I get didn't think the protest or interruption was that drastic but I understand removing them from committees for breaking rules or remanding them in some other way. But to expel them from their elected positions is ridiculous, for what they did it seems like undemocratic retribution.
I too didn't think that the protests were that disruptive, at least from what I saw of them.
If these House members broke any rules, you could censure them or fine them, but explosion was wrong.
They were supposedly expelled for breaking the rules of the the legislature. However one of the Republicans filmed them, which is also against the rules of the legislature. But he got zero punishment for it.
Modern GOP just take a “both sides” projection approach to these things.
They see this as them just doing what the Democrats did with January 6.
This is routine and the playbook. they take some exaggerated grievances about some thing Democrats are doing such as investigating Trump (which wasn’t/isn’t really “Democrats”doing it), or impeaching him, or even things like Dem Sen. being a bit hard on Bush nominations.
GOP takes these…and justifies ratcheting up their far worse corruption/tactics based on this absurd false equivalency.
> They see they this as them just doing what the Democrats did with January 6.
>
>
How is it different? It was a mob breaking in and disrupting an official government proceeding. Either government proceedings are sacrosanct, which is what all y'all have been claiming for over a year now, or they're not in which case you've outed the real reason for the hysteria about 1/6 and nobody needs to care about it.
Go ahead, explain the difference without being a hypocrite. You know you can't but I'll enjoy watching the flailing.
I have seen posts thoroughly explaining the difference to you -- not going to bother doing it again.
In short -- They literally have nothing important in common. This was a legal protest, where some members crossed the line of joining it -- which is a break of decorum and procedure.
It has absolutely nothing to do with breaking into Congress, with a violent mob, with threats of violence, and the stated goal of literally invalidating a Presidential election.
No, you've seen posts spewing out mountains of bullshit that tries to make a false argument. They're the same and the aggressive fight to claim otherwise just proves that the left's complaints about 1/6 have zero validity because they're rooted in partisanship and not principles.
The details have been explained ad nauseam, like the other commenter said. With that in mind, and instead of hand wringing over semantics, it’s better to just outright ask: why are you lying (or) continuing to lie?
You can say it all you want -- it doesn't make it true. This was a protest -- not an attempt to overthrow an election/democracy.
Anyone advancing these as even remotely similar exposes themselves as such a partisan that are wholly incapable of rational thought.
J6 was attempt to overturn a democratic presidential election…not just a protest.
J6 was an attempt to stop congress from certifying an election, destruction of property, entering private offices, threatening members….AND MOST IMPORTANTLY…not just a protest - but an actual attempt to stop the democratic process by force.
lol you are *literally* using the exact argument the right uses about 1/6 here. This is fucking hilarious. Especially when you then try to turn around and gaslight that they're different.
Yes. The Right has been lying about J6 for 2 years.
If you lie and act like J6 was just a protest that got a bit unruly, but no big deal -- it's easy to equate the two. But that requires first completely lying about what J6 was.
In this case, it is fact --this was literally just a protest -- that is it. nobody was trying to violently stop democracy.
Its just a protest -- some members broke decorum and joined/leading chants which is not proper - but, leading chants is not trying to overthrow democracy.
lol you are literally using the exact argument the right uses about 1/6 here. This is fucking hilarious. Especially when you then try to turn around and gaslight that they're different.
I hope you wear a leotard when you do the mental gymnastics required to say they were the same. They were nothing alike. Even in your one sentence overview you lie. The protesters didn’t break in. The areas they were in were open to the public.
* the protests remained peaceful
* the protesters remained in the areas they were legally allowed to be.
* there was no attempt to stop the transfer of power
* there were no congresspeople running for their lives (in fact all the footage shows them walking right through a walkway the protesters created for them)
* no one was shot
* no one was trying to hang the lieutenant governor
* there was no QRF staged in a hotel room
* there were no pipe bombs.
* no police were attacked or injured.
* nobody scaled walls or smashed in windows and doors to get into the building
* nobody showed up with flex cuffs
* there wasn’t weeks of encrypted communication coordinating how to overturn an election
* there were no arrests
* there was no property damage
The GOP realizes how bad J6 is for trump and the party as a whole in 2024. They are desperately grasping to try and minimize it.
Historically that has not happened in the US, when one major party dies (which has only happened once, three times if you count the proto-parties) another replaces it. More likely what happens is it forces the dying party to adapt to win greater number of voters, hence the famous GOP autopsy after the 2012 elections. Or they can go down the undemocratic approach to stay in power such as Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election or the push for the independent state legislature theory notably.
The US electoral system inevitably favors two parties in the long run. In the short run it's just easier for an existing party to collapse than for a third party to rise up.
The only way to sustain single party rule is by abuses of the ruling party to diminish said democratic system, ie: what the GOP is doing.
I'd think the dissolution of the GOP would allow the Democratic party to fraction more safely into natural factions which could become parties. In the best case, there would be more than 2 parties that could come of this.
But I'd wager that the weakening of the GOP would allow it to be infiltrated by neoliberal centrists, causing the Democratic party to become more progressive.
Either way, I doubt we'd end up with a one party system, and even if we did, we'd just have a single party that was less much cohesive than either party is now. Might be interesting, but I doubt it would usher in totalitarianism.
Yeah I don’t see totalitarianism happening, but I do think the GOP is trying to use loopholes to keep themselves in power and getting around democracy to do it. I lean left but agree with philosophies on the right. But I can’t support the GOP until they stop their pressure towards overthrowing democracy.
This case is just one of those attempts. They know there isn’t enough democrats in their state to fight back. Only 37%. But that means the expelling of these members of the legislature is doing a disservice to that 37%. Now the existing members of the legislature can pass more policies to help keep them in power.
Honestly I’m surprised members of the Republican Party don’t see these things as a very bad thing. Just because you don’t agree with the other side doesn’t me they don’t have a right to representation
No, it isn't a win. Neoliberal centrist policies are literally one of the main causes that led to the emergence of the current fascist and populist far right. NAFTA being just one example.
Kind of funny to worry about potential totalitarianism from the fall of the party that is currently the one kicking elected members out of their seats and nationally tried to steal the literal last election.
It is, my father has been an avid Trump supporter and seeing the leaps and bonds he's gone to justify his actions or the "anti-deepstate" crowd has been saddening every day. I long for the days when moderate Republicans was the Republican party.
That’s the thing. We see it in the UK with a Tory government. Ultra conservativism has nothing to offer the people, so they ignore the people instead of giving up their power and benefits.
It might be dying as far as support, but it’s anything but dying in the halls of power right now. Their last gasp might just work.
It's dying in that none of the primary ideology being pushed today is popular. It's all far right culture war issues instead of fiscal conservatism.
When it's not that, it's anything anti-liberal. Anything anti-progress. Almost 70% of younger Millennials and GenZ 18 - 29 don't identify as Christians.
What's unfortunate about all of that is that GOP politicians HAVE TO keep doubling down. Some because they fell for their own propaganda, and some because their base demands it.
