don't mess with us, Feds". Much of it is frustration over having people on the other side of the country dictate our lives. Especially ranchers, over grazing rights.
I don't remember all the details about the Bundys. But I think there were two main problems: a grazing rights tangle back on their family ranch (wherever that is); and whatever led them to take over a site at the Maheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. When they went to court after Maleur and the details came out, ISTM that if there was any truth to any of it, the Bundys had good reason to be upset. IIRC, the court felt that way, too.
Then there was the Ruby Ridge standoff in Idaho. Etc. Various Fed meddling around the street protests last summer. Etc.
There's everything from grumbling, to recurring and ong-term frustration, to fear, to seething anger and hate. Plus guns. Plus militias, white supremacists, etc.
Plus the pandemic, whatever people believe out it. And the economy. And racial injustice hitting the fan. And street violence. And T, whatever people believe about him.
I think a whole lot of Americans are right out of their heads over everything 2020, and that's why so many people are doing senseless, dangerous, awful, evil things. If they feel pushed further...
I'd love for it all to be over, in a legal and non-violent way, with healing, fixing, and rebuilding in process.
And that probably didn't win the Feds any fans. The Western side of the country has a long-running, underlying current of "Don't mess with us, Feds". Much of it is frustration over having people on the other side of the country dictate our lives. Especially ranchers, over grazing rights.
I don't remember all the details about the Bundys. But I think there were two main problems: a grazing rights tangle back on their family ranch (wherever that is); and whatever led them to take over a site at the Maheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. When they went to court after Maleur and the details came out, ISTM that if there was any truth to any of it, the Bundys had good reason to be upset. IIRC, the court felt that way, too.
Then there was the Ruby Ridge standoff in Idaho. Etc. Various Fed meddling around the street protests last summer. Etc.
There's everything from grumbling, to recurring and ong-term frustration, to fear, to seething anger and hate. Plus guns. Plus militias, white supremacists, etc.
Plus the pandemic, whatever people believe out it. And the economy. And racial injustice hitting the fan. And street violence. And T, whatever people believe about him.
I think a whole lot of Americans are right out of their heads over everything 2020, and that's why so many people are doing senseless, dangerous, awful, evil things. If they feel pushed further...
I'd love for it all to be over, in a legal and non-violent way, with healing, fixing, and rebuilding in process.
But IMHO we're not there yet.
:votive:
Yes, it's long standing and complicated ... If we want to look at "the Feds" vs. "the West," we could go all the way back to "The Whiskey Rebellion" (1791-94) ... History indeed is not comforting on these questions ...
And that probably didn't win the Feds any fans. The Western side of the country has a long-running, underlying current of "Don't mess with us, Feds". Much of it is frustration over having people on the other side of the country dictate our lives. Especially ranchers, over grazing rights.
I don't remember all the details about the Bundys. But I think there were two main problems: a grazing rights tangle back on their family ranch (wherever that is); and whatever led them to take over a site at the Maheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. When they went to court after Maleur and the details came out, ISTM that if there was any truth to any of it, the Bundys had good reason to be upset. IIRC, the court felt that way, too.
There were indeed two Bundy incidents. The first was an armed standoff with federal officials in Nevada over Cliven Bundy's non-payment of fees for grazing his cattle on federal land. The fact that so many of these Western ranchers are dependent on using federally-owned land at below-market rates (i.e. a government handout) illustrates how many of them are dependent on federal largesse and gives the lie to the whole "don't mess with us, Feds" narrative. It's more "give us what we want and go away, Feds".
The second incident involved Cliven's son, Ammon Bundy, and a bunch of others traveling to Oregon to seize a federal wildlife refuge in retaliation for the conviction of two local ranchers on charges of arson on federal lands. One of those arsons was set in a way that endangered the lives of BLM firefighters combating an unrelated wildfire upslope from the arson site. The common theme of both incidents is the idea that federal lands don't belong to the American people, but should belong to the Bundys and those like them specifically. As for whether this constitutes a "good reason to be upset" depends on your perspective, I guess.
And that probably didn't win the Feds any fans. The Western side of the country has a long-running, underlying current of "Don't mess with us, Feds". Much of it is frustration over having people on the other side of the country dictate our lives. Especially ranchers, over grazing rights.
I don't remember all the details about the Bundys. But I think there were two main problems: a grazing rights tangle back on their family ranch (wherever that is); and whatever led them to take over a site at the Maheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. When they went to court after Maleur and the details came out, ISTM that if there was any truth to any of it, the Bundys had good reason to be upset. IIRC, the court felt that way, too.
