Plan B Forum

https://thepostmillennial.com/trantifa- ... e_vignette

On Tuesday, Antifa militants and transgender activists mobilized to disrupt a Turning Point USA event featuring women's rights activists Riley Gaines and Olivia Krolczyk at the University of Washington in Seattle. Antifa, clad in black bloc attire, violently targeted elderly disabled attendees, members of the press, and TPUSA volunteers. This included following people to their vehicles, chasing them down, and throwing bags of dog feces at individuals attending the event. No arrests were made

liberty wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 15, 2025 4:48 pm

On Tuesday, Antifa militants

How do you know any of these people are "Antifa"? What make you think they are "militants" and what does that even mean?

liberty wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 15, 2025 4:48 pm

violently targeted elderly disabled attendees, members of the press, and TPUSA volunteers.

I looked at the videos. Where exactly is the violence? There were plenty of cops around and the protestors were well separated from the event and its volunteers and attendees. Even the Nazi Youth Turning Point volunteers seemed not in the least bit terrified, having that wall of cops in front of them. The "fuck-your-feelings" crowd running that linked propaganda site sure seems to be a bunch of snowflakes, though.

You are quite eager to believe all the fantasies and lies told by fascist internet trolls to justify suppression of constitutional rights of free speech and public assembly. Quite a budding fascist yourself, aren't you?

clad in black bloc attire, violently targeted elderly disabled attendees, members of the press,

You sure this wasn't a report on an ICE raid; I do note it doesn't mention masks, but otherwise it sounds like them.

I've decided that at the No Kings event this weekend my sign will read: "I Am Antifa, Still Haven't Been Paid."

Hey Soros - where's my check? I filled in the forms and everything.

If I can make it, my sign will be "Get behind me, SprAyTAN"

Clarify: I shall be at the No Kings demo locally. But can I make a sign? Where is the huge Antifa funding for my sign???

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 17, 2025 10:40 am

If I can make it, my sign will be "Get behind me, SprAyTAN"

Clarify: I shall be at the No Kings demo locally. But can I make a sign? Where is the huge Antifa funding for my sign???

Is there a Dollar Tree or other dollar store in your town? Best place to go for posterboard and markers, you likely won't spend more than $10 depending on how elaborate you intend to be in your sign making.

I can't decide whether to go funny or patriotic/educational. Perhaps I need to make a double-sided sign so I can cover both bases. I was thinking of "Trump is f*cking Satan" for the funny option, obviously a steal from South Park's current season. Perhaps I could make it say "Trump is f*cking SprAyTANed" to soften the dirtiness for the delicate souls in attendance. Would you mind the borrow of your excellent funny?

For the patriotic I am contemplating Teddy Roosevelt's famous quote: "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." For the sake of my old cramped fingers, I might just use the first clause and the final clause with ellipsis in between.

"If I were being paid I'd have a better sign"

Sue U wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 17, 2025 11:13 am

"If I were being paid I'd have a better sign"

I dragged my feet on going online, and it was too late but if I'd gone sooner there are many excellent signs with great graphics available to order - capitalism has no politics, apparently!

Instead I'll be making my own sign, but I did score a nice purple shirt from the RBG collection for overnight delivery - it says I DISSENT and has a pair of RBG spectacles underneath. I love it! I'm excited to go tomorrow, I hope it gets me on the enemies list.

RBG is on Trump's friends list, BSG. If the old ego-tripper warrior had just quit when she should have, 44 could have filled the spot with a proper justice and not bloody 45 inflicting Kavanaugh on us.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 17, 2025 1:24 pm

RBG is on Trump's friends list, BSG. If the old ego-tripper warrior had just quit when she should have, 44 could have filled the spot with a proper justice and not bloody 45 inflicting Kavanaugh on us.

You might want to check your timeline Meade; RBG was replaced by ACB, not Kavanaugh. And I can't blame her for trying to hold out for the next administration - but I can blame the MAGA Republicans for using different rules for the lame duck Trump than what they'd employed for the lame duck Obama.

It's always easier to blame a woman, though - especially an uppity, intelligent one.

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 17, 2025 2:52 pm

You might want to check your timeline Meade; RBG was replaced by ACB, not Kavanaugh. And I can't blame her for trying to hold out for the next administration - but I can blame the MAGA Republicans for using different rules for the lame duck Trump than what they'd employed for the lame duck Obama.

It's always easier to blame a woman, though - especially an uppity, intelligent one.

Right you are - ACB. Brain fog here. Apologies.

Even so, the second cancer diagnosis should have been sufficient for her to walk away and give peace a chance. I take your point re the lame duckness - but she was the one who hung on, past her time, and so yeah . . . hers is the primary responsibility IMO.