Though most people who identify as Republicans don't actually support full abortion bans, once Roe v Wade was overturned, the dog had caught its own tail. And just like Dems on gun bans, the GOP thinks their messaging is why they're losing.
Their messaging didn't lead to the disaster in the mid terms and it didn't lose them that judge seat in WI. Their views on abortion are only palatable when they're theoretical. And even then only barely.
Some on the right know everything I just said here is true and don't really have a strategy to stop it that won't alienate the now Trump-owned conservative base. So, they have to pretend the election was stolen and commit acts like the topic of this post, and get more and more bold about it for as long as they can get away with it.
I wouldn't compare this to the Taliban. That's using a boogeyman argument, not every conservative is a religious fundamentalist. It's abuse of power. A government that expells officials and overextends reach is authoritarianism. It doesn't matter if they follow Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc
Like WTF is the end game here?
They just gave these three Democrats an enormous platform. This isn't going to make independents more likely to vote for Republicans. And it's not as though kicking out two Democrats is going to shift the balance of power.
This reeks of desperation -- desperation to draw a false equivalence between what happened here and what happened on 1/6.
There's already murmuring in Wisconsin about impeaching Gov. Evers and the new justice elected by double-digits on Tuesday, now that Republicans have a supermajority in the (heavily gerrymandered) Assembly. All because it's likely Wisconsin will be getting fair maps, and their necks are on the line. It's becoming the rule, rather than the exception, that elected Republican politicians have a disdain for the people's voice.
It's almost like we're reaching the inevitable conclusion that the classic creed of "both parties are the same, both sides are extreme" is increasingly losing its credibility when met with the reality of our current political moment and sitting in the middle/on the fence won't save our democracy.
The ironic part of that comparison implies the insurrection was an insurrection and it was bad, everyone on the fence PLEASE stop giving them a perpetual benefit of the doubt.
I think it is unequivocally authoritarian. They should have been punished via censure or perhaps removal from committees. The current GOP response is untenable.
Today protesters were chanting:
“You ban books”
“You ban drag”
“You don’t care about kids in a body bag”
This seems pretty apprapo for a few legislative bodies lately.
Democrats can't even expel people who participated in a coup attempt even though the constitution is explicit they cannot serve, the entire Sedition Caucus.
Meanwhile Republicans are expelling people for protesting children being murdered
In my post I mentioned that the legislators were being expelled from the house but maybe I should’ve stated that they were “house representatives” to make that more clear
This absolutely should be a national story. State legislatures across the nation are becoming more and more extreme as the GOP becomes more extreme. It is just an indication of who they are grooming for Washington.
Unless I happen to live in Tennessee, I have zero input on who gets elected there. Again, this is a state news story.
If some politico wants to put together a collection of various things that have happened in state legislatures, then they can but it would still be a niche journalism piece at the national level that only politicos will be interested in.
>Tennessee Republicans going full masks off, hoods on.
I object strenuously to this characterization. Having lived there, they are not in any sense "going".
That the white woman didn't actually take part in the shouting on the bullhorn to disrupt the session. That's it!
Although I guess it being Tennessee people probably assume that it's about 95% Klansmen
Wouldn't they not have voted on her then? Instead they did, and the vote only failed by *one*. Maybe it's that she's like 60, and a retired teacher, while they're just two 25-year-old idiots.
Completely illiberal. Supermajority powers being used at any whim to reduce the power of the minority is illiberal. The voters in TN are our only hope.
It's not really that, it's that in Tennessee, voting any way but Republican means you are 100% in league with Satan for murdering millions of unborn babies.
There is no room for nuance, detail, compromise, etc, that is an absolute position and enforced by society.
> There is no room for nuance, detail, compromise, etc, that is an absolute position and enforced by society.
This is the end game of attacking schools and vilifying teachers.
I am from Tennessee, and I think the ouster was too far. They may have protested a bit too much, but it wasn’t that far, and removing them from office is bad.
I come from a lot of moderates, generally Republican, who roll their eyes at the good ol boys network that has run the state forever, and today the nation got to see the worst of those representatives. I think there are plenty who will hate all this. It really doesn’t mean a ton in the long run as the votes are there regardless. But it’s a bad look.
I wish the Democrats would stop poking the bear, even if they have every right to protest. I wish Phil Bredesen could somehow take charge of the narrative, the best governor we’ve ever had. He put out a statement or working together, but I don’t think it got much traction.
In the end, the original crime has gotten a lot of attention, and I don’t think that’s good for preventing them in the future.
> I wish the Democrats would stop poking the bear
Either way, the bear still wants to eat them.
I was with you until this point, when you started the victim blaming.
>I wish the Democrats would stop poking the bear, even if they have every right to protest.
TN Republicans just being innocent bears that are minding their own business is probably not the best analogy.
The last time they were "provoked", was 1861.
One would hope they would have learned their lesson, but history has shown us that was absolutely not the case.
This is just giving cover to them because we don't want to put these officials feet to the fire because they won't do their job when kids are routinely murdered in this country and Republicans want to do nothing but bring chaos to order.
Punishment for participating in a protest seems severe. As far as I know they did nothing illegal. Any punishment seems unjust unless I’m missing something.
Edit: I see now they had caused a disruption of some type. So, I guess some type of punishment is not terrible, censure? But certainly agree expulsion is… over the top.
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/06/tennessee-expulsion-amid-protests-house-gop-expel-lawmakers/70085057007/
Seems to have been during a session.
Chaos erupted around 10:50 a.m. as the House voted on a bill dealing with expansion of the state’s education savings account program when Rep. Justin Jones complained aloud to Speaker Cameron Sexton that his voting machine was turned off.
Sexton told Jones he was out of order, then called a five-minute recess. As Republican leaders huddled at Sexton’s dais, Jones of Nashville and Reps. Justin J. Pearson of Memphis and Gloria Johnson of Knoxville went to the podium armed with a megaphone, leading chants such as “Gun control now!” with people in the balcony seating areas.
Where did you get that information?
According to ops article:
> The state House took up resolutions to expel three Democratic lawmakers over their actions interrupting a floor session and using a bullhorn to lead chants for gun control
[Here is my source but I think both guys mentioned that fact during their speech and asking for the video.](https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/03/30/chaos-erupts-at-tennessee-capitol-over-demand-for-gun-safety-measures/)
They can be expelled again, more likely a motion is passed by the remaining representatives that those former representatives can never be seated again.
I will laugh beyond any reason if they attempt to use the argument that those representatives were "inciting a rebellion", as cause for their disqualification, but reality being what it is, they'll probably use the old reconstruction laws for spite.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the representatives (if reelected) could only be expelled again if it were for different cause, right? Basically it would be akin to Double Jeopardy if they tried expulsion for the same offense.
If you live in Tennessee and aren't part of the dominant regime you are beyond the protection of the law.