There were indeed two Bundy incidents. The first was an armed standoff with federal officials in Nevada over Cliven Bundy's non-payment of fees for grazing his cattle on federal land. The fact that so many of these Western ranchers are dependent on using federally-owned land at below-market rates (i.e. a government handout) illustrates how many of them are dependent on federal largesse and gives the lie to the whole "don't mess with us, Feds" narrative. It's more "give us what we want and go away, Feds".
The second incident involved Cliven's son, Ammon Bundy, and a bunch of others traveling to Oregon to seize a federal wildlife refuge in retaliation for the conviction of two local ranchers on charges of arson on federal lands. One of those arsons was set in a way that endangered the lives of BLM firefighters combating an unrelated wildfire upslope from the arson site. The common theme of both incidents is the idea that federal lands don't belong to the American people, but should belong to the Bundys and those like them specifically. As for whether this constitutes a "good reason to be upset" depends on your perspective, I guess.
Yes ... The history is long and complex ... Unlike eastern, northern, southern and mid-country states, VERY large swaths of western states are *owned* and *managed* by the Feds -- Arizona, 38%; Wyoming, 48%; Washington, 28%; Utah, 65%; Oregon, 53%; New Mexico, 34%; Nevada, 85%; Montana, 29%; Idaho, 61%; Colorado, 36%; California, 46% ... and many of the *locals* deeply resent that ...
By what right do they resent it? I mean by what right do they think it should be otherwise? Other than their own greed or desire to get something for nothing.
I was born in California and I've lived here most of my life. I have family in the Bay Area and the Central Valley. I've never heard anyone complain about federal land ownership. I'm not saying everyone's fine with it -- just that an awful lot of us are.
By what right do they resent it? I mean by what right do they think it should be otherwise? Other than their own greed or desire to get something for nothing.
In other states, e.g., my home state of Minnesota, most land is in private hands to some degree (including mineral rights, maybe yes or no), so it can be bought or sold ... When instead the government owns and controls the land, that reduces many citizens to renters ...
By what right do they resent it? I mean by what right do they think it should be otherwise? Other than their own greed or desire to get something for nothing.
In other states, e.g., my home state of Minnesota, most land is in private hands to some degree (including mineral rights, maybe yes or no), so it can be bought or sold ... When instead the government owns and controls the land, that reduces many citizens to renters ...
That's a lot like people knowingly moving into a home next to a factory then complaining of the noise.
For reference, the state of New York ranks #10 on the ranked list of states with most government owned land, with ~37% of its total land area in government hands, a larger percentage than Washington (36%), Oregon (32%), or Montana (35%). The big difference, if you want to see it as such, is that only ~0.3% of New York's land is owned by the federal government. The rest is land owned by the state government. I'm not sure that the state government "reduc[ ing ] many citizens to renters" is a huge difference from the federal government doing so, though the citizens of New York seem to regard it as much less of an imposition than the citizens of western states.
Since @Fr Teilhard considers his state a reference point, about 18% of the land in Minnesota is in government hands, 7% in the hands of the federal government and 11% owned by the state. Note that these numbers do not include Minnesota's Tribal Lands, which make up an additional 1.4% of its land mass.
As someone living in an area where more than 90% of the land is owned by one enormously wealth aristocrat as a result of his ancestor siding with the Hanoverians 300 years ago I'm not overly sympathetic.
Thanks for the info, Croesos, Fr. Teilhard, and anyone else I'm not remembering at the moment.
Various:
--About the Bundys:
===Croesos said:
As for whether this constitutes a "good reason to be upset" depends on your perspective, I guess.
I don't remember specifics, nor whether it was about one incident or both. But, in the wake of the Malheur incident, a lot of info, accusations, etc. came out. IIRC, there were some specific interactions and maybe bad behavior by various federal folks the Bundys dealt with. To me, at the time, it was a "the federal folks did WHAT?!" situation. I don't at all support what the Bundys did. But I felt they weren't exactly unprovoked. And the court seemed to agree.
===Croesos said:
The fact that so many of these Western ranchers are dependent on using federally-owned land at below-market rates (i.e. a government handout) illustrates how many of them are dependent on federal largesse and gives the lie to the whole "don't mess with us, Feds" narrative. It's more "give us what we want and go away, Feds".
