Time for a new "Yet Another Mass Shooting Thread"

I just wrote a long response to this, and in the middle of it, Tapatalk crashed. FML.

 

I think we can all agree that Tapatalk sucks.




sent from my iphone using Tapatalk

 

You know what? I need to change the word "theory" to "hypothesis" or "guess".

Now..... back to swimming in my own sewage.

 

I'm going to try to play "Man vs. Tapatalk" again.

I don't think a request for people to "game out" scenarios is really appropriate, since I can't "game out" what would happen with any speaker, including Jeffries, since I do not know for certain what's going to come before this House and this (or some other) Speaker.

So instead, I speak in terms of relative probabilities. And those statements are based upon assumptions, chief among which is this: I reject the confident assertion put forward by many (most?) here that the Republicans in the House are some kind of sci-fi-ish hivemind, with no differences whatsoever on any issue that may come before the House. To me, that view is directly contradicted by their lack of uniformity on votes, from the certification of the 2020 Presidential election to the CR last month. I'm not saying that any of them are what we would call anything other than "awful"; but there's clear evidence to the contrary of the assertion that all of them are *equally* awful. And less awful is preferable: I'd rather get hit by a javelin in my hand than in my head.

So with that in mind . . .relative probabilities. I think it is more probable that this House, with Johnson as its Speaker rather than McCarthy, will *effectively* retaliate for the prosecutions of Trump. I think it is more probable that this House, with this Speaker, will allow a government shutdown that will extend for many months. I think that a House run by this Speaker is more likely to allow the U.S. to default on its debt. I think it is more likely with this Speaker that Congress will authorize no more support for Ukraine. I see it as more likely that this House will stymie government attempts to respond in any way to climate change -- even just attempts to address the impact of disasters and other things happening right now, if those things happening right now are attributed to climate change. I think it more probable that this House, with this Speaker, will undertake an aggressive campaign aimed at persecuting gay and trans people. I think this House, with this Speaker, is more likely to do whatever they can to eviscerate science education. And I base these "more likely" statements on the words and actions of those two people.

One can of course assert that some (but by no means all, or even most) of the actions described above would require the agreement of the Senate and the President, and are therefore unlikely to occur. To me, that neglects how the House can impact society: the House does not need to pass anti-gay legislation to make life much harder for gay people, simply by changing the Overton window. It also neglects the possibility of this Speaker, and the Republican majority, lasting until the Senate and the Presidency change hands.

One can also reasonably argue in reply that the differences in likelihoods would not be enormous: from 70% to 90% perhaps, but not from 30% to 90%. And I agree with that. But to me, when so much damage can be done, anything is better than nothing. Would you rather be 70% likely to drown in sewage, or 90% likely to drown in sewage?

Even among a party replete with wingnuts, Johnson is extraordinary. I see Johnson's ascension to Speaker as a disaster, not at the level of Trump's win in 2016, but up there.

 

We've launched a boat from the spot that the killer dumped his car. So f'd up that I know that whole area.

 

My counter to everything Bootsy wrote is I don't think those things are less likely under the other traitor. Rather, I think the big difference is this guy while clothe everything in Cristo-fascist rhetoric and McCarthy would've done it in plain fascist rhetoric. I don't think either is a good enough administrator to carry out those tasks.

And a rep for a well thought out critique and response.

 

Why, given that they've disagreed with each other not just in words, but in votes, and on some of these issues?

 

Add in the fact that GOP “moderates” (and for the rest of you….the quotations are intentional. I am defining them as moderate in RELATION to the rest of the GOP caucus) now feel like the Dems at a minimum aided and abetted, if not outright are responsible for, the removal of McCarthy. I suspect many of them will vote and act vindictively (more so than they would have) going forward….in a you guys ********ed around so now you’re gonna find out kind of way.

 

What you are describing is a hostage situation, where the hostage taker is blaming those they're trying to extort for killing the hostage.

"Look what you made me do!"

 

Would you say that's an axiom?

 

Republicans have no agency.

 

The wife's side of the family used to go to the general area (Camp Kieve-Wavus) a lot in the summer. They have taken me a few times and passed by the area.

The shooter offed himself BTW. Body was found https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/maine-shootings-10-28-23/index.html

 

Given a choice between one candidate who would not give you any of those things you want, and another who would *also* not give you anything you want *and* pledged to eat your children, which of those two would you pick?

 

There is a difference in being a voting member and being a leader.

They may vote different but I don't think there is much of a difference ein what gets brought to the floor for a vote.

 

That's a religious belief.

 

Because those are your only two choices, and one is preferable to the other. And when the people who need food assistance start being killed, "hey, at least I didn't compromise my principles" won't be much comfort.

 

Neither. He's not a choice, because we'd have seen a celluloid dog chasing an asbestos cat through a snowy hell before we'd have seen him take the Speakership.