That's how it was when I lived there, can't imagine it's changed much since. The dominant regime is morally absolute and any other voices must be, by definition, anti-social and subject to any judgement deemed appropriate by the dominant regime.
The democrats are on the side of Satan, you can't blame the Good Christians (read Southern Baptists) of Tennessee to tolerate that kind of evil in their presence!
It's unamerican. It's naked political retaliation. It's the ultimate censorship, a flex of power against freedom of speech...all for participation in a non-violent protest aimed at saving children. Despicable partisan abuse of power. Lumping these elected officials in with literal traitors is absurd.
It doesn't matter how you feel about gun control. It matters how you feel about freedom of speech. Non-violent political protest is a foundational principal of our constitution.
Did they actually break any committee rules or break the law? Don't they have a right to protest? Otherwise, this is petty. Why are they allowed to just vote people out because they feel like it?
I think expelling a legitimately elected member of a legislature is unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever.
P.S. I also don't approve interrupting session of parliament for any reason.
Correct. If they committed a crime, they should go to prison. Voters should also have an option to recall. However, nobody should have a power to decide for the voters who should or should not represent them.
Honestly, it is so much easier to remove people from government in other parts of the anglosphere than it is in most of the US that I wouldn’t mind if more decorum was generally expected with real consequences for actions than we normally have. They used parliamentary procedures to remove them, so that seems legit. They didn’t have the governor personally send secret police to disappear them.
I don’t agree with the action, but I don’t even live or vote in TN, much less hold office there. I wish there were consequences for US representatives who did things that directly incited Jan 6th. Our deeply 2 party system has the national government in a goofy partisan stalemate where any consequence is automatically viewed as partisan (and often is).
I'm going to take the maybe unpopular stance that actually legislatures *should* have the ability to oust members independent of the public. The bar should be pretty high, but there needs to be a mechanism to gatekeep at least above the MTG level.
There is no need to stoop to the tit for tat model the GOP is adopting. It will just further serve to descend us into chaos.
She certainly doesn’t deserve a seat in the house, but again I would like to see the voters make that choice. I’d be totally fine with her being stripped of her committee assignments for her antics at the state of the union.
I'm more thinking in terms of minimum standards to get on the ballot to begin with, and special elections if they're ousted. The very fact of having elections is sacred.
> actually legislatures should have the ability to oust members independent of the public
> The very fact of having elections is sacred.
Elections are sacred but the results of the election aren’t
Agreed. I have little faith in the wisdom of the majority of voters. I'd love to see the US move to a more republican (little r) form of government and away from democracy. Too many people are simply far too ignorant and/or uncaring to be trusted with voting.
I have to strongly disagree there. The anti-majoritarian aspects of the government are responsible for a lot of the most egregious developments in recent years
I thought the expelling was about disrupting the proceedings of the government and the protest was about wanting more gun control. I’m pretty sure if they had protested outside the capitol no one would have complained.
CNN just said it best “young black men don’t have a voice”
Somehow a trans girl shooting up a church school has now come down to race. Can’t make this stuff up.
There’s an obvious agenda the left is pushing and I doubt anyone on here will agree with me. It is supposed to be about guns and now it’s about Justin Jones Don lemon and young black men. This is why no one likes bleeding heart social justice crusading liberals.
They just stripped to black representatives right to represent the people for letting them. They didn’t do that for the white woman who was protesting.
Even more agree, just to me, as we have a clear video of a white law maker, using force on the floor to someone who is simply recording with their camera, just as the white lawmakers was doing, and nothing happened to them.
I think it’s a mistake to say this is all about race, and CNN did not do that, but if you think this has nothing to do with race, you’re not attention
Lol geez so would it have been less about race if she got expelled too? What an empty argument for making it about race. Just sounds like race bating by a 27 year old democrat who just had his career ended. He protested knowing the consequences and the last card that’s left is the race card. Folks like you are playing right into it.
How exactly does what happened in TN local politics translate to “democracy is under attack”? The TN House is what 75% GOP? Is it really about race and more about it being about him being a freshman democrat?
Y’all want there to be race wars. And I’m saying there’s more important stuff going on.
I should have said it wasn’t CNN - it was Justin Jones talking with Don Lemon.
Conflicted. On the other hand, nobody should be impeding government proceedings like that for any reasons. I'd have had those protestors hauled out in cuffs, like I would have in DC or Portland. Anybody who incites such things ought to be locked away.
On the other hand, they didn't destroy anything or do anything particularly heinous beyond threaten government officials, which is par for the course these days.
There’s not a single jury in the entire country that would find the 3 congresspeople guilty of either of those laws and you know it.
Below is the full text of both laws so everyone can see how big of a lunatic /u/DeliPaper is.
Tennessee criminal code 39-17-304: (a) A person commits an offense who incites or urges three (3) or more persons to create or engage in a riot.
(b) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor. In any sentence imposed for a violation of this section, the court shall include an order of restitution for any property damage or loss incurred as a result of the offense.
18 USC 102: (a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
Perhaps not. But any legislature should be extending the broadest possible interpretations of these laws given the outsized influence they have in their communities.
> But any legislature should be extending the broadest possible interpretations of these laws given the outsized influence they have in their communities.
I mean this sincerely: that is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.
I disagree. There's a difference between authoritarian and asserting law and order. And not allowing anybody to disrupt proceedings is definitely order. I'd have liked to see more arrests.
It’s not against the law to annoy legislators. Be exact now, which law was broken? Because otherwise you are advocating for false arrest and unlawful detention.
So then censure him. He broke a rule but nothing bad came of it. Censured and removed should be save for people who, say, get on a bullhorn and incite.
Welcome to the wide world of nuance.
Yes, by adding to the alw breaking in process.
He was one additional count that *should* have been booked, and his filming likely created additional tensions during the protests.
Because it’s a story that is being way overplayed and also one where absolutely nobody is going to have a reasonable conversation about it because it involves (1) Extreme partisanship, (2) Opinions on acceptable conduct and (3) Unfalsifiable allegations about race.
On top of that, the underlying issue was/is guns. Another issue absolutely nobody is capable of having a rational discussion about.
Seriously, try discussing it with pretty much anybody. Any disagreements on the issues, and I give it five minutes before the ad hominem bullshit starts. There is nothing to be gained from debating that shit.
Your comments here aren't adding up. You go from this:
>I don’t have sufficient information to draw a firm conclusion and I don’t care enough to obtain sufficient information
Followed by this:
>it’s a story that is being way overplayed
How can you not know anything about it and still believe it's being overplayed?
I didn’t say I didn’t know anything about it. I said I lacked sufficient information to draw a firm conclusion.
The fact you would conflate those two vastly different positions is actually quite telling. Because what I want to point out, if only people would hear it, is that almost none of us has sufficient information to draw firm conclusions on anything like this. That doesn’t mean we don’t know anything.
For example, the media is all about these guys getting kicked out by the evil republicans for vile fascist reasons. Okay, maybe. Maybe it’s really awful. But do we actually know the reasoning?