Well, yeah. Painting with a broad brush: IME, that's generally the attitude that Americans have towards the federal gov't. It goes something like this:
I deserve whatever help I need from the gov't, and they should leave me the hell alone the rest of the time.
You should get help, provided you really need it, especially in a disaster. If disaster are a regular thing where you live, you might want to move, though. And the Feds should leave you alone unless you've done something wrong--especially if it affects me.
They can darn well take care of themselves, and don't really deserve help. But, if there's a big disaster and they have no place to go, I suppose we should help them--for a time. Someone should check them out, though, to make sure they really need it and aren't scamming.
I don't think I'd heard the federal gov't owned so much. (Yeah, I know, technically, "this land is your land, this land is my land"; but the gov't often seems to have different ideas.)
I just checked Wikipedia's "Federal lands". Wow. The Feds own most of the West and Alaska. Yikes. I've only skimmed it, and I need to read more thoroughly to figure out what's parks, military, etc. At first glance, I don't like this at all.
For reference, the state of New York ranks #10 on the ranked list of states with most government owned land, with ~37% of its total land area in government hands, a larger percentage than Washington (36%), Oregon (32%), or Montana (35%). The big difference, if you want to see it as such, is that only ~0.3% of New York's land is owned by the federal government. The rest is land owned by the state government. I'm not sure that the state government "reduc[ ing ] many citizens to renters" is a huge difference from the federal government doing so, though the citizens of New York seem to regard it as much less of an imposition than the citizens of western states.
Since @Fr Teilhard considers his state a reference point, about 18% of the land in Minnesota is in government hands, 7% in the hands of the federal government and 11% owned by the state. Note that these numbers do not include Minnesota's Tribal Lands, which make up an additional 1.4% of its land mass.
Yes ... I'm not defending the Sage Brush Rebels, I'm simply trying to understand them ... Their issue is not as much "government" (they love their County Sheriffs), but "the Feds" ... The Bundy Rebels conducted a heavily armed stand off not against Sheriff Andy Taylor and his Deputy Barney Fife but against US Marshals ...
Yeah, well, apparently whoever kills the Indians gets the land.
Yes ... Although in some places -- here in Minnesota, e.g, -- the "Indians" are gradually slowly winning enforcement of Treaty rights, recovering some lands that were stolen from them, and in some places simply buying their land back ...
As for whether this constitutes a "good reason to be upset" depends on your perspective, I guess.
I don't remember specifics, nor whether it was about one incident or both. But, in the wake of the Malheur incident, a lot of info, accusations, etc. came out. IIRC, there were some specific interactions and maybe bad behavior by various federal folks the Bundys dealt with. To me, at the time, it was a "the federal folks did WHAT?!" situation. I don't at all support what the Bundys did. But I felt they weren't exactly unprovoked. And the court seemed to agree.
This is the kind of thing white folks with guns always count on in situations like this. No one will remember the details but they'll be sure that the white guys with guns had some kind of legitimate grievance, even if they can't say what it was. Presumption of white innocence, I guess. Rather different that what usually happens to any non-white person who comes up against the law.
Yeah, well, apparently whoever kills the Indians gets the land.
Yes ... Although in some places -- here in Minnesota, e.g, -- the "Indians" are gradually slowly winning enforcement of Treaty rights, recovering some lands that were stolen from them, and in some places simply buying their land back ...
Compare and contrast: non-white people finally having the bare minimum standard of "having the law enforced as written" is viewed as remarkable. Conversely @Golden Key views white people's armed seizure of land that doesn't belong to them as the fault of the government.
Yes ... I'm not defending the Sage Brush Rebels, I'm simply trying to understand them ... Their issue is not as much "government" (they love their County Sheriffs), but "the Feds" ... The Bundy Rebels conducted a heavily armed stand off not against Sheriff Andy Taylor and his Deputy Barney Fife but against US Marshals ...
They love their County Sheriffs when they do what they're told. When the Harney County Sheriff told them to leave the Malheur Wildlife Sanctuary they told him to go pound sand. This is pretty much the "give us what we want an no one will get hurt" line you often get with armed seizure of property.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited December 2020
Meanwhile ...... the Electoral College votes today.
As at 4pm GMT the Wisconsin Supreme Court is apparently still sitting on a decision re an appeal to decertify the Wisconsin voters. Who will be voting in about 2 hours.
Michigan voters will have a police escort based on credible threats.