Granted, she had a lifetime appointment and her motivation was never 'political' so . . . consistency, foolish to many others but not to her. And maybe she just couldn't imagine HRC would lose. (So I blame that woman too eh?). But the right choice for America and justice would have been to step down. Other opinions exist.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 17, 2025 3:47 pm

BoSoxGal wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 17, 2025 2:52 pm

You might want to check your timeline Meade; RBG was replaced by ACB, not Kavanaugh. And I can't blame her for trying to hold out for the next administration - but I can blame the MAGA Republicans for using different rules for the lame duck Trump than what they'd employed for the lame duck Obama.

It's always easier to blame a woman, though - especially an uppity, intelligent one.

Right you are - ACB. Brain fog here. Apologies.

Even so, the second cancer diagnosis should have been sufficient for her to walk away and give peace a chance. I take your point re the lame duckness - but she was the one who hung on, past her time, and so yeah . . . hers is the primary responsibility IMO.

Granted, she had a lifetime appointment and her motivation was never 'political' so . . . consistency, foolish to many others but not to her. And maybe she just couldn't imagine HRC would lose. (So I blame that woman too eh?). But the right choice for America and justice would have been to step down. Other opinions exist.

RBG was in her seat until almost the end of Trump 1.0, and his opponent in the election was Joseph R Biden.

Should I be referring you for a cognitive evaluation? Never a bad thing as we age, I take the online test yearly myself. https://portal-us.mocacognition.com/ (Of course a little forgetfulness of details such as these are normal with aging, nothing to be alarmed about.)

I should also add the detail that RBG's health was good until her cancer recurred in 2018 and 2019, when Trump was already in office. So she was in a pickle, wasn't she?

I think that RBG's declining to retire was because she wanted to avoid the appearance of a political act - which retiring to ensure a D president would have been. She also probably thought that Trump would leave nomination of a new Associate Justice to whoever won the 2020 election. After all, they had established a precedent with Obama's nomination of Garland in an election year, and the republicans would obviously not be so hypocritical that they would OK a Trump nominee in the much shorter time frame.

BSG - nice one!

I referred to 2013-14 and her second cancer go-round. You'll readily recall (after all that rigorous testing you've done ) that 2016 came after 2014. Wasn't it a pity that she did not step down when BHO was still president?

(AndyH: she did not know in 2013/14 that Trump would be elected in 2016 so the matter of her thinking that Trump would let a 2020 winner do the nominating is rather a non-starter. If she had known the 2016 winner 2-3 years in advance, she could have bet the house on Donald and made a fortune (plus featuring in National Geographic or History Channel weird spooky stories)

By 2016 HRC ran and it's possible RBG thought she could retire or pop her clogs during a Hillary presidency. Billary might have got a more liberal judge nominated and appointed than would have been possible for Obama. Or not.

I'm aware she died just before the 2020 Election and Biden's victory. I can't give plaudits for almost making it to a better expiration date. 2014 would have been beneficial. 2020 was not.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 17, 2025 4:35 pm

BSG - nice one!

I referred to 2013-14 and her second cancer go-round. You'll readily recall (after all that rigorous testing you've done ) that 2016 came after 2014. Wasn't it a pity that she did not step down when BHO was still president?

(AndyH: she did not know in 2013/14 that Trump would be elected in 2016 so the matter of her thinking that Trump would let a 2020 winner do the nominating is rather a non-starter. If she had known the 2016 winner 2-3 years in advance, she could have bet the house on Donald and made a fortune (plus featuring in National Geographic or History Channel weird spooky stories)

By 2016 HRC ran and it's possible RBG thought she could retire or pop her clogs during a Hillary presidency. Billary might have got a more liberal judge nominated and appointed than would have been possible for Obama. Or not.

I'm aware she died just before the 2020 Election and Biden's victory. I can't give plaudits for almost making it to a better expiration date. 2014 would have been beneficial. 2020 was not.

She didn't have cancer recurrence at the time you are alleging, Meade.

Ginsburg battled cancer several times throughout her life. She was treated for colon cancer in 1999, underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer in 2009 and had cancerous lesions removed from her lung in 2018. Ginsburg received chemotherapy for a recurrence of pancreatic cancer in 2019 but remained on the bench, a lifetime appointment.

RBG was infamous for working with a personal trainer inside the SCOTUS building every day for 20 years before going to the office. She was in good health until Trump was ALREADY IN OFFICE.

I think maybe the cognitive assessment would be a good idea - or maybe it's a personality issue.

