US Politics, March 2024: The house of illuminati will NOT be holding any other event in the foreseeable future.

That's how I read it, and a follow up post said the problem is that this is giving people the opportunity to mock her or say bad things about her. It sounded like he was saying that there was a problem with the way people were talking about this, but I apologize if I misinterpreted.

as I understand your replies it sounds like you thought I was unjustly criticizing you or some other ilxor's posts as dehumanizing Mace. I was not speaking to any other posts made here. At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself.

When I said it was dehumanizing all the way around I was thinking not only that in order to make the answer she did, she had to shut down the most human side of herself, but that having done so in such a public way, the kinds of criticism she's opened herself to will constitute a similar opportunity for millions of people to shut down their own most human understanding of her predicament and mock her as an evil automaton.

Here's the thing — victimhood does not automatically grant, or equate to, virtue. Nancy Mace is a rape victim: sad. Nancy Mace is a piece of shit: infuriating. Nancy Mace being a rape victim does not make her a piece of shit, nor does Nancy Mace being a rape victim ameliorate her shittiness.

xp

fair enough, to the extent that people say things about her that are gross or dehumanizing, I absolutely agree that's a bad thing, but in no way should that make anyone shy away from criticizing her for torching what tiny shreds of credibility she had to support Donald Trump and further her own pursuit of power

fairly sure Aimless has been on board w/ that from the jump.

It's not about virtue or victimhood but actions and statements. Here, it's about answering the question. The way Mace avoided answering the question was to attack the questioner's motive over and over instead of answering the question.

You see this tactic of delegitimizing the question or questioner as a substitute for answering the question frequently.

I would call it more of a cynical or bad faith diversionary tactic. It's extraordinary that she acted like discussing rape is the problem, that it's the discussion's fault for being disgusting instead of the rapists'.

that's exactly right and why I find all this fretting and squeamishness annoying because it feels like we are just falling for Mace's bullshit DARVO response, especially when she is straight up undermining another rape victim

look I think the point is clear you cant support Donald Trump and retain any sense of morality

We're--what?--about 9 years into Trump having a complete stranglehold on the Republican Party. Anyone with a sense of morality would have gotten out by now.

Seriously, I can't spend a bunch of time lamenting the sad "predicament" of a congressional Republican who had on occasion shown some tiny flickers of a conscience, but then decided to torch it in the grossest way possible on national TV. The thing I keep thinking about is that the whole point of going on a show like this is to gain some appeal with people outside of the core demographic, but it's an utter mystery how she thought her response might have accomplished that.

who's being squeamish exactly? I count exactly zero people itt that didn't criticize her for her reaction. does every reply have to be squarely on the nose?

Moodles, who's arguing with you?

that's what comes across to me when we spend our time worrying about the state of the discourse rather than the actual topic, it feels redirecting to an appeal for civility based on what exactly?

excuse my bad syntax

it feels redirecting to an appeal for civility based on what exactly?

I wish I had the time right now to fully develop an answer to this question, because I think it is an extremely important one, but it will have to wait. Life intervenes for now, but hold that thought.

and by "appeal for civility based on what" I'm not asking why should we be civil, I mean what exactly is driving this appeal? Is it based on actual things that you saw people say about this topic? or if it is purely hypothetical, why is it important to raise in this specific instance?

I still have no idea who you're talking to here.

I reread Aimless’s initial post and it still reads to me that he said her tack was gross and the political climate that would have torn her apart had she not been gross was also gross and dehumanizing to everyone involved, ie Republicans, and then a couple of posters decided this was a land mine directed at them and began to vigorously jump up and down on it with a pogo stick.

I agree with his initial post, it's the subsequent ones that had me scratching my head

the thing about this that's so aggravating is that her point would be good if I could believe it was in earnest. nobody has any right to tell any disenfranchised class of people who they have to support, how they have to vote. but do I think that's why she's making this point? absolutely not. she just wants to shut people up who rightly ID trump as a rapist

He didn't tell her who she had to support or how she should vote, he asked how she reconciled her support for rape victims with her support for Donald Trump. It's a tough question and maybe a bit of a gotcha, but there are certainly better ways to answer than splitting hairs about the difference between a civil and criminal trial and talking trash about E. Jean Carroll.

it’s an extremely difficult question for her, and I think it is possible for her to be angry in good faith about the question.

do I believe that is the case here? no. do I believe Stephanopoulos wanted the q to be a straight victim shame? i do not, but can be persuaded otherwise.

and not a gotcha imo— it’s obvious apparent incongruity to me.