Anyway, by around midnight GMT the EC vote will all be over, hopefully without anyone getting shot. But the White House madness continues as does GOP support in Congress.
For reference, there are no unruled-upon Trump cases still in the court system. All cases still pending are appeals of cases Trump (or his campaign) has already lost at least once.
Yeah, well, apparently whoever kills the Indians gets the land.
Yes ... Although in some places -- here in Minnesota, e.g, -- the "Indians" are gradually slowly winning enforcement of Treaty rights, recovering some lands that were stolen from them, and in some places simply buying their land back ...
I'm glad to hear there is some progress. I started reading "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse" and had to stop about a third of the way through because I was having the urge to get really drunk and shout obscenities at the universe, and I don't even drink. It's just so fucking, fractally, awful.
Meanwhile ...... the Electoral College votes today.
According to Stephen Miller during his appearance on Fox & Friends, two Electoral Colleges are voting today.
An alternate slate of electors in the contested states is going to vote and we are going to send those results to Congress.
They seem to be hoping that some court case or friendly state legislature or some other authority figure will be willing to submit this alternate slate to sow confusion in the hopes that they can still steal this thing.
Trump reminds me of the sort of annoying person who's 40 points down with only the black on the table but because it's just possible you might foul five times and he then pot the black he insists you carry on playing.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Meanwhile ...... the Electoral College votes today.
According to Stephen Miller during his appearance on Fox & Friends, two Electoral Colleges are voting today.
An alternate slate of electors in the contested states is going to vote and we are going to send those results to Congress.
They seem to be hoping that some court case or friendly state legislature or some other authority figure will be willing to submit this alternate slate to sow confusion in the hopes that they can still steal this thing.
Well, that made my day. Presumably even the current GOP Senators and Representatives would need some form of authorisation to makes these acceptable?
It just looks like another way of keeping the scam going.
Meanwhile ...... the Electoral College votes today.
According to Stephen Miller during his appearance on Fox & Friends, two Electoral Colleges are voting today.
An alternate slate of electors in the contested states is going to vote and we are going to send those results to Congress.
They seem to be hoping that some court case or friendly state legislature or some other authority figure will be willing to submit this alternate slate to sow confusion in the hopes that they can still steal this thing.
Well, that made my day. Presumably even the current GOP Senators and Representatives would need some form of authorisation to makes these acceptable?
Not really. The electoral vote is certified by Congress. If two slates of electors is submitted it's up to Congress to choose between them. The last time this was an issue was in 1876.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
I forget they have not even a vestige of a moral compass.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the appeal to decertify. By a vote of 4 to 3. The judgement and dissents are worth a read. Once again, one Republican judge made the difference.
How does Jan 6th fit in.
Do we now know know the votes or just know that they've successfully been sent in by people selected on the basis of the state votes (and who may be under additional state laws)
Relatedly, the recent deadline was for states to confirm electors to the Fed?, so presumably for the federation to now accept an "alternative" delegation would require a double crazy justification.
Yeah, well, apparently whoever kills the Indians gets the land.
Yes ... Although in some places -- here in Minnesota, e.g, -- the "Indians" are gradually slowly winning enforcement of Treaty rights, recovering some lands that were stolen from them, and in some places simply buying their land back ...
I'm glad to hear there is some progress. I started reading "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse" and had to stop about a third of the way through because I was having the urge to get really drunk and shout obscenities at the universe, and I don't even drink. It's just so fucking, fractally, awful.
see also: Edward Lazarus, "Black Hills/White Justice: The Sioux Nation Versus The United States, 1775 to the Present." (1991)
Yeah, well, apparently whoever kills the Indians gets the land.
Yes ... Although in some places -- here in Minnesota, e.g, -- the "Indians" are gradually slowly winning enforcement of Treaty rights, recovering some lands that were stolen from them, and in some places simply buying their land back ...
I'm glad to hear there is some progress. I started reading "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse" and had to stop about a third of the way through because I was having the urge to get really drunk and shout obscenities at the universe, and I don't even drink. It's just so fucking, fractally, awful.
see also: Edward Lazarus, "Black Hills/White Justice: The Sioux Nation Versus The United States, 1775 to the Present." (1991)
I had the same experience as @Arethosemyfeet with 'Bury my heart at wounded knee'. I couldn't finish it.
How does Jan 6th fit in.