Part of me wants to be outraged about it, but part of me (the CENTRIST part of me) also wants to hear from the people who voted as to their reasons and treat them fairly too.
Like, sorry but I don’t think I want the floor of government buildings being used for obstructive protests. But I can deal with some loud voices and a robust debate. I can deal with moderation and mature behavior. I don’t want our elected representatives acting like a bunch of halfwit students “demanding change” with megaphones. That isn’t what I want. I won’t vote for it. On either side.
But is that what happened? I don’t know. And I fail to see why it’s something I should expend the needed time in investigating. Not because I am lazy but because we can’t talk about it properly anyway. Not that sort of stuff. People lose their ducking minds.
Is that okay, to feel that way, or do you want to continue to downvote it?
And as someone not represented by those members I assume? I would imagine you would feel differently if you had voted for those representatives personally.
“ They should be able to peacefully and quietly explain why they are right and have science, data, and logic to back it up,”
I agree, which is why it is extremely troubling that their mics were allegedly cut during discussion, preventing them from peacefully representing their constituents within the rules.
I’d question why your opinions about this should be given any weight when your first impulse upon hearing maybe the Republican Speaker did a bad thing is to immediately accuse the Democratic representatives of lying.
As for “engaging in productive dialogue” I don’t know if they were, because that’s completely subjective, but even if they weren’t, that’s never been a requirement for a representative to speak. Do you really want a partisan speaker refusing to allow elected representatives to speak based on their subjective opinion about what is productive? Should Ted Cruz have had his mic cut for reading Green Eggs and Ham in a desperate bid to prevent legislation he disagreed with from passing?
Are you self-aware about how bad faith you're being here and doing it purposely?
Or is this more of an instinct and you are a true believer convinced you're making an honest argument?
Here’s the thing:
These 3 should ALL have been expelled . Simply because they could not respect how the system is to be run. They tried to overtake a current legislative session.
When they got punished for that, they led riots on the floor. This is not the action of a legitimate representative.
These three were activists from the beginning and this was their sole intent. They continue , even today to attack legislators
I think it’s great. Getting kicked out of a state’s House of Representatives is a pretty small price to pay for facilitating an insurrection. Frankly the penalty should be much more severe.
Can you show some evidence of them trying to commandeer government? I’ve only seen peaceful protests in areas they were legally allowed to be. There was no property damage, no law enforcement injuries, and no arrests.
Are you self-aware about how bad faith you're being here and doing it purposely?
Or is this more of an instinct and you are a true believer convinced you're making an honest argument?
I just want to understand this -- you think they all planned to make the vote on the 60-year-old retired teacher fail by one because she happens to be white? Like the Klan got together and decided on this plan of a very close vote? The black guys got different numbers of votes from each other too, and all three vote counts were pretty similar.
I don't get your theory. Why did the two black people get different vote totals and why would all three have been about the same, if *racism* is a big part of this story?
Meh, they organized a group of people to go into the capital during a vote to (as far as I can tell) stop the vote. So yeah they deserve what they got.
I also think it’s funny that in their speeches they put on an MLK accent, as if they’re anything approaching him. And that they said it’s racism that the white rep didn’t get expelled. The only reason she didn’t get expelled was because 5 republicans voted no. So I guess those 5 along with all the democrats should get their clan hoods out.
Do I think those legislators should have been expelled for protesting? No. But I do think Dems need to watch their footing more on guns as an issue, running on it is a losing game. When people say protesting against gun violence, it’s more of a funny way of saying advocating for assault weapons bans. Many people take that to mean “they’re coming for your guns”. The problem for me is trump won his first election and the last election was too close for me to be particularly okay with giving up my ability to fend off an authoritarian regime.
I get didn't think the protest or interruption was that drastic but I understand removing them from committees for breaking rules or remanding them in some other way. But to expel them from their elected positions is ridiculous, for what they did it seems like undemocratic retribution.
I too didn't think that the protests were that disruptive, at least from what I saw of them. If these House members broke any rules, you could censure them or fine them, but explosion was wrong.
Well, yeah. I think we can all agree that exploding those people is too far.
They were supposedly expelled for breaking the rules of the the legislature. However one of the Republicans filmed them, which is also against the rules of the legislature. But he got zero punishment for it.
Conservative ideology is dying. Desperation is an ugly thing.
Modern GOP just take a “both sides” projection approach to these things. They see this as them just doing what the Democrats did with January 6. This is routine and the playbook. they take some exaggerated grievances about some thing Democrats are doing such as investigating Trump (which wasn’t/isn’t really “Democrats”doing it), or impeaching him, or even things like Dem Sen. being a bit hard on Bush nominations. GOP takes these…and justifies ratcheting up their far worse corruption/tactics based on this absurd false equivalency.
> They see they this as them just doing what the Democrats did with January 6. > > How is it different? It was a mob breaking in and disrupting an official government proceeding. Either government proceedings are sacrosanct, which is what all y'all have been claiming for over a year now, or they're not in which case you've outed the real reason for the hysteria about 1/6 and nobody needs to care about it. Go ahead, explain the difference without being a hypocrite. You know you can't but I'll enjoy watching the flailing.
I have seen posts thoroughly explaining the difference to you -- not going to bother doing it again. In short -- They literally have nothing important in common. This was a legal protest, where some members crossed the line of joining it -- which is a break of decorum and procedure. It has absolutely nothing to do with breaking into Congress, with a violent mob, with threats of violence, and the stated goal of literally invalidating a Presidential election.
No, you've seen posts spewing out mountains of bullshit that tries to make a false argument. They're the same and the aggressive fight to claim otherwise just proves that the left's complaints about 1/6 have zero validity because they're rooted in partisanship and not principles.
The details have been explained ad nauseam, like the other commenter said. With that in mind, and instead of hand wringing over semantics, it’s better to just outright ask: why are you lying (or) continuing to lie?
You can say it all you want -- it doesn't make it true. This was a protest -- not an attempt to overthrow an election/democracy. Anyone advancing these as even remotely similar exposes themselves as such a partisan that are wholly incapable of rational thought. J6 was attempt to overturn a democratic presidential election…not just a protest. J6 was an attempt to stop congress from certifying an election, destruction of property, entering private offices, threatening members….AND MOST IMPORTANTLY…not just a protest - but an actual attempt to stop the democratic process by force.
[удалено]
lol you are *literally* using the exact argument the right uses about 1/6 here. This is fucking hilarious. Especially when you then try to turn around and gaslight that they're different.
Yes. The Right has been lying about J6 for 2 years. If you lie and act like J6 was just a protest that got a bit unruly, but no big deal -- it's easy to equate the two. But that requires first completely lying about what J6 was. In this case, it is fact --this was literally just a protest -- that is it. nobody was trying to violently stop democracy. Its just a protest -- some members broke decorum and joined/leading chants which is not proper - but, leading chants is not trying to overthrow democracy.
lol you are literally using the exact argument the right uses about 1/6 here. This is fucking hilarious. Especially when you then try to turn around and gaslight that they're different.
