American Politics VIII: Dancin' with Manchin

[Senawka]

It doesn't matter. You lost the last war and you'll lose this one too.

Yeah, i'm sure that the "socialist rifle associations" will come in clutch when the fighting starts.

[The Jamesian Republic]

More like 1821. State controlled military forces are exactly what I want to see.

It doesn't matter. You lost the last war and you'll lose this one too.

Do you mean the Afghanistan War?

[Port Caverton]

It doesn't matter. You lost the last war and you'll lose this one too.

Do you mean the Afghanistan War?

No she means the american civil war, for some reason.

[Immortan Khan]

America can't win wars anymore even against itself.

[HISPIDA]

It doesn't matter. You lost the last war and you'll lose this one too.

Yeah, i'm sure that the "socialist rifle associations" will come in clutch when the fighting starts.

and i'm sure the 40 year old skinhead living in his mom's basement that weighs more than two dressers combined is gonna help a ton, too

[Kowani]

Wisconsin Republicans’ Election Investigator threatens to jail the mayors of Green Bay and Madison

An attorney leading an investigation of the 2020 elections for Wisconsin’s legislative Republicans has threatened to jail the mayors of Wisconsin’s second- and third-largest cities if they don’t meet his demands.

The mayors, for their part, say the attorney is wildly distorting reality, and that their attempts to reach him have gone unanswered.

Michael Gableman, a former state Supreme Court justice who’s leading a partisan review of the last presidential elections, filed petitions for “writ of attachment” against the two mayors in county court this week, accusing the mayors of failing to appear for testimony without explanation. But both mayors say they’ve reached out to Gableman’s office and not heard back. Gableman’s petitions cite a Wisconsin statute that spells out the conditions under which a judge “may commit the person to close confinement in the county jail” if that person fails produce lawfully required testimony.

“Petitioner respectfully requests that the Waukesha County Circuit Court issue a writ of attachment on the person of Eric Genrich and order the Waukesha County Sheriff to execute such commitment until Eric Genrich has fulfilled her [sic] legal duties in respondent to said subpoena,” the petition reads, incorrectly referring to Genrich, the mayor of Green Bay, using the “her” pronoun. An identical petition also seeks the sheriff’s action against Satya Rhodes-Conway, the mayor of Madison. PBS Wisconsin published the court documents Thursday. A lawyer for Green Bay reacted forcefully to the filing — which he characterized as “seeking an order to commit Mayor Genrich into custody at the Waukesha County Jail” — saying that it wasn’t legally enforceable and that the mayor would be pursuing legal sanctions against Gableman.

“Based on our initial review, the Petition is not only lacking in legal merit and built upon a gross distortion of the relevant facts, but it departs so greatly from legal standards that Mayor Genrich intends to serve the Special Counsel with a motion for sanctions,” wrote attorney Jeffrey Mandell, in a letter published by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Madison Mayor Rhodes-Conway said in a statement Thursday that the Madison city attorney had reached out to Gableman’s office, but that neither Gableman nor his attorneys had responded — “further underscoring the abject lack of professionalism on Gableman’s team.”
[…] Officials in both Wisconsin cities said they had not been served with Gableman’s suit, but had seen copies online, the Journal-Sentinel noted. The Waukesha County Circuit Court has scheduled a hearing for Gableman’s petitions on Dec. 22, the Wisconsin State Journal reported. Wisconsin’s Democratic attorney general, Josh Kaul, sought a restraining order in October to prevent Gableman from enforcing his subpoenas. A hearing on that matter is scheduled for Dec. 23.

The petitions come as Gableman has grown increasingly publicly aggressive with his investigation — and alongside other alarming developments in the state, including Republicans threatening to take over election authority from the body they created six years ago to govern voting, the Wisconsin Election Commission. The sheriff of Racine last month also recommended that the majority of commission members face felony charges.

Gableman has been particularly focused on Mark Zuckerberg’s role in the 2020 election — specifically, dollars donated by the Zuckerbergs for the benefit of local election administrators struggling to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic amid the last presidential elections. “Of all the clerks and of all the mayors, those two simply failed without reason or excuse to appear for their depositions and answer questions about how and to what extent they allowed Mark Zuckerberg’s employees to plan and administer their city’s election in November 2020,” Gableman said during testimony before the Assembly Committee on Campaigns and Elections, PBS Wisconsin noted.