Do we now know know the votes or just know that they've successfully been sent in by people selected on the basis of the state votes (and who may be under additional state laws)
Relatedly, the recent deadline was for states to confirm electors to the Fed?, so presumably for the federation to now accept an "alternative" delegation would require a double crazy justification.
The Electoral College met in state capitals around the country today, the electors cast their votes, and Biden/Harris won. On January 6 Congress will meet to count those votes, and the President of the Senate, i.e., Vice President Pence, will declare the result. But we already know the result -- it's the current headline in all the national news outlets.
How does Jan 6th fit in.
Do we now know know the votes or just know that they've successfully been sent in by people selected on the basis of the state votes (and who may be under additional state laws)
Relatedly, the recent deadline was for states to confirm electors to the Fed?, so presumably for the federation to now accept an "alternative" delegation would require a double crazy justification.
The electors have cast their votes in every state except Hawaii (4 votes) - CNN reports that Biden has 302 votes and Trump has 232, with no surprises.
The results are supposed to be officially counted on January 6 at a joint session of both houses of Congress. Objections may be raised against returns from the states, but require a majority of both houses to be upheld.
Cheers, I wasn't sure where they stood between actual results and exit polls.
So any surprises now require explicit dodginess (once it required 70 odd defectees, it kind of did anyway, but there was still [imo/nightmares] theoretically room to construct doubt)
Yeah, well, apparently whoever kills the Indians gets the land.
Yes ... Although in some places -- here in Minnesota, e.g, -- the "Indians" are gradually slowly winning enforcement of Treaty rights, recovering some lands that were stolen from them, and in some places simply buying their land back ...
I'm glad to hear there is some progress. I started reading "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse" and had to stop about a third of the way through because I was having the urge to get really drunk and shout obscenities at the universe, and I don't even drink. It's just so fucking, fractally, awful.
see also: Edward Lazarus, "Black Hills/White Justice: The Sioux Nation Versus The United States, 1775 to the Present." (1991)
I had the same experience as @Arethosemyfeet with 'Bury my heart at wounded knee'. I couldn't finish it.
During the last Wounded Knee incident, when the American Indian Movement took over the agency in 1973, one of the negotiators from the council of churches, who happened to be a Lakota had to come to the hospital where I worked at. He was one of the people I visited every day. I think it helped me to be prepared for my first call to a town in a Lakota Reservation.
As for whether this constitutes a "good reason to be upset" depends on your perspective, I guess.
I don't remember specifics, nor whether it was about one incident or both. But, in the wake of the Malheur incident, a lot of info, accusations, etc. came out. IIRC, there were some specific interactions and maybe bad behavior by various federal folks the Bundys dealt with. To me, at the time, it was a "the federal folks did WHAT?!" situation. I don't at all support what the Bundys did. But I felt they weren't exactly unprovoked. And the court seemed to agree.
This is the kind of thing white folks with guns always count on in situations like this. No one will remember the details but they'll be sure that the white guys with guns had some kind of legitimate grievance, even if they can't say what it was. Presumption of white innocence, I guess. Rather different that what usually happens to any non-white person who comes up against the law.
Errr...hold the phone, Croesos. You seem to be associating me and what I said with a whole bunch of stuff I neither said nor intended.
I did not presume they were innocent, whether white or not. I often think about things from various angles, and try to figure out why people do what they do. Disputes over grazing land weren't new to me, and I knew they could be complicated and tense. Taking over a corner of Malheur to mess with the Feds was a new thing to me, at least as far as modern protests.
As I said previously, I *did not* and *do not* support what the Bundys et al did. The news coverage presented some things from the Bundys' defense that seemed, *if true*, to be possible provocation. Strangely, a lot of other things have happened in the world since then. I don't remember what seemed to be possible provocation, and I'm not really inclined to wade through all the news accounts and analysis I'd have to read to remind myself. (Besides, I have to wash out a few masks. Only so many hours in the day. )
If this had involved Native Americans, instead of the Bundys, I would've automatically assumed they were right and the gov't in the wrong. Anything the US gov't does for, to, about, or with Native Americans is 98.7% sure to be bad, evil, wrong, greedy, manipulative, stupid, clueless, lethal, misdirected, breaking treaties, and/or illegal. One of America's deepest, foundational, original sins.
Yeah, well, apparently whoever kills the Indians gets the land.
Yes ... Although in some places -- here in Minnesota, e.g, -- the "Indians" are gradually slowly winning enforcement of Treaty rights, recovering some lands that were stolen from them, and in some places simply buying their land back ...