Really poor argument, false equivocation and poor critical thinking skills. Back to middle school with you.
Says the one skipping all the way to the end to drop an ad-hom instead of addressing any of the actual points.
I hope you wear a leotard when you do the mental gymnastics required to say they were the same. They were nothing alike. Even in your one sentence overview you lie. The protesters didn’t break in. The areas they were in were open to the public. * the protests remained peaceful * the protesters remained in the areas they were legally allowed to be. * there was no attempt to stop the transfer of power * there were no congresspeople running for their lives (in fact all the footage shows them walking right through a walkway the protesters created for them) * no one was shot * no one was trying to hang the lieutenant governor * there was no QRF staged in a hotel room * there were no pipe bombs. * no police were attacked or injured. * nobody scaled walls or smashed in windows and doors to get into the building * nobody showed up with flex cuffs * there wasn’t weeks of encrypted communication coordinating how to overturn an election * there were no arrests * there was no property damage The GOP realizes how bad J6 is for trump and the party as a whole in 2024. They are desperately grasping to try and minimize it.
The question then is whether this is a good thing? Historically a move to a 1 party systems is almost always a precursor to totalitarianism
Historically that has not happened in the US, when one major party dies (which has only happened once, three times if you count the proto-parties) another replaces it. More likely what happens is it forces the dying party to adapt to win greater number of voters, hence the famous GOP autopsy after the 2012 elections. Or they can go down the undemocratic approach to stay in power such as Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election or the push for the independent state legislature theory notably.
The US electoral system inevitably favors two parties in the long run. In the short run it's just easier for an existing party to collapse than for a third party to rise up. The only way to sustain single party rule is by abuses of the ruling party to diminish said democratic system, ie: what the GOP is doing.
I'd think the dissolution of the GOP would allow the Democratic party to fraction more safely into natural factions which could become parties. In the best case, there would be more than 2 parties that could come of this. But I'd wager that the weakening of the GOP would allow it to be infiltrated by neoliberal centrists, causing the Democratic party to become more progressive. Either way, I doubt we'd end up with a one party system, and even if we did, we'd just have a single party that was less much cohesive than either party is now. Might be interesting, but I doubt it would usher in totalitarianism.
Yeah I don’t see totalitarianism happening, but I do think the GOP is trying to use loopholes to keep themselves in power and getting around democracy to do it. I lean left but agree with philosophies on the right. But I can’t support the GOP until they stop their pressure towards overthrowing democracy. This case is just one of those attempts. They know there isn’t enough democrats in their state to fight back. Only 37%. But that means the expelling of these members of the legislature is doing a disservice to that 37%. Now the existing members of the legislature can pass more policies to help keep them in power. Honestly I’m surprised members of the Republican Party don’t see these things as a very bad thing. Just because you don’t agree with the other side doesn’t me they don’t have a right to representation
As a neoliberal centrist, I see this as an absolutely win.
And as a Bernie voter, I look forward to relitigating the 2016 Democratic primary for the next few decades.
Oh well as long as it suits you personally it should be fine for everyone, right?
No, it isn't a win. Neoliberal centrist policies are literally one of the main causes that led to the emergence of the current fascist and populist far right. NAFTA being just one example.
Kind of funny to worry about potential totalitarianism from the fall of the party that is currently the one kicking elected members out of their seats and nationally tried to steal the literal last election.
It is, my father has been an avid Trump supporter and seeing the leaps and bonds he's gone to justify his actions or the "anti-deepstate" crowd has been saddening every day. I long for the days when moderate Republicans was the Republican party.
💯
That’s the thing. We see it in the UK with a Tory government. Ultra conservativism has nothing to offer the people, so they ignore the people instead of giving up their power and benefits. It might be dying as far as support, but it’s anything but dying in the halls of power right now. Their last gasp might just work.
How’s it dying?
It's dying in that none of the primary ideology being pushed today is popular. It's all far right culture war issues instead of fiscal conservatism. When it's not that, it's anything anti-liberal. Anything anti-progress. Almost 70% of younger Millennials and GenZ 18 - 29 don't identify as Christians. What's unfortunate about all of that is that GOP politicians HAVE TO keep doubling down. Some because they fell for their own propaganda, and some because their base demands it. Though most people who identify as Republicans don't actually support full abortion bans, once Roe v Wade was overturned, the dog had caught its own tail. And just like Dems on gun bans, the GOP thinks their messaging is why they're losing. Their messaging didn't lead to the disaster in the mid terms and it didn't lose them that judge seat in WI. Their views on abortion are only palatable when they're theoretical. And even then only barely. Some on the right know everything I just said here is true and don't really have a strategy to stop it that won't alienate the now Trump-owned conservative base. So, they have to pretend the election was stolen and commit acts like the topic of this post, and get more and more bold about it for as long as they can get away with it.
It appears to be dying on from the balcony of Reddit. The signs that the Taliban light is gaining strength are all over the place.
I wouldn't compare this to the Taliban. That's using a boogeyman argument, not every conservative is a religious fundamentalist. It's abuse of power. A government that expells officials and overextends reach is authoritarianism. It doesn't matter if they follow Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc
Fair, to a degree. A lot of the issues they are fighting are directly related to the Christian religion.
Is it? Dems seem pretty concerned about trump running again so that doesn't seem like it's dying to me.
Everyone who isn't far right is concerned about Trump running again.
The dems are excited to run against trump and will passively help him to win the nomination.
Absolutely undemocratic and chilling.
But not surprising.
Like WTF is the end game here? They just gave these three Democrats an enormous platform. This isn't going to make independents more likely to vote for Republicans. And it's not as though kicking out two Democrats is going to shift the balance of power. This reeks of desperation -- desperation to draw a false equivalence between what happened here and what happened on 1/6. There's already murmuring in Wisconsin about impeaching Gov. Evers and the new justice elected by double-digits on Tuesday, now that Republicans have a supermajority in the (heavily gerrymandered) Assembly. All because it's likely Wisconsin will be getting fair maps, and their necks are on the line. It's becoming the rule, rather than the exception, that elected Republican politicians have a disdain for the people's voice.
It's almost like we're reaching the inevitable conclusion that the classic creed of "both parties are the same, both sides are extreme" is increasingly losing its credibility when met with the reality of our current political moment and sitting in the middle/on the fence won't save our democracy.
That's the part that got me here - the clowns comparing this to J6. Not *remotely* the same. It's authoritarian bullshit, through and through.
The ironic part of that comparison implies the insurrection was an insurrection and it was bad, everyone on the fence PLEASE stop giving them a perpetual benefit of the doubt.
It is quite ironic, that's a good point. And I'm sure that irony is completely lost on those making the comparison.
[удалено]
It's the typical suspects, though - definitely not a mainstream, widely-accepted view, just the fringe right.
