The Problem With Pursing Legal Means To Address Unlawfulness Is That The GOP Won't Jail Anyone.

[TheMastersNemesis]

The GOP controls the law enforcement process and won't do anything no matter how illegal.

[FreepFryer]

1. So you're advocating Democrats use UNLAWFUL means to address GOP unlawfulness? How quaint.

[Jarqui]

2. Where did they say that?

[FreepFryer]

3. "The problem with pursuing legal means is that GOP won't jail anyone" - "legal means won't work."

It's right there in the title.

[Jarqui]

5. Where does it say they will pursue illegal means?

[FreepFryer]

6. I just answered your question. Whatever "the problem with legal means," those are the only means.

It is illegal to advocate otherwise.

[Jarqui]

7. They did not advocate otherwise

All they pointed out was the GOP wouldn't do anything.

They did not point out that the Dems would do something unlawful.

You erroneously derived that all by yourself.

Saying a group won't do something doesn't mean another group will automatically do something else.
Maybe they feel that way and maybe they don't. They didn't say one way or the other.

[FreepFryer]

9. Reading always requires interpretation. I will call out posts that encourage illegal activity,

express or implied.

[Jarqui]

10. The original post didn't encourage illegal activity

You just imagined it did in your own mind.

I grant that the original post did not dismiss illegal activity as a possible response but it did not dismiss throwing hands up in frustration because there was nothing that could be done due to the GOP's control of the branches of government either.

It stated a circumstance but did not advocate what to do about it - one way or the other.

[FreepFryer]

11. You're welcome to your interpretation. I obviously completely disagree that 'nothing could be done'.

I don't ever argue for Democratic powerlessness - because we are only powerless if we voluntarily surrender and 'throw up our hands' in frustration.

Some people seem to have that as their overriding goal - arguing (poorly) how bad they think things are but not offering any practical suggestions. I consider that behavior deplorable - but not illegal.

[Jarqui]

14. But that is another strawman. It does not say 'nothing could be done' by anyone else.

They did not say 'nothing could be done' They acknowledged that the GOP won't do anything. They did not say anything about anyone else.

Here's the whole post:
"The Problem With Pursing Legal Means To Address Unlawfulness Is That The GOP Won't Jail Anyone.

The GOP controls the law enforcement process and won't do anything no matter how illegal"

It is all about the GOP.

From that, the subject of the thread might be interpreted as "what can we do about this?" because they did not mention or advocate anything else.

You are leaping to some conclusions here. It's in fact quite open ended.

[FreepFryer]

15. LOL. YOUR Strawman. WHO is facing a problem pursuing legal means in the OP? Democrats. (n/t)

[FreepFryer]

16. No, as written it implies 'what OTHER THAN LEGAL MEANS can we do about this.'

And you suggested 'throwing up our hands in frustration'.

Sorry, but you are tying yourself in knots trying to defend a poorly-worded, poorly-considered and ill-advised OP.

[pangaia]

26. Jarqui is right.

In my view you are inferring something that is not necessarily implied.

[FreepFryer]

29. I would be glad if no-one else made that inference, but it appears I'm not the only one. (n/t)

[nocalflea]

12. That or relinquish hope ...which is quaint also.

[FreepFryer]

13. Zactly. (n/t)

[Orrex]

17. If that is your interpretation of the OP, then you should Alert on it

I suspect that a Jury will disagree with you, recognizing that the OP is not calling for illegal action, but you seem rather insistent that your interpretation is the only correct one, so give it a try.

[FreepFryer]

18. "The problem with pursuing legal means to obtain a car is that I don't have enough money"

Not inciting violation of the law, but really suggestive of illegality.

Not the only interpretation, but an obvious one.

Another possible interpretation is: "resign yourself to hopelessness, nothing we do will solve this problem"

Thanks for the advice.

[Orrex]

21. Perhaps you can enlighten us

If the choice is between "futilely pursuing doomed legal efforts" and "resigning oneself to hopelessness," then how can one seek to effect change?

That's not a false dichotomy, by the way, because it doesn't posit those as the only two choices, but rather it asks what one can do if faced with only those two choices.

What other viable choices do you perceive?

[FreepFryer]

22. Pressing on, on every front, to legally upend the regime. In as many ways as there are Americans.

I fundamentally disagree with the premise of BOTH of the choices you illustrate.

What choices besides those do YOU perceive?

[Orrex]

23. What exactly does that mean?

ressing on, on every front, to legally upend the regime.

That looks like an answer, but it isn't.

That's like saying "The answer to your question is the answer to your question." Not incorrect, perhaps, but completely unhelpful.

I reject tautologies and empty platitudes even more strongly than you reject the hypothetical choices that I proposed.

How exactly are you "pressing on," and on exactly which "fronts?"

As an outnumbered Progressive in a firmly Red county, in a heavily gerrymandered state and with a Republican Senator who openly ignores the will of his constituents, how exactly do you suggest that I "press on?"

[FreepFryer]

24. In Churchill's words, "KBO". You figure out how that makes sense in your own context.

And I'll figure out how it makes sense in mine.

"On what may be the eve of an attempted invasion or battle for our native land, the prime minister desires to impress upon all persons holding responsible positions in the Government, in the fighting services or in the civil departments, their duty to maintain a spirit of alert and confident energy. The Prime Minister expects all His Majesty's Servants in high places to set an example of steadiness and resolution. They should check and rebuke expressions of loose and ill—digested opinion in their circles, or by their subordinates. They should not hesitate to report, or if necessary remove, any officers or officials who are found to be consciously exercising a disturbing or depressing influence, and whose talk is calculated alarm or despondency. Thus alone will they be worthy of the fighting men, who in the air, on the sea, and on the land have already met the enemy without sense of being outmatched in martial qualities." -- Churchill, 1940.