Compare and contrast: non-white people finally having the bare minimum standard of "having the law enforced as written" is viewed as remarkable. Conversely @Golden Key views white people's armed seizure of land that doesn't belong to them as the fault of the government.
See what I said earlier in this post. Please stop associating me with things I haven't said. Your argument is in error. Seriously.
Again, I think it is historically unrealistic (let's just say it -- naive) to expect that The United States of America will be an eternal empire ... We may well come apart at the seams, as we did in 1861-65 ...
Yes. As Dorian Gray said in "The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen": "Empires crumble. There are no exceptions."
However, I'd prefer us to take a very slow road. But work hard on becoming a better place, where everyone has enough and then some, and where everyone is treated well.
Comments
--"Here are the Republican members of Congress who signed on to the suit to throw out the votes in 4 states" (Yahoo).
--"Texas v. Pennsylvania, Amicus Brief of 126 Representatives--corrected" (Supreme Court site).
They're all listed as Amici Curiae. I haven't yet read the arguments.
--"The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress" (The Week--US ed.).
FYI: You will immediately meet an elephant at the top of that page. The poor thing has been labeled "SEDITION!". The Republican symbol/mascot is an elephant. Democrats have a donkey. Perhaps Democrats can rescue the poor elephant and relocate it to a reserve, far away from all the Congressional Republicans who've enabled T?
Except ... All of this will only serve to fire up the Trumpista base even more ... The elections in 2022 aren't far away ... and Trump & Co. is already gearing up for 2024 ... This isn't over by any measure ... The Trump Devotees are not just mildly thinking/feeling/saying, "Golly goodness ... !!! Maybe we were wrong after all ... ???"
I agree ... and the GOP, seeing knowing that there was NO "Blue Wave" in 2020 will be eager to oppose any and every Dem proposal going forward ...
This is more or less why the U.S. included section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. After the Late Unpleasantness a lot of outright traitors tried to re-assume their roles in government like nothing had happened, as if the blood of thousands of Americans wasn't on their hands. You can't count on constituents to hold seditionists accountable when that sedition was committed to win the approval of those constituents, and letting people trying to undermine and overthrow the government to hold positions of trust within the government is . . . suboptimal at best. In other words, some penalty other than electoral consequences is required for politicians trying to overthrow the government.
This.
As mentioned elsewhere, the 2018 mid-terms indicate that Trump's supporters don't really turn out if Trump himself isn't on the ballot. Past performance is no guarantee of future action, but it's the best information we have to go on.
But ... the Right Wing(nut) White "Militia" guys seem t be spoiling for a fight -- with real guns ... Way back in 2014 the Bundy family and supporters stood off US Marshals trying to enforce a federal court order ... and they got away with it ... This insurrection could become the real thing ... *shudder*
That's the kind of punishment winners can effectively impose on losers after a decisive victory in a bloody war - but that's not the situation we're in now.
I don't think withholding committee assignments from 60% of Republican representatives would do anything to restrain them.
And that probably didn't win the Feds any fans. The Western side of the country has a long-running, underlying current of "Don't mess with us, Feds". Much of it is frustration over having people on the other side of the country dictate our lives. Especially ranchers, over grazing rights.
I don't remember all the details about the Bundys. But I think there were two main problems: a grazing rights tangle back on their family ranch (wherever that is); and whatever led them to take over a site at the Maheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. When they went to court after Maleur and the details came out, ISTM that if there was any truth to any of it, the Bundys had good reason to be upset. IIRC, the court felt that way, too.
Then there was the Ruby Ridge standoff in Idaho. Etc. Various Fed meddling around the street protests last summer. Etc.
There's everything from grumbling, to recurring and ong-term frustration, to fear, to seething anger and hate. Plus guns. Plus militias, white supremacists, etc.
Plus the pandemic, whatever people believe out it. And the economy. And racial injustice hitting the fan. And street violence. And T, whatever people believe about him.
I think a whole lot of Americans are right out of their heads over everything 2020, and that's why so many people are doing senseless, dangerous, awful, evil things. If they feel pushed further...
I'd love for it all to be over, in a legal and non-violent way, with healing, fixing, and rebuilding in process.
But IMHO we're not there yet.
:votive:
Yes, it's long standing and complicated ... If we want to look at "the Feds" vs. "the West," we could go all the way back to "The Whiskey Rebellion" (1791-94) ... History indeed is not comforting on these questions ...