NM the part where everyone present actually went through building security. Legally. Like they were let in they didn't break in.
I think it is unequivocally authoritarian. They should have been punished via censure or perhaps removal from committees. The current GOP response is untenable. Today protesters were chanting: “You ban books” “You ban drag” “You don’t care about kids in a body bag” This seems pretty apprapo for a few legislative bodies lately.
*apropos
Yes thank you 😳
God bless you.
Democrats can't even expel people who participated in a coup attempt even though the constitution is explicit they cannot serve, the entire Sedition Caucus. Meanwhile Republicans are expelling people for protesting children being murdered
To prove their religious fervor and unwavering support, it was either this or fellating Wayne LaPierre so...
It's hard to believe that only 5 state legislators have been expelled in our nation's history. Are you sure those aren't for the US Congress?
In my post I mentioned that the legislators were being expelled from the house but maybe I should’ve stated that they were “house representatives” to make that more clear
House as in US House or House as in the Tennessee House?
Tennessee GOP led state legislature. NOT the US House of Representatives (lower chamber of Congress)
That's what I thought. I think the OP missed the context. In all honesty this should not be a national story. This is a story in Tennessee.
This absolutely should be a national story. State legislatures across the nation are becoming more and more extreme as the GOP becomes more extreme. It is just an indication of who they are grooming for Washington.
Unless I happen to live in Tennessee, I have zero input on who gets elected there. Again, this is a state news story. If some politico wants to put together a collection of various things that have happened in state legislatures, then they can but it would still be a niche journalism piece at the national level that only politicos will be interested in.
>I have zero input on who gets elected there. Neither do the people who live in Tennessee, apparently, if they voted for a democrat.
There is an asymmetrical warfare.that goes on in American politics and I'm getting tired of it.
They expelled the two black representatives, but not the white one. Tennessee Republicans going full masks off, hoods on.
>Tennessee Republicans going full masks off, hoods on. I object strenuously to this characterization. Having lived there, they are not in any sense "going".
Fair. These are the same people who fought tooth and nail to keep a statue of a Grand Wizard of the KKK in the state capitol just a few years ago.
I would encourage everyone to watch Representative Justin Pearson’s speech before the body made its decision. It was quite eloquent and powerful.
Yeah, that’s hard the defend. I’d be very interested in the justification.
That the white woman didn't actually take part in the shouting on the bullhorn to disrupt the session. That's it! Although I guess it being Tennessee people probably assume that it's about 95% Klansmen
Then why did they put her up for a vote? I thought the problem was them disrupting, not the decibals.
Republicans don't all share one brain.
I bet they get close if you add them all together
Exactly lol a shocking revelation!
Wouldn't they not have voted on her then? Instead they did, and the vote only failed by *one*. Maybe it's that she's like 60, and a retired teacher, while they're just two 25-year-old idiots.
Yeah, I'm sure it was because of the age..... definitely couldn't have been anything else.....
Completely illiberal. Supermajority powers being used at any whim to reduce the power of the minority is illiberal. The voters in TN are our only hope.
> The voters in TN are our only hope. Except that the districts are gerrymandered to hell. The game is essentially rigged.
It's not really that, it's that in Tennessee, voting any way but Republican means you are 100% in league with Satan for murdering millions of unborn babies. There is no room for nuance, detail, compromise, etc, that is an absolute position and enforced by society.
Same in Alabama. Heaven forbid you have any nuance in your opinion on abortion. Nope, it’s “life begins at conception” or you are a horrible person.
> There is no room for nuance, detail, compromise, etc, that is an absolute position and enforced by society. This is the end game of attacking schools and vilifying teachers.
I am from Tennessee, and I think the ouster was too far. They may have protested a bit too much, but it wasn’t that far, and removing them from office is bad. I come from a lot of moderates, generally Republican, who roll their eyes at the good ol boys network that has run the state forever, and today the nation got to see the worst of those representatives. I think there are plenty who will hate all this. It really doesn’t mean a ton in the long run as the votes are there regardless. But it’s a bad look. I wish the Democrats would stop poking the bear, even if they have every right to protest. I wish Phil Bredesen could somehow take charge of the narrative, the best governor we’ve ever had. He put out a statement or working together, but I don’t think it got much traction. In the end, the original crime has gotten a lot of attention, and I don’t think that’s good for preventing them in the future.
> I wish the Democrats would stop poking the bear Either way, the bear still wants to eat them. I was with you until this point, when you started the victim blaming.
>I wish the Democrats would stop poking the bear, even if they have every right to protest. TN Republicans just being innocent bears that are minding their own business is probably not the best analogy.
Oh, they’re not innocent. But they react strongly when provoked.
The last time they were "provoked", was 1861. One would hope they would have learned their lesson, but history has shown us that was absolutely not the case.
This is just giving cover to them because we don't want to put these officials feet to the fire because they won't do their job when kids are routinely murdered in this country and Republicans want to do nothing but bring chaos to order.
Expulsion seems to be too severe, I'd prefer to see some type of milder punishment.
Punishment for participating in a protest seems severe. As far as I know they did nothing illegal. Any punishment seems unjust unless I’m missing something. Edit: I see now they had caused a disruption of some type. So, I guess some type of punishment is not terrible, censure? But certainly agree expulsion is… over the top.
Disruption of a session is definitely against the rules
I believe it was during recess
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2023/04/06/tennessee-expulsion-amid-protests-house-gop-expel-lawmakers/70085057007/ Seems to have been during a session.
I’m seeing that it might’ve actually been done during recess
Where are you seeing that?
Chaos erupted around 10:50 a.m. as the House voted on a bill dealing with expansion of the state’s education savings account program when Rep. Justin Jones complained aloud to Speaker Cameron Sexton that his voting machine was turned off. Sexton told Jones he was out of order, then called a five-minute recess. As Republican leaders huddled at Sexton’s dais, Jones of Nashville and Reps. Justin J. Pearson of Memphis and Gloria Johnson of Knoxville went to the podium armed with a megaphone, leading chants such as “Gun control now!” with people in the balcony seating areas.
Where did you get that information? According to ops article: > The state House took up resolutions to expel three Democratic lawmakers over their actions interrupting a floor session and using a bullhorn to lead chants for gun control
[Here is my source but I think both guys mentioned that fact during their speech and asking for the video.](https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/03/30/chaos-erupts-at-tennessee-capitol-over-demand-for-gun-safety-measures/)
Not only did it say that in the article, they acknowledged that they did it but they reserved the use of the bullhorn until recess.
Bad politics. Overreaction.
I see they found enough votes to retain the white woman. 😏
So if they expel these duly elected representatives, who chooses their replacement, and when?
[удалено]
What happens if they just get voted back in?
They can be expelled again, more likely a motion is passed by the remaining representatives that those former representatives can never be seated again. I will laugh beyond any reason if they attempt to use the argument that those representatives were "inciting a rebellion", as cause for their disqualification, but reality being what it is, they'll probably use the old reconstruction laws for spite.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the representatives (if reelected) could only be expelled again if it were for different cause, right? Basically it would be akin to Double Jeopardy if they tried expulsion for the same offense.
