Jump to content

bolverk

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    7,605
  • Joined

Everything posted by bolverk

  1. At the moment, the only thing I know about the Edwards guy is that he sports an epic combover. Spoilering because GOTDAM!
  2. Probably? Maybe? Don't give a shit right now because a proven fascist wannabe just lost.
  3. Didn't know shit about this GQP gubernatorial candidate, Mastriano, but holy shit. From wiki: In April, Mastriano spoke at and raised money for his campaign at a far-right Christian conference called "Patriots Arise for God and Country" in Gettysburg.[91][92] The conference promoted conspiracy theories including that there is a global cabal of Democrats sex trafficking children, 9/11 was a false flag attack, vaccines amount to genocide therapy and Adolf Hitler faked his death.[91] Jewish organizations criticized Mastriano following the rally due to the improper use of Jewish symbols as "campaign props" to open the event.[87]
  4. Anyone know the runoff rules in PA?
  5. Buncombe is almost out of votes to count and Edwards is up only 1700. Bulk of remaining votes are now in those red circle counties above with one last good chunk coming from Henderson, which is one of those yellow ones. ETA: Lead now down to 1600 on latest update.
  6. Bunch of votes left in Buncombe County where Edwards has a sizeable lead. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/17/us/elections/results-north-carolina-us-house-district-11.html
  7. Yeah, no worries. It's kind of a weird concept for us Texans, and I also had to double check. "So, you leadin' the race but got only 30 percent? I s'pose that's good enuff." At the same time, if we had that rule in Texas, I think it'd would've changed a bunch of primary races where the initial leader lost in the runoff after his/her opposition consolidated. I'm too lazy to check right now, but I think that's how Cruz ended up beating Dewhurst.
  8. Doesn't matter if Cawthorn gets 30 percent if he still has fewer votes than the Edwards guy. It only goes to a runoff if both of them are below 30 percent. From the NYTimes:
  9. I have you on ignore but since everyone is quoting you, I'm going to have to point out that in the fetal stage of human development doesn't begin until the TENTH WEEK of pregnancy. Prior to that, it's just an embryo.
  10. Nothing since this demonstration by the developers to show Kitchen & other Barton Hill NIMBYs how utterly ridiculous their concerns about height were. https://austin.towers.net/dont-panic-but-heres-how-those-cranes-looked-at-brodie-oaks/?pro=caitlyn@towers.net
  11. Never much of a fan of his just because his delivery is so obnoxious but stopped watching altogether when he'd incessantly bitch about "woke" kids. Sounded like an out-of-touch Fox News watching grandpa grouching at the teevee set from his Lazy Boy.
  12. Deny. Distract. Deflect. It's all they've got.
  13. The Right’s Violence Problem The Buffalo killings are part of a pattern: Most extremist violence in the U.S. comes from the political right. Over the past decade, the Anti-Defamation League has counted about 450 U.S. murders committed by political extremists. Of these 450 killings, right-wing extremists committed about 75 percent. Islamic extremists were responsible for about 20 percent, and left-wing extremists were responsible for 4 percent. Nearly half of the murders were specifically tied to white supremacists: As this data shows, the American political right has a violence problem that has no equivalent on the left. And the 10 victims in Buffalo this past weekend are now part of this toll. “Right-wing extremist violence is our biggest threat,” Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the ADL, has written. “The numbers don’t lie.” The pattern extends to violence less severe than murder, like the Jan. 6 attack on Congress. It also extends to the language from some Republican politicians — including Donald Trump — and conservative media figures that treats violence as a legitimate form of political expression. A much larger number of Republican officials do not use this language but also do not denounce it or punish politicians who do use it; Kevin McCarthy, the top House Republican, is a leading example. It’s important to emphasize that not all extremist violence comes from the right — and that the precise explanation for any one attack can be murky, involving a mixture of ideology, mental illness, gun access and more. In the immediate aftermath of an attack, people are sometimes too quick to claim a direct cause and effect. But it is also incorrect to pretend that right-wing violence and left-wing violence are equivalent problems. Fears in Washington If you talk to members of Congress and their aides these days — especially off the record — you will often