470
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
470 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3417 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
All the more reason to convict him as an accomplice. He knew what was coming and still did nothing to stop it.
Its complicated, because he did stop it. He also immediately took notes and immediately told others about the conversations, actions which clearly paint him as somebody fully versed in the processes of establishing cooperation with law enforcement on an informer basis.
It is also arguable that the entire insurrection that day was a cover to specifically murder Mike Pence on the Capitol steps. There was day of chatter that the gallow was brought into the city in one of the vehicles in Alex Jones' caravan. We know that with the charging of Donald Trump, Alex Jones is now essentially the only conspirator of Jan. 6 who remains charge free.
Whatever we think of Mike Pence, our country still existing might have solely rested in his hands and it appears he did the right thing in the way he knew how. He saved his life. He saved his family's life. He saved his country.
I find the idea of giving Pence one iota of credit for any of that to be profane in the extreme, but if it turns out to be true… ugh… I suppose I would have to. I also don’t believe his motivations would have been anything other than self-serving.
still, gross. he’s such a terrible person.
Yeah he's a religious nutter but at least he respects democracy.
bigotry and hate are not compatible with democracy, a cornerstone of which is equality
So being religious is now being an asshole?
It is when one legislates their religious convictions onto others who do not share them.
which is something he advocates, notably the legislation of the ban of marriage equality.
Like which ones? I'm not American and I don't have to inform myself of all the laws that were passed 2016-2020 in a country that isn't mine
marriage equality, for one. he actively advocates for laws banning it, and advocates for laws banning LGBTQ equality in other ways, advocating for laws limiting/eliminating LGBTQ equality, often donating money for the purpose and to politicians who support such measures.
but if you can’t make the effort to inform yourself of at least the topic under discussion, then don’t expect others to do it for you before jumping into a conversation. that’s just rude.
What laws specifically?
Dude, I seriously want to at least know the names of those laws so I can get a first-hand judgement. Stop evading questions please
In case you're unaware, you're coming off as deliberately combative and unwilling to do even a modicum of research yourself while insisting that total strangers do all the work for you and spoon-feed you every bit of information you want.
That makes it seem like you're not actually interested in learning anything, and instead are simply looking for a fight. I wouldn't dare speculate on whether or not that's actually the case or not, but that is why you're being downvoted.
Oh, sorry, I just don't like using headlines as my main source of information
it’s not my job to educate random internet strangers. have some self-respect and make an effort to educate yourself.
have a nice day.
If I Google "pence anti-lgbt laws" I'll probably get an already biased source that doesn't mention the laws themselves, and if you don't know them either you can just tell the internet
you may respond by writing, in as much detail as you like, in what way you believe this is my problem. I promise to downvote it.
link
Two quotes:
"But let me say on this issue, if we got to know each other, you'd know the Pences love everybody," Pence continued. "We treat everybody the way we want to be treated. But on this issue, and it's frankly something that when the Obergefell decision was made which legalized same-sex marriage in America, the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy wrote at the end, that this decision will likely create an intersection and tension between people in same-sex relationships and people in the exercise of their religious liberty."
"Look, I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, I believe in traditional marriage, and I believe marriage was ordained by God and instituted in the law, but we live in a pluralistic society, and the way we go forward, and the way we come together as a country united, I believe, is when we respect: Your right to believe and my right to believe what we believe," Pence said.
There's not exactly a specific law because it was decided by the Supreme Court. He'd most certainly support a law in Congress to overturn the Supreme Court decision though.
He's literally saying "I don't personally agree with it, but this country is diverse and I'll have to accept it" how's that removing LGBT rights?
Your summary is certainly not about removing LBTG rights, it's saying he agrees with the institutions of the United States. I find it interesting however that that's how you'd choose to summarize the quotes.
The part about removing LGBT rights is where he's saying that law is / should be god's will implemented and that god's will is marriage being purely between a man and a woman. He can say he loves all equally, but he shows that's not true when he classifies some people's marriages as being unworthy of legal recognition.
“Just asking questions”
Legislative policy based on a certain religion is violent fascism. And anyone who holds office and uses their religion to enact legislation is anti American POS, incompatible with modern civilization, no better than the worst terrorist. And they should not be tolerated in any manner that allows them to hold political power. And anyone who votes for such a candidate is no better than them.
I bet you don't even know what fascism means
When hasn't it been?
Broken clock is right twice a day man. Being saved by a piece of shit isn't fun.
well… he’s not a broken clock. he’s a self-serving asshole whose self-interest just so happened to coincidentally align with not destroying American democracy at that particular moment. it had nothing to do with anything but himself.
and THAT is what sucks the most, not to mention that people are praising him for it.
"the broken clock just so happened to coincidentally align with the current time" Kinda exactly what the phrase is used for.
Stopped clock, if you're an "eat your cake and have it too" type of person, because a broken clock might be broken in that it runs fast, slow, or be missing teeth on a gear or sometime causing it to skip.
“ A broken clock is right twice a day” is the phrase. 
I know, you were saying the phrase doesn't apply, but it does.
Of course the motives were self serving. He likely saw himself going down in history as the man who singlehandedly saved the US and thought it would help him become president.
Yeah, I hate to admit it, but I might not be giving him enough credit. When I read about his conversation with Dan Quayle I thought he was trying to find a legal basis for doing what the mob wanted, but it may have been the other way around. He may have been attempting to establish unambiguously that he intended to comply with the law, and he consulted with someone who is not only another attorney, but a former vice president, in order to leave no doubt about what the law mandated.
Yeah, I think the moment he was first aproacged with this idea, he likely assumed they weren't asking and began formulating a plan.
And then he failed to assure that all of these things would remain safe going forward. This is still going on, and had Pence not refused to be cooperative before, the path forward would be much more clear today than it is.
Only time will tell whether Pence did just barely enough to avert collapse, or only enough to delay collapse. Neville Chamberlain was trying to keep Britain out of war, and he did, for a time. Until he didn't, and history remembers the outcome.
Neither of us have security clearances we really dont know if he has ever refused to collaborate. Confidential informants have to keep their cover.
And seeing that they attempted to murder him, I am not sure I can say he was able to keep his cover for very long.
Well, he won't be the guy on the next test, so I guess we have to hope the next one has some principles (or self-interest that appears as such) as well.
He refused to go along with the conspiracy - that's why the votes were counted and why the process was only delayed some hours rather than weeks.
Doing nothing was doing something. He didn't cave to rejecting the votes selectively, which is what made that fail. So it seems like Pence did exactly what needed doing.
Ahem
“The enemy if my enemy is my friend.”
Heed these prophetic words