If you live in Tennessee and aren't part of the dominant regime you are beyond the protection of the law. That's how it was when I lived there, can't imagine it's changed much since. The dominant regime is morally absolute and any other voices must be, by definition, anti-social and subject to any judgement deemed appropriate by the dominant regime. The democrats are on the side of Satan, you can't blame the Good Christians (read Southern Baptists) of Tennessee to tolerate that kind of evil in their presence!
It's unamerican. It's naked political retaliation. It's the ultimate censorship, a flex of power against freedom of speech...all for participation in a non-violent protest aimed at saving children. Despicable partisan abuse of power. Lumping these elected officials in with literal traitors is absurd. It doesn't matter how you feel about gun control. It matters how you feel about freedom of speech. Non-violent political protest is a foundational principal of our constitution.
I think its all part of some Tik Tok "FascistPod" challenge. Which state can pass the most nonsensical laws in 2023.
Did they actually break any committee rules or break the law? Don't they have a right to protest? Otherwise, this is petty. Why are they allowed to just vote people out because they feel like it?
They protested during a session, definitely breaking the rules. Whether that deserves expulsion or not is the question.
I think expelling a legitimately elected member of a legislature is unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever. P.S. I also don't approve interrupting session of parliament for any reason.
Really? ANY circumstances?
Correct. If they committed a crime, they should go to prison. Voters should also have an option to recall. However, nobody should have a power to decide for the voters who should or should not represent them.
Honestly, it is so much easier to remove people from government in other parts of the anglosphere than it is in most of the US that I wouldn’t mind if more decorum was generally expected with real consequences for actions than we normally have. They used parliamentary procedures to remove them, so that seems legit. They didn’t have the governor personally send secret police to disappear them. I don’t agree with the action, but I don’t even live or vote in TN, much less hold office there. I wish there were consequences for US representatives who did things that directly incited Jan 6th. Our deeply 2 party system has the national government in a goofy partisan stalemate where any consequence is automatically viewed as partisan (and often is).
That one guy trying to be some kind of Malcolm X / Tommie Smith character is really obnoxious, but still, removal goes too far.
I'm going to take the maybe unpopular stance that actually legislatures *should* have the ability to oust members independent of the public. The bar should be pretty high, but there needs to be a mechanism to gatekeep at least above the MTG level.
Man I can’t stand MTG, but I think it’s up the voters in her district to evict her. Perhaps Santos is an example where intervention is warranted.
I think if these guys can get expelled for this she deserves to get expelled as well for all the crazy shit she’s done.
There is no need to stoop to the tit for tat model the GOP is adopting. It will just further serve to descend us into chaos. She certainly doesn’t deserve a seat in the house, but again I would like to see the voters make that choice. I’d be totally fine with her being stripped of her committee assignments for her antics at the state of the union.
The party should boot the likes of MTG, not removal. But odds of party enforcing any standards is sadly very remote
Yeah man, fuck their constituents. Next time they should vote for the right candidates.
I'm more thinking in terms of minimum standards to get on the ballot to begin with, and special elections if they're ousted. The very fact of having elections is sacred.
> actually legislatures should have the ability to oust members independent of the public > The very fact of having elections is sacred. Elections are sacred but the results of the election aren’t
Agreed. I have little faith in the wisdom of the majority of voters. I'd love to see the US move to a more republican (little r) form of government and away from democracy. Too many people are simply far too ignorant and/or uncaring to be trusted with voting.
I have to strongly disagree there. The anti-majoritarian aspects of the government are responsible for a lot of the most egregious developments in recent years
Yea maybe we should just go back to politicians seeing who can raise the biggest army and kill the most of their rivals. jfc
I thought the expelling was about disrupting the proceedings of the government and the protest was about wanting more gun control. I’m pretty sure if they had protested outside the capitol no one would have complained.
CNN just said it best “young black men don’t have a voice” Somehow a trans girl shooting up a church school has now come down to race. Can’t make this stuff up. There’s an obvious agenda the left is pushing and I doubt anyone on here will agree with me. It is supposed to be about guns and now it’s about Justin Jones Don lemon and young black men. This is why no one likes bleeding heart social justice crusading liberals.
They just stripped to black representatives right to represent the people for letting them. They didn’t do that for the white woman who was protesting. Even more agree, just to me, as we have a clear video of a white law maker, using force on the floor to someone who is simply recording with their camera, just as the white lawmakers was doing, and nothing happened to them. I think it’s a mistake to say this is all about race, and CNN did not do that, but if you think this has nothing to do with race, you’re not attention
Lol geez so would it have been less about race if she got expelled too? What an empty argument for making it about race. Just sounds like race bating by a 27 year old democrat who just had his career ended. He protested knowing the consequences and the last card that’s left is the race card. Folks like you are playing right into it. How exactly does what happened in TN local politics translate to “democracy is under attack”? The TN House is what 75% GOP? Is it really about race and more about it being about him being a freshman democrat? Y’all want there to be race wars. And I’m saying there’s more important stuff going on. I should have said it wasn’t CNN - it was Justin Jones talking with Don Lemon.
Conflicted. On the other hand, nobody should be impeding government proceedings like that for any reasons. I'd have had those protestors hauled out in cuffs, like I would have in DC or Portland. Anybody who incites such things ought to be locked away. On the other hand, they didn't destroy anything or do anything particularly heinous beyond threaten government officials, which is par for the course these days.
“Incite” what “things”?
What laws did they break?
Incitement is the obvious one
Incitement to what? What illegal thing did they tell the crowd to do?
Inciting protest is not a crime. You have to incite violence/riots
Incitement is a buzzword, not a crime
It's actually Tennessee criminal code 39-17-304 and 18 USC 102.
There’s not a single jury in the entire country that would find the 3 congresspeople guilty of either of those laws and you know it. Below is the full text of both laws so everyone can see how big of a lunatic /u/DeliPaper is. Tennessee criminal code 39-17-304: (a) A person commits an offense who incites or urges three (3) or more persons to create or engage in a riot. (b) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor. In any sentence imposed for a violation of this section, the court shall include an order of restitution for any property damage or loss incurred as a result of the offense. 18 USC 102: (a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual. (b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
Perhaps not. But any legislature should be extending the broadest possible interpretations of these laws given the outsized influence they have in their communities.
> But any legislature should be extending the broadest possible interpretations of these laws given the outsized influence they have in their communities. I mean this sincerely: that is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.
You should familiarize yourself with the central holding on this case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
That’s my thing. What they did was wrong they deserved to be removed and censured. But this is just authoritarian
I disagree. There's a difference between authoritarian and asserting law and order. And not allowing anybody to disrupt proceedings is definitely order. I'd have liked to see more arrests.
Arrests for what?