At the same hearing, Gableman said it was “very clear” that Zuckerberg’s goal was to defeat Trump and elect Biden in 2020. He then said, referring to one non-profit official at a group that benefited from Zuckerberg’s donations, “we may be looking at more robust ways to secure his presence.”

[The Jamesian Republic]

America can't win wars anymore even against itself.

It could win other wars but the people in charge need to be better at doing so. As for against itself it most certainly can it did once before.

[Arlenton]

More like 1821. State controlled military forces are exactly what I want to see.

It doesn't matter. You lost the last war and you'll lose this one too.

No idea what the Civil War has to with this.

But anyway, I think the situation of today is much more in my sides favor.

[Arlenton]

It doesn't matter. You lost the last war and you'll lose this one too.

What is this even supposed to mean? Most Union units were state units that were federalized.

Not to mention that the Civil War was started because of Southern states seceding in order to preserve slavery, not to preserve state controlled military units which were and still are a thing done by states both North and South.

[The Jamesian Republic]

It doesn't matter. You lost the last war and you'll lose this one too.

No idea what the Civil War has to with this.

But anyway, I think the situation of today is much more in my sides favor.

What do you mean? And which side are you on? I know I am on the side of the United States of America

[Immortan Khan]

America can't win wars anymore even against itself.

It could win other wars but the people in charge need to be better at doing so. As for against itself it most certainly can it did once before.

It's not just the people in charge that is the issue, there is a lack of actual commitment within American society.

[Immortan Khan]

America can't win wars anymore even against itself.

It could win other wars but the people in charge need to be better at doing so. As for against itself it most certainly can it did once before.

It's not just the people in charge that is the issue, there is a lack of actual commitment within American society for waging war.

[Arlenton]

No idea what the Civil War has to with this.

But anyway, I think the situation of today is much more in my sides favor.

What do you mean? And which side are you on? I know I am on the side of the United States of America

The United States of America is a big entity. Are you on the side of the federal government? Are you on the side of some coalition of demographics that make up a section of the population?

As for me, in this hypothetical of a civil war that Lady Victory is talking about, I am on the side that is comprised of the broadly conservative demographics of the US population that has a strong foothold in government across the country in the form of the Republican Party. As to why I feel confident in my side in this hypothetical civil war scenario, the conservative political forces in the US of today are much more broadly entrenched across the nation and its federal and state governments, as opposed to being concentrated in one region of the country, the South, as was the case in the American Civil War of 1861-65.

[Dreria]

Tfw no one knows what feudalism is anymore.

What is this even supposed to mean.

Anti-vaxxers took to calling themselves Purebloods. De Santis is reving the FSG because the National Guard is subject to a vaccine mandate.

ok?

[The Jamesian Republic]

What do you mean? And which side are you on? I know I am on the side of the United States of America

The United States of America is a big entity. Are you on the side of the federal government? Are you on the side of some coalition of demographics that make up a section of the population?

As for me, in this hypothetical of a civil war that Lady Victory is talking about, I am on the side that is comprised of the broadly conservative demographics of the US population that has a strong foothold in government across the country in the form of the Republican Party. As to why I feel confident in my side in this hypothetical civil war scenario, the conservative political forces in the US of today are much more broadly entrenched across the nation and its federal and state governments, as opposed to being concentrated in one region of the country, the South, as was the case in the American Civil War of 1861-65.

I’m on the side of the federal government.

[The Black Forrest]

*didn’t delete it in time*

[Untecna]

Anti-vaxxers took to calling themselves Purebloods. De Santis is reving the FSG because the National Guard is subject to a vaccine mandate.

ok?

What do you mean by "ok"? Do you mean like "ok, and?" or, what?

[American Legionaries]

The United States of America is a big entity. Are you on the side of the federal government? Are you on the side of some coalition of demographics that make up a section of the population?

As for me, in this hypothetical of a civil war that Lady Victory is talking about, I am on the side that is comprised of the broadly conservative demographics of the US population that has a strong foothold in government across the country in the form of the Republican Party. As to why I feel confident in my side in this hypothetical civil war scenario, the conservative political forces in the US of today are much more broadly entrenched across the nation and its federal and state governments, as opposed to being concentrated in one region of the country, the South, as was the case in the American Civil War of 1861-65.

I’m on the side of the federal government.

That's a pretty foolish position to take. How do you know what the Federal government will be fighting for or against?

[Arlenton]

The United States of America is a big entity. Are you on the side of the federal government? Are you on the side of some coalition of demographics that make up a section of the population?