There were indeed two Bundy incidents. The first was an armed standoff with federal officials in Nevada over Cliven Bundy's non-payment of fees for grazing his cattle on federal land. The fact that so many of these Western ranchers are dependent on using federally-owned land at below-market rates (i.e. a government handout) illustrates how many of them are dependent on federal largesse and gives the lie to the whole "don't mess with us, Feds" narrative. It's more "give us what we want and go away, Feds".
The second incident involved Cliven's son, Ammon Bundy, and a bunch of others traveling to Oregon to seize a federal wildlife refuge in retaliation for the conviction of two local ranchers on charges of arson on federal lands. One of those arsons was set in a way that endangered the lives of BLM firefighters combating an unrelated wildfire upslope from the arson site. The common theme of both incidents is the idea that federal lands don't belong to the American people, but should belong to the Bundys and those like them specifically. As for whether this constitutes a "good reason to be upset" depends on your perspective, I guess.
Yes ... The history is long and complex ... Unlike eastern, northern, southern and mid-country states, VERY large swaths of western states are *owned* and *managed* by the Feds -- Arizona, 38%; Wyoming, 48%; Washington, 28%; Utah, 65%; Oregon, 53%; New Mexico, 34%; Nevada, 85%; Montana, 29%; Idaho, 61%; Colorado, 36%; California, 46% ... and many of the *locals* deeply resent that ...
In other states, e.g., my home state of Minnesota, most land is in private hands to some degree (including mineral rights, maybe yes or no), so it can be bought or sold ... When instead the government owns and controls the land, that reduces many citizens to renters ...
That's a lot like people knowingly moving into a home next to a factory then complaining of the noise.
Since @Fr Teilhard considers his state a reference point, about 18% of the land in Minnesota is in government hands, 7% in the hands of the federal government and 11% owned by the state. Note that these numbers do not include Minnesota's Tribal Lands, which make up an additional 1.4% of its land mass.
Various:
--About the Bundys:
===Croesos said:
I don't remember specifics, nor whether it was about one incident or both. But, in the wake of the Malheur incident, a lot of info, accusations, etc. came out. IIRC, there were some specific interactions and maybe bad behavior by various federal folks the Bundys dealt with. To me, at the time, it was a "the federal folks did WHAT?!" situation. I don't at all support what the Bundys did. But I felt they weren't exactly unprovoked. And the court seemed to agree.
===Croesos said:
Well, yeah. Painting with a broad brush: IME, that's generally the attitude that Americans have towards the federal gov't. It goes something like this:
I deserve whatever help I need from the gov't, and they should leave me the hell alone the rest of the time.
You should get help, provided you really need it, especially in a disaster. If disaster are a regular thing where you live, you might want to move, though. And the Feds should leave you alone unless you've done something wrong--especially if it affects me.
They can darn well take care of themselves, and don't really deserve help. But, if there's a big disaster and they have no place to go, I suppose we should help them--for a time. Someone should check them out, though, to make sure they really need it and aren't scamming.
I don't think I'd heard the federal gov't owned so much. (Yeah, I know, technically, "this land is your land, this land is my land"; but the gov't often seems to have different ideas.)
I just checked Wikipedia's "Federal lands". Wow. The Feds own most of the West and Alaska. Yikes. I've only skimmed it, and I need to read more thoroughly to figure out what's parks, military, etc. At first glance, I don't like this at all.
ETA: Wikipedia's "Western United States" might also be of interest.
Yes ... I'm not defending the Sage Brush Rebels, I'm simply trying to understand them ... Their issue is not as much "government" (they love their County Sheriffs), but "the Feds" ... The Bundy Rebels conducted a heavily armed stand off not against Sheriff Andy Taylor and his Deputy Barney Fife but against US Marshals ...
Yeah, well, apparently whoever kills the Indians gets the land.
Yes ... Although in some places -- here in Minnesota, e.g, -- the "Indians" are gradually slowly winning enforcement of Treaty rights, recovering some lands that were stolen from them, and in some places simply buying their land back ...
This is the kind of thing white folks with guns always count on in situations like this. No one will remember the details but they'll be sure that the white guys with guns had some kind of legitimate grievance, even if they can't say what it was. Presumption of white innocence, I guess. Rather different that what usually happens to any non-white person who comes up against the law.
Compare and contrast: non-white people finally having the bare minimum standard of "having the law enforced as written" is viewed as remarkable. Conversely @Golden Key views white people's armed seizure of land that doesn't belong to them as the fault of the government.