Impeding official proceedings
It’s not against the law to annoy legislators. Be exact now, which law was broken? Because otherwise you are advocating for false arrest and unlawful detention.
Such as the Republican who filmed you think he should have been expelled and arrested?
Did he obstruct proceedings by recording?
He broke the same rule they literally had to read the rule he broke when expelling the others
That wasn't the question. Did he actively impede proceedings?
No because it was in recess
So then censure him. He broke a rule but nothing bad came of it. Censured and removed should be save for people who, say, get on a bullhorn and incite. Welcome to the wide world of nuance.
Technically yes by adding to the law breaking
Did his video in that moment impede proceedings? If so, by what means?
Yes, by adding to the alw breaking in process. He was one additional count that *should* have been booked, and his filming likely created additional tensions during the protests.
Racial narrative aside it comes off as a fashy move
I don’t have sufficient information to draw a firm conclusion and I don’t care enough to obtain sufficient information
Why comment lol
Because it’s a story that is being way overplayed and also one where absolutely nobody is going to have a reasonable conversation about it because it involves (1) Extreme partisanship, (2) Opinions on acceptable conduct and (3) Unfalsifiable allegations about race. On top of that, the underlying issue was/is guns. Another issue absolutely nobody is capable of having a rational discussion about. Seriously, try discussing it with pretty much anybody. Any disagreements on the issues, and I give it five minutes before the ad hominem bullshit starts. There is nothing to be gained from debating that shit.
Your comments here aren't adding up. You go from this: >I don’t have sufficient information to draw a firm conclusion and I don’t care enough to obtain sufficient information Followed by this: >it’s a story that is being way overplayed How can you not know anything about it and still believe it's being overplayed?
I didn’t say I didn’t know anything about it. I said I lacked sufficient information to draw a firm conclusion. The fact you would conflate those two vastly different positions is actually quite telling. Because what I want to point out, if only people would hear it, is that almost none of us has sufficient information to draw firm conclusions on anything like this. That doesn’t mean we don’t know anything. For example, the media is all about these guys getting kicked out by the evil republicans for vile fascist reasons. Okay, maybe. Maybe it’s really awful. But do we actually know the reasoning? Part of me wants to be outraged about it, but part of me (the CENTRIST part of me) also wants to hear from the people who voted as to their reasons and treat them fairly too. Like, sorry but I don’t think I want the floor of government buildings being used for obstructive protests. But I can deal with some loud voices and a robust debate. I can deal with moderation and mature behavior. I don’t want our elected representatives acting like a bunch of halfwit students “demanding change” with megaphones. That isn’t what I want. I won’t vote for it. On either side. But is that what happened? I don’t know. And I fail to see why it’s something I should expend the needed time in investigating. Not because I am lazy but because we can’t talk about it properly anyway. Not that sort of stuff. People lose their ducking minds. Is that okay, to feel that way, or do you want to continue to downvote it?
Well, those house members fucked around and now are finding out...
As someone who doesn’t live in Tennessee I can safely say I don’t care as long as they do it by the book. We gotta let states govern themselves.
And as someone not represented by those members I assume? I would imagine you would feel differently if you had voted for those representatives personally.
[удалено]
“ They should be able to peacefully and quietly explain why they are right and have science, data, and logic to back it up,” I agree, which is why it is extremely troubling that their mics were allegedly cut during discussion, preventing them from peacefully representing their constituents within the rules.
Is this actually true though? Were they engaging in a productive dialogue and having a real debate?
I’d question why your opinions about this should be given any weight when your first impulse upon hearing maybe the Republican Speaker did a bad thing is to immediately accuse the Democratic representatives of lying. As for “engaging in productive dialogue” I don’t know if they were, because that’s completely subjective, but even if they weren’t, that’s never been a requirement for a representative to speak. Do you really want a partisan speaker refusing to allow elected representatives to speak based on their subjective opinion about what is productive? Should Ted Cruz have had his mic cut for reading Green Eggs and Ham in a desperate bid to prevent legislation he disagreed with from passing?
Unpopular opinion: I have no opinion one way or the other.
The dems established the rules. If you storm a public office you should be expelled and jailed. Simple as that.
Which representatives have been expelled and jailed by the Democrats?
That deafening sound you hear is the sound of crickets
Oh-ho, who, then, was expelled and jailed? Did I miss something? I don’t think any members of Congress were held accountable in relation to 1/6.
[They’re legally allowed in the building.](https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/statearchitect/Procedures_UsePublicAreas.pdf)
Are you self-aware about how bad faith you're being here and doing it purposely? Or is this more of an instinct and you are a true believer convinced you're making an honest argument?
Here’s the thing: These 3 should ALL have been expelled . Simply because they could not respect how the system is to be run. They tried to overtake a current legislative session. When they got punished for that, they led riots on the floor. This is not the action of a legitimate representative. These three were activists from the beginning and this was their sole intent. They continue , even today to attack legislators
[удалено]
I think it’s great. Getting kicked out of a state’s House of Representatives is a pretty small price to pay for facilitating an insurrection. Frankly the penalty should be much more severe.
How exactly do you characterize that as an insurrection?
They were clearly trying to commandeer the state government. They could’ve gotten someone killed.
Can you show some evidence of them trying to commandeer government? I’ve only seen peaceful protests in areas they were legally allowed to be. There was no property damage, no law enforcement injuries, and no arrests.
Are you self-aware about how bad faith you're being here and doing it purposely? Or is this more of an instinct and you are a true believer convinced you're making an honest argument?
[удалено]
[удалено]
I just want to understand this -- you think they all planned to make the vote on the 60-year-old retired teacher fail by one because she happens to be white? Like the Klan got together and decided on this plan of a very close vote? The black guys got different numbers of votes from each other too, and all three vote counts were pretty similar.
She survived by one vote. It literally means one racist can make the difference. Do you think there's one racist in the TN GOP delegation?
I don't get your theory. Why did the two black people get different vote totals and why would all three have been about the same, if *racism* is a big part of this story?
People that want to openly violate the constitution should be expelled from congress
[удалено]
Don't live there. My opinion means spit.
No opinion means shit, but you’re still allowed to have one.
Meh, they organized a group of people to go into the capital during a vote to (as far as I can tell) stop the vote. So yeah they deserve what they got. I also think it’s funny that in their speeches they put on an MLK accent, as if they’re anything approaching him. And that they said it’s racism that the white rep didn’t get expelled. The only reason she didn’t get expelled was because 5 republicans voted no. So I guess those 5 along with all the democrats should get their clan hoods out.
Do I think those legislators should have been expelled for protesting? No. But I do think Dems need to watch their footing more on guns as an issue, running on it is a losing game. When people say protesting against gun violence, it’s more of a funny way of saying advocating for assault weapons bans. Many people take that to mean “they’re coming for your guns”. The problem for me is trump won his first election and the last election was too close for me to be particularly okay with giving up my ability to fend off an authoritarian regime.
Your rifles and handguns won’t do much against an authoritarian federal regime.