Current Events > Have you engaged in 'legitimate political discourse'?

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/04/us/politics/republicans-jan-6-cheney-censure.html

WASHINGTON The Republican Party on Friday officially declared the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and events that led to it legitimate political discourse, and rebuked two lawmakers in the party who have been most outspoken in condemning the deadly riot and the role of Donald J. Trump in spreading the election lies that fueled it.

BRB attacking closest government building with politicians actively working because it's legitimate political discourse /s

They're not very smart, this is as legitimate and intelligent as their discourse gets.

Calling that legit political discourse as an elected official should be considered sedition and a lot of fucking people in the RNC and congress should be given life sentences.

party of personal responsibility

So bombs, firearms, gallows, and zipties are legit political discourse?

I heard that yelling over people and destroying property is a great way to make people turn against your "cause".

Any chance of bringing attention to the supposed problems with the committee (none of which I have ever heard of) has evaporated with this over the top provocative, deceptive, and shameful statement. It may feel good to say, but it will focus people's attention on the RNC, not the panel, and certainly not on good government.

Oh, and the statement is drop dead wrong. It's not as if the committee is replaying video of the events well outside the Capitol over and over again.

And on some future day, when people are protesting the future Republican President, without stepping foot inside the capital, they will, without a whiff of irony, call them insurgents.

You mean smering shit on the walls?

Oh yes

I don't really care for politics talk. I obviously like to be aware but it bores me.

I've never successfully changed anyone's thought process so I stopped doing that entirely.

this is misleading. they called things that happened outside of the Capitol legitimate political discourse. They were saying people went after GOP members who were conflating the two, calling out people who were legitimately protesting as being terrorists/insurrectionists.

that said, it's obviously the same shit they do against BLM and the like

atmasabr posted...

Any chance of bringing attention to the supposed problems with the committee (none of which I have ever heard of) has evaporated with this over the top provocative, deceptive, and shameful statement. It may feel good to say, but it will focus people's attention on the RNC, not the panel, and certainly not on good government.

Oh, and the statement is drop dead wrong. It's not as if the committee is replaying video of the events well outside the Capitol over and over again.

Glad to hear you say this

Fam_Fam posted...

this is misleading. they called things that happened outside of the Capitol legitimate political discourse. They were saying people went after GOP members who were conflating the two, calling out people who were legitimately protesting as being terrorists/insurrectionists.

that said, it's obviously the same shit they do against BLM and the like

Errr.. could you source that please?

Fam_Fam posted...

this is misleading. they called things that happened outside of the Capitol legitimate political discourse. They were saying people went after GOP members who were conflating the two, calling out people who were legitimately protesting as being terrorists/insurrectionists.

that said, it's obviously the same shit they do against BLM and the like

I'm gonna need a motherfucking source.

ScazarMeltex posted...

I'm gonna need a motherfucking source.

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger crossed a line, Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman, said in a statement. They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.

Fam_Fam posted...

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger crossed a line, Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman, said in a statement. They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.

But the committee hasn't gone after anybody that was an "ordinary protestor"? If someone crossed the barrier, they stopped being "legitimate"?

So either their statement addressed things that weren't happening.. or they were being dismissive of criminal actions?

My drunken CE shitposts are legitimate political discourse

Ruvan22 posted...

But the committee hasn't gone after anybody that was an "ordinary protestor"? If someone crossed the barrier, they stopped being "legitimate"?

So either their statement addressed things that weren't happening.. or they were being dismissive of criminal actions?

I think the suggestion is that when people blanket condemn January 6th protestors, that includes people who were also engaging in legitimate political discourse. i think that's what the committee is accusing them of (blaming the whole group when it was just a small subset of all protestors that engaged in criminal activity)

So does this mean the GOP supports the BLM protests?

Surely they'd never be hypocrites

Fam_Fam posted...

I think the suggestion is that when people blanket condemn January 6th protestors, that includes people who were also engaging in legitimate political discourse. i think that's what the committee is accusing them of (blaming the whole group when it was just a small subset of all protestors that engaged in criminal activity)

But the committee (AFAIK) hasn't done that, so why bring it up? Again, as soon as someone crossed the barricade (or even if they brought zip ties and weapons and stood outside) they aren't "peacefully demonstrating"

Ruvan22 posted...