I think it’s simple, you can care about rape victims but care more about shutting up the people you don’t like and making sure they suffer

Or you want to be vice president and some twisted moral calculus makes you believe that the "good" you could accomplish one heartbeat away from the presidency outweighs throwing the occasional rape victim under the bus

She was employing the basic DARVO move there, as well as a furious gish gallop (talking rapidly over the top of someone), its classic troll/bad faith arguing.

watching this dumbass biden hearing really makes you realize that the tragic flaw of democracy is that complete fucking idiots get to help run things. we need a king again!

You can have ours, if his God doesn't save get him first

it is kinda fun that the Demz are just going in hard on Trump and ignoring everything else. playing video clips of trump not remembering anything. how do you like it, fucko! everyone should just call trump Fucko now.

In which President Biden engages in a long discussion about cars as Robert Hur tries, unsuccessfully, to get him back on track. Twice, according to the transcript, the president "makes car sound." pic.twitter.com/tEo5X59pjB

— Matt Viser (@mviser) March 12, 2024

Well, I don't know, hearing the president get all jazzed up about electric cars isn't exactly the worst thing in 2024.

makes car sound

Mr. Krickbaum: Instant torque.

This reminds me of reporters rolling their eyes when Bill Clinton went on long discussions about the history of the Federal Reserve.

starting to get the feeling that the people initially summarizing this deposition were not acting in the best of faith

Biden might have just been fucking with Hur (Hur), Bill C. couldn't help showing off his knowledge.

Also, no one really learned anything after Bill Barr's "summary" of Mueller's findings.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-robert-hur-transcript-rcna142855

At one point, Hur acknowledged that some of his questions would “relate to events that happened years ago.” Biden joked in response: “I’m a young man, so it’s not a problem.”

According to the review of the transcript, Biden at times expanded beyond the narrow subject areas of particular questions. At one point, he described in vivid detail a 2011 visit to Mongolia, where he displayed unexpected archery skills at a cultural performance in his honor.

people have dug up the video of that, and he does do pretty well with a bow and arrow

lol

Considering the newspaper, I'm surprised by the fairness.

Hur should’ve just enjoyed the ride and the stories

Hur: Have you ever driven a chariot?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GIeBGm9XoAAzEze?format=jpg&name=medium

Scranton Joe

I was trying to explain to a coworker a sequence of events at work that I was deeply involved in around the same date range that Biden's testimony covered today and had to backtrack several times. I don't think there was a "gotcha" moment and they're lingering on whether he has photographic recall (he doesn't)

I freeze up almost every time I’m asked my kids’ birthdates, and often get them wrong even so.

Azi Paybarah:

Sort of funny that in a hearing focusing on President Biden’s alleged memory lapses — which his aides say are really verbal slips — that Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) himself just made a verbal slip, referring to Dana Remus incorrectly as President Barack Obama’s former White House counsel, instead of Biden’

is Biden....funny?

Republican Rep. Ken Buck announced Tuesday that he will leave the House on March 22, moving up his existing retirement plans.

Buck's decision will leave Republicans with a paltry 218 seats in the chamber, compared to Democrats' 213, furthering Speaker Mike Johnson's constant struggle to herd the House GOP and pass any legislation through regular order. Republicans can still only afford to lose two votes on any bill with united Democratic opposition, assuming full attendance.

Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Tuesday that he didn’t know about Buck's departure plans shortly after the announcement, noting he is looking forward to talking to the Colorado Republican. A Buck spokesperson told POLITICO that Buck called Johnson about 30 minutes before the announcement went live and left a voicemail. The move caught many of Buck's GOP colleagues by surprise.

“This place has just devolved into this bickering and nonsense,” the conservative Colorado Republican said in an interview on CNN shortly after his announcement. "It’s the worst year in 40, 50 years to be in Congress.”

There's already a competitive primary to replace Buck in the red seat. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) jumped into that race for Colorado's 4th congressional district and moved across the state after she narrowly won reelection by just several hundred votes in her current district in 2022. Asked if Buck's announcement would shift her plans to run in his district, Boebert replied: “I’m running in the 4th.”

In Colorado, the governor is required to set a special election 85 to 100 days after the vacancy occurs. Candidates are nominated by the state party. The Buck spokesperson predicted it would occur in June, likely the same day as the primary election for the full term: June 25.

One member to go before we get Speaker Jeffries.

the squeaker of the house