As for me, in this hypothetical of a civil war that Lady Victory is talking about, I am on the side that is comprised of the broadly conservative demographics of the US population that has a strong foothold in government across the country in the form of the Republican Party. As to why I feel confident in my side in this hypothetical civil war scenario, the conservative political forces in the US of today are much more broadly entrenched across the nation and its federal and state governments, as opposed to being concentrated in one region of the country, the South, as was the case in the American Civil War of 1861-65.

I’m on the side of the federal government.

Regardless of which side is in control of the federal government? As one side in a hypothetical civil war could very well be in complete control of the federal government.

Or to whichever side has the majority of what was once the unified federal government?

Or to one of the specific branches, say the executive or legislative?

[Maricarland]

What is this even supposed to mean? Most Union units were state units that were federalized.

Not to mention that the Civil War was started because of Southern states seceding in order to preserve slavery, not to preserve state controlled military units which were and still are a thing done by states both North and South.

The Civil War started because they refused to accept Lincoln as President. Lincoln was opposed to slavery, but he recognized its legality and Constitutionality and was not in favor of abolishing it where it was already legal but preventing its spread (so no more slave states would be admitted into the Union). Plenty of those in the south did not believe Lincoln would allow them to keep slavery, and even those that did take Lincoln at his word found that limiting the spread of slavery was unacceptable because (a) they felt it would limit their power nationally and may someday pave the way for the abolition of slavery, and (b) they wanted to expand their power and sphere of political and economic influence. So, before Lincoln was even elected, but it appeared Lincoln was going to be elected, they decided to declare their succession from the United States of America and most of those in the North were fine with them seceding until they attacked a United States fort in what they perceived to be a preventive strike against the North (which they assumed would both force them to stay in the Union and help free their slaves), which in fact was the spark of war that actually lead to the very thing they were afraid of (being forced to stay in the union and the abolition of chattel slavery - race based or otherwise).

[The Black Forrest]

I’m on the side of the federal government.

That's a pretty foolish position to take. How do you know what the Federal government will be fighting for or against?

I think he means the feds versus the maga hordes.

[Maricarland]

No idea what the Civil War has to with this.

But anyway, I think the situation of today is much more in my sides favor.

What do you mean? And which side are you on? I know I am on the side of the United States of America

I have no loyalty to any country. I am on the side of humanity, life, compassion, tolerance, diversity, inclusion, love, democracy, freedom, and myself and my loved ones.

[Untecna]

What do you mean? And which side are you on? I know I am on the side of the United States of America

The United States of America is a big entity. Are you on the side of the federal government? Are you on the side of some coalition of demographics that make up a section of the population?

As for me, in this hypothetical of a civil war that Lady Victory is talking about, I am on the side that is comprised of the broadly conservative demographics of the US population that has a strong foothold in government across the country in the form of the Republican Party. As to why I feel confident in my side in this hypothetical civil war scenario, the conservative political forces in the US of today are much more broadly entrenched across the nation and its federal and state governments, as opposed to being concentrated in one region of the country, the South, as was the case in the American Civil War of 1861-65.

Let's also note a war over vaccine mandates would be the dumbest casus belli statement in history.

To be honest, the US military and federal government trumps any right-wing militia that you side with.

[Arlenton]

The United States of America is a big entity. Are you on the side of the federal government? Are you on the side of some coalition of demographics that make up a section of the population?

As for me, in this hypothetical of a civil war that Lady Victory is talking about, I am on the side that is comprised of the broadly conservative demographics of the US population that has a strong foothold in government across the country in the form of the Republican Party. As to why I feel confident in my side in this hypothetical civil war scenario, the conservative political forces in the US of today are much more broadly entrenched across the nation and its federal and state governments, as opposed to being concentrated in one region of the country, the South, as was the case in the American Civil War of 1861-65.

Let's also note a war over vaccine mandates would be the dumbest casus belli statement in history.

To be honest, the US military and federal government trumps any right-wing militia that you side with.

You are assuming that this civil war would simply be an uprising of a few right wing militias. That is definitely not the scenario that I am referring to.

[Untecna]

Let's also note a war over vaccine mandates would be the dumbest casus belli statement in history.

To be honest, the US military and federal government trumps any right-wing militia that you side with.

You are assuming that this civil war would simply be an uprising of a few right wing militias. That is definitely not the scenario that I am referring to.

Let's remember the US Defense budget, of near 1 trillion dollars. My point stands.