But the committee (AFAIK) hasn't done that, so why bring it up? Again, as soon as someone crossed the barricade (or even if they brought zip ties and weapons and stood outside) they aren't "peacefully demonstrating"

their comments were towards the two representatives (Cheney and Kizinger) and previous statements they had made, not the current 1/6 committee, as I understand it. I think they are arguing that statements made during the impeachment (for which they both voted) presented ALL of the 1/6 as criminals/terrorists, whereas that was a small percentage of the entire group, most of which WAS peacefully demonstrating

Fam_Fam posted...

their comments were towards the two representatives (Cheney and Kizinger) and previous statements they had made, not the current 1/6 committee, as I understand it. I think they are arguing that statements made during the impeachment (for which they both voted) presented ALL of the 1/6 as criminals/terrorists, whereas that was a small percentage of the entire group, most of which WAS peacefully demonstrating

Given that this censure was issued just DAYS ago, I don't see how you can ascribe it to actions taken a year ago? The "persecution" refers to the committee, right? What evidence do you have that it referred to the impeachment, given that no specific protestors/rioters were named or called during the impeachment? Really seems like you are reaching to defend the RNC statement....

Fam_Fam posted...

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger crossed a line, Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman, said in a statement. They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.

Ruvan22 posted...

Given that this censure was issued just DAYS ago, I don't see how you can ascribe it to actions taken a year ago? The "persecution" refers to the committee, right? What evidence do you have that it referred to the impeachment, given that no specific protestors/rioters were named or called during the impeachment? Really seems like you are reaching to defend the RNC statement....

i'm not defending it, I'm trying to explain is based on what I understand of the situation. they explicitly separated out the people who broke into the capitol from those who were engaging in legitimate political discourse. that's all i'm trying to point out.

the reason why I'm talking about is that the initial backlash against those two in particular was a LONG time ago, stemming from the impeachment itself. they were talking about censure back then. note this article from...you guessed it, a year ago

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/06/964933035/wyoming-gop-censures-liz-cheney-for-voting-to-impeach-trump

this is all connected. this is not coming out of nowhere starting 3 days ago. the current 1/6 commission is clearly following up on the exact same thing from the impeachment as well, which is the "democrat-led persecution" they are referring to. these aren't isolated cases

Fam_Fam posted...

i'm not defending it, I'm trying to explain is based on what I understand of the situation. they explicitly separated out the people who broke into the capitol from those who were engaging in legitimate political discourse. that's all i'm trying to point out.

the reason why I'm talking about is that the initial backlash against those two in particular was a LONG time ago, stemming from the impeachment itself. they were talking about censure back then. note this article from...you guessed it, a year ago

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/06/964933035/wyoming-gop-censures-liz-cheney-for-voting-to-impeach-trump

this is all connected. this is not coming out of nowhere starting 3 days ago. the current 1/6 commission is clearly following up on the exact same thing from the impeachment as well, which is the "democrat-led persecution" they are referring to. these aren't isolated cases

I get that they (RNC) weren't happy back then and I remember them (the state party) censuring her back then for the impeachment hearing. What I'm asking is WHY you believe the recent censure is related to that when A) nothing in the language indicates it, B) there is a more recent event (the committee) pulling focus, and C) the state censure (that you linked) states Antifa and BLM were responsible, nothing about "legitimate political discourse".

Ruvan22 posted...

I get that they (RNC) weren't happy back then and I remember them (the state party) censuring her back then for the impeachment hearing. What I'm asking is WHY you believe the recent censure is related to that when A) nothing in the language indicates it, B) there is a more recent event (the committee) pulling focus, and C) the state censure (that you linked) states Antifa and BLM were responsible, nothing about "legitimate political discourse".

because the impeachment is about the same thing being reviewed now. i'm saying its related (not the entire thing) because its an ongoing saga that those two peoples' names have been attached to. this censure relates to the entire string of events following from the initial reaction until now. they are saying its an ongoing issue that they are now getting punished for, starting from a year ago. this persecution, in their minds, started from then, and they are being punished for their role in this persecution, which in part, targets people who were only engaging in legitimate political discourse, and people who were onlysupporting the legitimate actions/behaviors, and then unfairly being attached to other things they had no part of.