They love their County Sheriffs when they do what they're told. When the Harney County Sheriff told them to leave the Malheur Wildlife Sanctuary they told him to go pound sand. This is pretty much the "give us what we want an no one will get hurt" line you often get with armed seizure of property.
As at 4pm GMT the Wisconsin Supreme Court is apparently still sitting on a decision re an appeal to decertify the Wisconsin voters. Who will be voting in about 2 hours.
Michigan voters will have a police escort based on credible threats.
Anyway, by around midnight GMT the EC vote will all be over, hopefully without anyone getting shot. But the White House madness continues as does GOP support in Congress.
I'm glad to hear there is some progress. I started reading "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse" and had to stop about a third of the way through because I was having the urge to get really drunk and shout obscenities at the universe, and I don't even drink. It's just so fucking, fractally, awful.
According to Stephen Miller during his appearance on Fox & Friends, two Electoral Colleges are voting today.
They seem to be hoping that some court case or friendly state legislature or some other authority figure will be willing to submit this alternate slate to sow confusion in the hopes that they can still steal this thing.
Well, that made my day. Presumably even the current GOP Senators and Representatives would need some form of authorisation to makes these acceptable?
It just looks like another way of keeping the scam going.
Not really. The electoral vote is certified by Congress. If two slates of electors is submitted it's up to Congress to choose between them. The last time this was an issue was in 1876.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the appeal to decertify. By a vote of 4 to 3. The judgement and dissents are worth a read. Once again, one Republican judge made the difference.
Do we now know know the votes or just know that they've successfully been sent in by people selected on the basis of the state votes (and who may be under additional state laws)
Relatedly, the recent deadline was for states to confirm electors to the Fed?, so presumably for the federation to now accept an "alternative" delegation would require a double crazy justification.
see also: Edward Lazarus, "Black Hills/White Justice: The Sioux Nation Versus The United States, 1775 to the Present." (1991)
I had the same experience as @Arethosemyfeet with 'Bury my heart at wounded knee'. I couldn't finish it.
The Electoral College met in state capitals around the country today, the electors cast their votes, and Biden/Harris won. On January 6 Congress will meet to count those votes, and the President of the Senate, i.e., Vice President Pence, will declare the result. But we already know the result -- it's the current headline in all the national news outlets.
The results are supposed to be officially counted on January 6 at a joint session of both houses of Congress. Objections may be raised against returns from the states, but require a majority of both houses to be upheld.
So any surprises now require explicit dodginess (once it required 70 odd defectees, it kind of did anyway, but there was still [imo/nightmares] theoretically room to construct doubt)
Yup.
During the last Wounded Knee incident, when the American Indian Movement took over the agency in 1973, one of the negotiators from the council of churches, who happened to be a Lakota had to come to the hospital where I worked at. He was one of the people I visited every day. I think it helped me to be prepared for my first call to a town in a Lakota Reservation.
Errr...hold the phone, Croesos. You seem to be associating me and what I said with a whole bunch of stuff I neither said nor intended.
I did not presume they were innocent, whether white or not. I often think about things from various angles, and try to figure out why people do what they do. Disputes over grazing land weren't new to me, and I knew they could be complicated and tense. Taking over a corner of Malheur to mess with the Feds was a new thing to me, at least as far as modern protests.
As I said previously, I *did not* and *do not* support what the Bundys et al did. The news coverage presented some things from the Bundys' defense that seemed, *if true*, to be possible provocation. Strangely, a lot of other things have happened in the world since then. I don't remember what seemed to be possible provocation, and I'm not really inclined to wade through all the news accounts and analysis I'd have to read to remind myself. (Besides, I have to wash out a few masks. Only so many hours in the day.
If this had involved Native Americans, instead of the Bundys, I would've automatically assumed they were right and the gov't in the wrong. Anything the US gov't does for, to, about, or with Native Americans is 98.7% sure to be bad, evil, wrong, greedy, manipulative, stupid, clueless, lethal, misdirected, breaking treaties, and/or illegal. One of America's deepest, foundational, original sins.
Treatment of African Americans is another.
Croesos said:
See what I said earlier in this post. Please stop associating me with things I haven't said. Your argument is in error. Seriously.
Yes. As Dorian Gray said in "The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen": "Empires crumble. There are no exceptions."
However, I'd prefer us to take a very slow road.