Well BSG, I'm certainly not explaining (dignified description) very well. We both agree she had two cancer diagnoses (and thanks for the dates of ops). In 2013/14 there was a lot of muttering that she should step down so Obama could nominate a replacement.

When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined President Barack Obama for lunch in his private dining room in July 2013, the White House sought to keep the event quiet — the meeting called for discretion.

Mr. Obama had asked his White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, to set up the lunch so he could build a closer rapport with the justice, according to two people briefed on the conversation. Treading cautiously, he did not directly bring up the subject of retirement to Justice Ginsburg, at 80 the Supreme Court’s oldest member and a two-time cancer patient.

He did, however, raise the looming 2014 midterm elections and how Democrats might lose control of the Senate. Implicit in that conversation was the concern motivating his lunch invitation — the possibility that if the Senate flipped, he would lose a chance to appoint a younger, liberal judge who could hold on to the seat for decades.

(Edit: of course the Senate did flip.

But the effort did not work, just as an earlier attempt by Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was then Judiciary Committee chairman, had failed. Justice Ginsburg left Mr. Obama with the clear impression that she was committed to continuing her work on the court, according to those briefed.

Source is file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/kgrover,+2418-8001-1-CE.pdf

Going back a few posts: "Granted, she had a lifetime appointment and her motivation was never 'political' so"
That was me agreeing that a politically motivated retirement would probably not comport with RBG's view of the significance, importance and history of the Supreme Court. Even so, I opine she erred and don't think that arises from cognitive issues. Maybe personality.

MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 17, 2025 6:38 pm

Well BSG, I'm certainly not explaining (dignified description) very well. We both agree she had two cancer diagnoses (and thanks for the dates of ops). In 2013/14 there was a lot of muttering that she should step down so Obama could nominate a replacement.

When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined President Barack Obama for lunch in his private dining room in July 2013, the White House sought to keep the event quiet — the meeting called for discretion.

Mr. Obama had asked his White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, to set up the lunch so he could build a closer rapport with the justice, according to two people briefed on the conversation. Treading cautiously, he did not directly bring up the subject of retirement to Justice Ginsburg, at 80 the Supreme Court’s oldest member and a two-time cancer patient.

He did, however, raise the looming 2014 midterm elections and how Democrats might lose control of the Senate. Implicit in that conversation was the concern motivating his lunch invitation — the possibility that if the Senate flipped, he would lose a chance to appoint a younger, liberal judge who could hold on to the seat for decades.

(Edit: of course the Senate did flip.

But the effort did not work, just as an earlier attempt by Senator Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who was then Judiciary Committee chairman, had failed. Justice Ginsburg left Mr. Obama with the clear impression that she was committed to continuing her work on the court, according to those briefed.

Source is file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/kgrover,+2418-8001-1-CE.pdf

Going back a few posts: "Granted, she had a lifetime appointment and her motivation was never 'political' so"
That was me agreeing that a politically motivated retirement would probably not comport with RBG's view of the significance, importance and history of the Supreme Court. Even so, I opine she erred and don't think that arises from cognitive issues. Maybe personality.

No, we don't agree - because she had four cancer diagnoses, not two.

But after the first two, which were caught in the very early stages because of the excellent screening care she received as a SCOTUS, her doctors championed her as an example of triumph over cancer and she served as a model of hope for many people suffering from the typically awful course of pancreatic cancer post-diagnosis in which only a tiny percent of patients live beyond a year or so post-diagnosis. RBG lived for 10 years before the cancer recurred, and she lived a very healthy lifestyle, having begun to work with the personal trainer immediately following her successful treatment for colon cancer and working with him daily for 20 years, through the later lung cancer diagnosis and the recurrence of pancreatic cancer - she even worked with him during the pandemic, they were given special permission to use a space in the SCOTUS gym when the rest of the facility was closed down to everyone else.

She was healthy in 2013, and had every reason to believe she could remain on the bench championing women's rights - among other worthy causes - for years to come. I for one won't shame her for holding onto hope, as that's what keeps most cancer patients who survive thriving the best that they can. Of the many awful things that have happened in DC over the last quarter century, RBG's choice to stay on the bench was the least of them.

No, we don't agree - because she had four cancer diagnoses, not two.

two before 2013/14 which is what I was bloody well speaking of dammit and what you corrected me on (because I thought one was in 2013)!

But after the first two,

yes yes yes

She was healthy in 2013, and had every reason to believe she could remain on the bench

Debatable but I accept that's your opinion and perhaps a valid one

I for one won't shame her for holding onto hope

Didn't ask or expect you to do so.

Of the many awful things that have happened in DC over the last quarter century, RGB's choice to stay on the bench was the least of them.

We can agree but it's a new subject