Time to do our civic duty.


In order to win the Republican nomination Mr. Youngkin chose to attack our core belief in the primacy and legitimacy of our elections. By supporting the Big Lie he has disqualified himself regardless of any other facts about him or his opponent.

27 thoughts on “Time to do our civic duty.

  1. Our civic duty requires going deeper than a cartoon.

    Youngkin has repeatedly said, over the last 6 months, that while there may have been improper changes made in voting procedures, Biden won the election.

    So, your premise is untrue.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Youngkin does not get a do over. When it counted, he sided with the Big Lie. That is not leadership. That is dangerous pandering.

      As for the cartoon, what deeper place do you want to go? The GOP has become the party of insurrection that will only accept the outcome of elections that they win. Each day brings a new revelation of the deep involvement of members of Congress and the Trump circle and staff in planning and coordinating the violent attempt to undo the election. And yet the cover-up and stonewalling continues.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. He did not say Trump won. He refused to say that Biden won. His spineless pandering is the principle reason that the editorial Board of the Washington Post has endorsed his opponent.


          From that link . . .

          “This is not an everyday campaign dispute. We might disagree with Mr. Youngkin on Medicaid expansion, say — he termed it “sad,” though it extended health insurance to hundreds of thousands of Virginians who lacked it — without arguing that his stance is disqualifying. But at a moment when democracy itself is under assault, Mr. Youngkin chose to dignify a fundamental fiction that is subverting our system, rather than stand up squarely for the truth. In so doing, he proved himself unfit for office.”

          Liked by 2 people

          1. No, he explicitly said that Biden won.


            And as for the Post’s reasons for not endorsing Youngkin, when was the last time they endorsed a Republican?


          2. “No, he explicitly said that Biden won”

            ONLY after the GOP primary. And even then it has been couched in language and claims throwing the legitimacy of that victory into question. Before the nomination, the most he would say is that Biden is the President and living in the White House a formula that completely dodges the Big Lie that he got there by fraud.


            Liked by 1 person

      1. So, Mr. Roberts. you are not only failing to “moderate” Mr. Price’s egregious and unfounded insult you are joining in?

        I am not surprised. The central issue of this election is the one addressed by the cartoon – the need to stand up for the rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power. Since you people cannot win on that basis all you have is slime. Sad.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “The central issue of this election is the one addressed by the cartoon.”

          That’s laughably funny: Cartoon = Truth.

          It doesn’t matter whether Joe Biden won or lost his election fairly. He has lost the office by being an incompetent old man.

          Mr. Price is correct to call you a troll.


          1. Political cartooning is an old and useful tradition in this country. But, enjoy your laugh.

            Being called names by the likes of you two is a high complement and it confirms my opinion of the intellectual levels that you people bring to this forum.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Ok, then. Let’s examine the cartoon critically.

            The artist is Pat Bagley, who describes himself as a “retired Mormon” and a former Republican. His work is sometimes controversial because he lampoons his subjects, as when he once depicted police officers as having KKK hoods in their souls. Bagley works for the Salt Lake Tribune, a moderate publication that once was famous for its anti-Mormon editorials.

            With such a liberal background, one might expect Bagley’s cartoon to promote the liberal view of January 6. Except for his penchant for caricature, hard satire and biting parody.

            Notice that the first five of the six panels in the instant cartoon depict key tenets of the liberal insurrection myth in exaggerated form. The sixth panel is a call to action, an appeal to turn myth into reality by voting.

            The effect is profoundly ambiguous. Is Bagley lampooning liberals who believe the insurrection myth; is he saying they are no different from the madding crowd who approached the capitol because Trump told them to? Perhaps he means to warn all clear-thinking persons not to let themselves get carried away with empty political rhetoric?

            The latter would be consistent with a moderate or even slightly left-of-center political sensibility, that being the publisher’s reputation. Alternatively, to interpret the cartoon as speaking justifiable Truth to Power requires a radical, even a rabid mindset. But such is the very irrationality for which this posting of the cartoon is criticized.


          3. “Liberal insurrection myth?”

            Nice try, I guess, but that dog will not hunt. It is becoming increasingly clear that the violent stopping of the certification process on January 6th was part and parcel of a plan to throw the election to the House where each state gets one vote and Trump could be expected to prevail. Thus negating the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. In other words a coup d’etat to hold power illegitimately.

            Each of the panels is demonstrably based on the facts of January 6th . . .
            1. Police were beaten to ground. Some with flagpoles
            2. Trump DID incite the mob with his Big Lie.
            3. Gallows and Confederate flags were brought by some of the insurrectionists.
            4. Making war on the government of the United States is the definition of TREASON.
            5. Republicans are trying to whitewash and coverup.

            And, of course, you ad hominem attack aimed at the artist are a logical fallacy.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. RE: “And, of course, you ad hominem attack aimed at the artist are a logical fallacy.”

            What ad hominem do you think you see?


          5. Ad hominem . . .

            “Liberal” is one of your go to attack words. You spend a lot of space attaching that word to the artist. That is obviously done to discredit this particular piece without ANY reference to what is in the piece itself. That is the ad hominem fallacy.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “The rules will be few. No spam or advertising, be civil, personal insults and ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated.”

            Funny, we were down to Adam against Bob, Don, Bruce and you. Paul decided to answer when his name popped up in a comment after a few months of absence.

            Since then, the debates have become more lively, factual (in some cases😇) and less siloed. It seems that is a problem among some posters, so “troll” is dropped as if by a troll and his companion.

            The last attempt at moderation came from Don and we lost a poster, then two. Some accusation of “racism” veiled in a response was the reason. I don’t recall that it was true. But not my site.

            And we wonder why the nation is so divided. In my opinion, your comments are not helpful in this case.

            Also, last year, during heated discussions, Don said it needs to be “president Trump”, then Trump later in the same post. I am pretty sure I did not use insulting names for the ex-president, but some may have.

            So now we are treated to Stumble Joe. Kind of infantile, but it is what it is. I will let Don decide if he cares anymore.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. As Yogi Berra might say it is deja vu all over again.

            I quit posting here a few months back for reasons I explained in response to the absurd and self-serving claim that I was either sulking or unwilling to face the towering “I told you so’s” that these delusional people were going to be unleashing. To repeat what I said the other day, I dropped out of the rotation because I had concluded that engaging in debate with people so divorced from reality and so unable to accept obvious truth was monumentally pointless.

            I have to say that the last day or two of trying to be involved again have simply reinforced my earlier conclusion. It took only about a day of asserting reality and challenging the Trumpist beliefs of these folks that the insults became – once again – their pitiful response.

            Oh well. Composing a paragraph or two is good for the brain cells.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m not sure if you are playing some weird word game or, being a loser, misspelled ignorant yourself. My bets are on the latter….


  2. This is too funny. Paul claiming that he being referred to as a troll is some massive insult and demanding “justice”? I dont have enough fingers and toes to count how many times he, Len and Adam have called me a troll!! You liberals either have very short memories or think everyone else is just stupid. Anyhow, your phony outrage is duly noted….losers!!!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s