Fam_Fam posted...

because the impeachment is about the same thing being reviewed now. i'm saying its related (not the entire thing) because its an ongoing saga that those two peoples' names have been attached to. this censure relates to the entire string of events following from the initial reaction until now. they are saying its an ongoing issue that they are now getting punished for, starting from a year ago. this persecution, in their minds, started from then, and they are being punished for their role in this persecution, which in part, targets people who were only engaging in legitimate political discourse, and people who were onlysupporting the legitimate actions/behaviors, and then unfairly being attached to other things they had no part of.

Again, I'm asking you to support your conclusion as
A) Nothing in the language indicates them referring to the impeachment hearings
B) The committee is a more current topic
C) During the impeachment hearing, no mention was made about specific civilians who acted lawfully being persecuted (AFAIK, please correct me if I'm wrong).

The last point especially is salient - WHO are these people you claim they are defending? When were they persecuted?

@Fam_Fam
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/593024-mcmaster-says-he-agrees-with-pence-that-trump-is-wrong-about-2020

Republican advisor to Trump also believes the RNC statement is referring to people that crossed the barriers and committed illegal acts

Ruvan22 posted...

@Fam_Fam
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/593024-mcmaster-says-he-agrees-with-pence-that-trump-is-wrong-about-2020

Republican advisor to Trump also believes the RNC statement is referring to people that crossed the barriers and committed illegal acts

ok? he's entitled to his opinion. as I said, the RNC wrote a clarifying statement, which I have included here, that explicitly stated that they were not intending to describe the violent actors as being part of the legitimate political discourse.

whether or not you choose to accept the amendment is a personal choice, I suppose.

Fam_Fam posted...

ok? he's entitled to his opinion. as I said, the RNC wrote a clarifying statement, which I have included here, that explicitly stated that they were not intending to describe the violent actors as being part of the legitimate political discourse.

whether or not you choose to accept the amendment is a personal choice, I suppose.

Included in which post?

You mean trying to change my parent's political positions to something sensible?

Ruvan22 posted...

Included in which post?

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger crossed a line, Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman, said in a statement. They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.

Fam_Fam posted...

Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger crossed a line, Ronna McDaniel, the Republican National Committee chairwoman, said in a statement. They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.

That's the clarifying statement? That looks like the original statement? Again which "ordinary citizens" are they referring to, as none were named (afaik) in either this committee or the impeachment hearing...

Look you posted this
Fam_Fam posted...

ok? he's entitled to his opinion. as I said, the RNC wrote a clarifying statement, which I have included here, that explicitly stated that they were not intending to describe the violent actors as being part of the legitimate political discourse.

whether or not you choose to accept the amendment is a personal choice, I suppose.

I'm asking for their clarifying statement that "explicitly stated that they were not intending to describe the violent actors as being part of the legitimate political discourse"

Ruvan22 posted...

That's the clarifying statement? That looks like the original statement? Again which "ordinary citizens" are they referring to, as none were named (afaik) in either this committee or the impeachment hearing...

Look you posted this

I'm asking for their clarifying statement that "explicitly stated that they were not intending to describe the violent actors as being part of the legitimate political discourse"

They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol.

They are saying that what they are describing as "legitimate political discourse" has nothing to do with the "violence at the Capitol". This is in contradiction to the claim in the original post:

The Republican Party on Friday officially declared the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and events that led to it legitimate political discourse,

They explicitly are describing these as two separate things. Whether or not Cheney/Kizinger did something worth censuring is a different issue, but the RNC explicitly is stating here that what they are calling the legitimate political discourse had "nothing to do with violence at the Capitol". This is not aligned with what the reporting says, which is what I'm pointing out. The headline here does not accurately reflect what the RNC said, and I was giving them credit for them (not that I agree with the censure, or the argument that the commission/impeachment was inappropriate because there was legitimate political discourse happening at the same time as the illegal stuff that people were criticized/got in trouble for

So much for backing the blue. You heard it here first, attacking cops is "legitimate political discourse."

Master_Bass posted...

So much for backing the blue. You heard it here first, attacking cops is "legitimate political discourse."

who said that?

Fam_Fam posted...

who said that?

If the difference between legitimate political discourse and non is the location, then it's a fair enough inference because cops were being attacked outside the building

wackyteen posted...

If the difference between legitimate political discourse and non is the location, then it's a fair enough inference because cops were being attacked outside the building

i don't think anyone reasonable, or that we've talked about here, has said that violence in/around the Capitol was appropriate.