From Martin Gilbert, "WINSTON CHURCHILL'S WAR LEADERSHIP"

[Orrex]

25. Those sure are pretty words!

Asked for a clarification of your non-answer, you quote someone else's pretty words, irrelevant to the situation at hand.

I asked how exactly does one "keep pressing on," and your answer is to "keep buggering on."

Assuming, for the moment, that The Blitz is not the threat currently facing us, how exactly is one to "keep buggering on" in the current situation?

[FreepFryer]

28. Churchill's aren't just "pretty words" and it's not my job to specify EXACTLY what YOU should do.

Think for yourself.

[Orrex]

30. Nope, that's a feeble attempt at deflection

You certainly felt justified in scolding the OP for your own interpretation of their wording. Strangely, though, when asked to clarify your own vague platitude, you deflect with yet another irrelevant response.

You smugly scold those who recognize the futility of a legal response against Republicans while Republicans are in charge, and you smugly scold those who--in your view--succumb to hopelessness in that situation. Yet, despite your smug scolding, you don't actually have any useful advice on how to proceed.

Well, other than your continued parroting of empty platitudes, of course.


I imagine that such vapid sloganeering appeals to a certain kind of casual reader, but anyone who actually pays attention to your words will recognize their emptiness.

[FreepFryer]

31. Nope. My objection to the OP doesn't require me to advise ANYONE on alternative courses. (n/t)

[Orrex]

32. Nor, apparently, does it require you to give meaningful responses

You're happy to scold, but you don't actually have anything to contribute. And you haven't actually answered a single question asked of you.

[FreepFryer]

33. Okay! Keep defending hopelessness - I'll argue for agency. (n/t)

[Orrex]

35. When I asked you to argue for agency, you parroted empty platitudes

By all means, please argue for agency! So far you've done nothing of the sort!

[FreepFryer]

36. Agency means WE EACH DECIDE - yet you demand I tell YOU exactly what to do. Your argument is invalid

[Orrex]

38. Great! Then tell us exactly what you do with your precious agency!

"Pressing on" and "buggering on" are not answers.

Tell us what you, with all of your mighty agency, do in the face of legal futility and creeping hopelessness, so that we may learn from your example. Let us exercise our agency by learning from your wise counsel.

If you now insist that you have no obligation to answer, then it will confirm that you've had no answer from the outset.

[FreepFryer]

39. Any act can be a political act. Every morning, CHOOSE YOURS - AND DON'T GIVE UP.

I don't set the terms for you and you don't set the terms for me - by trying to command or insult me, all you do is marginalize yourself.

(To the extent that mocking Churchill's timeless and apropos admonition against despondency in the face of Nazi invasion as "pretty words" and "empty platitudes" hasn't already, that is)

[Orrex]

40. So, another deflection. Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

When you presume to scold, as you've repeatedly done here, then you should at least have the integrity to back up your bluster.

by trying to command or insult me, all you do is marginalize yourself.

Not true at all! I thereby demonstrate thee emptiness of your bluster and the arrogance of your scolding. Demanding that you back up your pronouncements is hardly "commanding" you; it's an attempt to hold you to the most basic standards of communication.

Now, as you predictably cast yourself as the persecuted victim, it becomes clear that you have nothing to contribute after all.


Maybe next time, when you righteously step up to scold someone, you won't be so surprised when someone fails to be impressed by your platitudes.

[FreepFryer]

41. Not a deflection at all - I'm just not going to tell you EXACTLY what to do, as you demand.

Simple as that, no matter your gymnastics.

[FreepFryer]

45. You have dismissed what I have said thus far, so you don't deserve any help from me.

Figure it out on your own - I'll work with Democrats who are committed to coming up with solutions, rather than demanding them from others and leveling personal attacks.

[Saviolo]

46. Here are some examples:

March.
Register.
Vote.
Volunteer.
Organize.
GOTV.
Go door to door.
If you're in a deep red area, try to move the needle.

[FreepFryer]

47. Thank you! (n/t)

[guillaumeb]

4. Recommended.

The GOP will use the Trump tool for as long as the Trump tool is useful. They have no respect for the Constitution.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

8. The GOP will say if it helps their cause, it's the will of Gawd.

Just like R-W preachers saying Dirty Donald is the anointed one.

The only thing illegal to them is abortion or any harm whatsoever done to a corporation. Everything else is laissez-faire.

.................

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate...

Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure."

[FreepFryer]

20. This, and it's the opposition's greatest fear about us too. (n/t)

[marybourg]

27. The GOP won't be in charge forever. Here in Maricopa County AZ,

we have a new, democratic, sheriff to replace Arpaio

[brooklynite]

34. I always like a thread where the OP throws out a wild statement and doesn't stay around to discuss.

[FreepFryer]

37. i k r ?

[bpj62]

42. Standard Procedure

He/she does this all the time. It is basically a drive by posting. You are drawn in by the title but there is very little fact or substance to thier OP.

[FreepFryer]

43. Exactly - OP thats intentionally provocative and bereft of useful action. For example, see this link

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210033113#post8

[bpj62]

48. Nice Catch

I have been on DU for many years and I have never created a post. I am more of a reader, that is why my post count isn't high.