hear them mention their fears of violence being committed against them. Some Republican members of Congress have said that they were reluctant to vote for Trump’s impeachment or conviction partly because of the threats against other members who had already denounced him. House Republicans who voted for President Biden’s infrastructure bill also received threats. Democrats say their offices receive a spike in phone calls and online messages threatening violence after they are criticized on conservative social media or cable television shows. People who oversee elections report similar problems. “One in six elec­tion offi­cials have exper­i­enced threats because of their job,” the Brennan Center, a research group, reported this year. “Ranging from death threats that name offi­cials’ young chil­dren to racist and gendered harass­ment, these attacks have forced elec­tion offi­cials across the coun­try to take steps like hiring personal secur­ity, flee­ing their homes, and putting their chil­dren into coun­sel­ing.” There is often overlap between these violent threats and white supremacist beliefs. White supremacy tends to treat people of color as un-American or even less than fully human, views that can make violence seem justifiable. The suspect in the Buffalo massacre evidently posted an online manifesto that discussed replacement theory, a racial conspiracy theory that Tucker Carlson promotes on his Fox News show. “History has taught us that what begins with words ends in far worse,” Representative Liz Cheney, one of the few Republicans who have repeatedly and consistently denounced violence and talk of violence from the right, wrote on Twitter yesterday. “The House GOP leadership has enabled white nationalism, white supremacy, and antisemitism,” Cheney wrote, and called on Republican leaders to “renounce and reject these views and those who hold them.” A few other Republicans, like Senator Mitt Romney, have taken a similar stance. But many other prominent Republicans have taken a more neutral stance or even embraced talk of violence. Some have spoken openly about violence as a legitimate political tool — and not just Trump, who has done so frequently. At the rally that preceded the Jan. 6 attack, Representative Mo Brooks suggested the crowd should “start taking down names and kicking ass.” Before she was elected to Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene supported the idea of executing Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats. Representative Paul Gosar once posted an animated video altered to depict himself killing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and swinging swords at Biden. Rick Perry, a former Texas governor, once called the Federal Reserve “treasonous” and talked about treating its chairman “pretty ugly.” During Greg Gianforte’s campaign for Montana’s House seat, he went so far as to assault a reporter who asked him a question he didn’t like; Gianforte won and has since become Montana’s governor. These Republicans have received no meaningful sanction from their party. McCarthy, the Republican leader in the House, has been especially solicitous of Brooks and other members who use violent imagery. This Republican comfort with violence is new. Republican leaders from past decades, like Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, Howard Baker and the Bushes, did not evoke violence. “In a stable democracy,” Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political scientist, told me, “politicians unambiguously reject violence and unambiguously expel from their ranks antidemocratic forces.”
  14. Wordle 332 5/6 Poor guessing today #Worldle #116 1/6 (100%) https://worldle.teuteuf.fr
  15. Primary day in NC. The jackass has to only hit 30% with 7 challengers. Blurb from NYTimes:
  16. Went to check the credentials of this Tony Nash guy, and he's just another fucking cryptard. Quelle surprise.
  17. Total warfare would also work since they use any tool at their disposal and don't believe the laws of war should constrain them.
  18. That's fine. I won't say anything more at the risk of being accused of doxxing him again. In fact, I've put him on ignore so hopefully will never have to interact with him again.
  19. He mentioned it on the other site. As soon as he protested it being named, I immediately deleted.
  20. Funny you mention her. His response to my saying he had a goofy face was to call her ugly. Dude is absolutely a misogynist.
  21. Johnny literally has gone all the way to the line of doxxing himself. I revealed nothing he hadn't already revealed about himself except for mentioning that he has a goofy face. That comment was in the context of him getting awful personal with cruel comments about Penelope's looks after she posted a photo of herself with Covid.
×
×
  • Create New...