The Current Republican Party Is A Clear and Present Danger To The United States of America
The last twenty minutes
The meat is from 2:15 to the end... For those who want to know how and or why this is is relevant and pertinent, watch the video in it's entirety... It's more about ethics according to the governing principles The United States was founded upon, as a representative republic. The judge lays out the case for how some have attempted to subvert the system of governance from within and in effect abolish the system of government in doing so.
The meat is from 2:15 to the end... For those who want to know how and or why this is is relevant and pertinent, watch the video in it's entirety... It's more about ethics according to the governing principles The United States was founded upon, as a representative republic. The judge lays out the case for how some have attempted to subvert the system of governance from within and in effect abolish the system of government in doing so.
Comments (188)
The way people work around this is throwing out stuff like "But Hunter Biden.. Clinton...But BLM caused riots at various capitols, and so on". All red herring/strawmen. It's basically gaslighting and relativizing things that one would otherwise generally find wrong. They also think that because he didn't directly say "invade the Capitol", he really didn't do anything wrong. Basically it's just "my-side-ism". Principles don't matter as much as "root for team red or blue". One difference with Watergate is that at least some congressmen and senators on the same side as Nixon decided that the principle of fairness was more important than party. Clearly a dangerous cult of personality.
Indeed. Living Color's song has been revisited by myself several times in the past few years. The lyrics are spot on. Almost prescient...
Have you already seen this video in it's enitrety?
I watched some of it from your link. I mean, it's the same theme we've been hearing.. Party above principles. Maybe you should bullet point some specifics you want people to understand from it. No rational argument about how specific Trump people, alt-right, right-wingers, whatever you want to call them will convince, even the adjacent republicans that it was "wrong". Demographically, it's a dying party, and this is the death throws perhaps.. It will last another decade perhaps, I don't know.
It's worth watching in it's entirety. It's not the same old theme...
Depends whether AG Garland prosecutes Trump. He must.
Just saw the excellent dramatisation of Watergate, 'Gaslit'. Recommend it. The GOP of the day still had some principles, they hadn't all sold their soul for power.
Was this what it was like in Weimar Germany? What is history's conclusion as to the reason for *their* impotence?
Why? Unless Trump's indicted with something that puts him in jail or prevents him from running, the same electorate that supports him won't care. The Republican Party benefits and some are complicit as long as it keeps them in power. No "shocking" revelation will then make them shake their heads and say, "no more". That would mean they had integrity. Party and power above all else.
And there's the difference.
Filibuster. You need 60% not 51% to do anything at all.
The idea of the Constitution as a "living document" that can be readily changed/updated/redacted through civil process basically throws out the idea of a "destruction" of the foundation of a construct short of violent action against an individual or group of individuals who hold opposing views (terrorism).
Sure that means, if enough of the wrong people gain power, slavery could become legal again. I would virtually guarantee this as impossible. Not for long, that is.
Bold predictions. I'm predicting the Dems take a beating in the mid-terms and a Republican wins the next Presidency.
No, I agree with you.. This will happen in the short term. I am talking long term.. ten years or more.. Demographics just aren't in their favor.
Agree. Biden talks more about Ukraine than his own country.
Another metric would be the condition of the US economy: Boom-bust cycles, who was in charge?).
A very simple way of determining which party is bad for America and the world; perhaps too simplistic some might comment, but hey, it's a start!
It can’t be laid at their feet. Who acquitted Trump twice already? Who are propagating Trump’s lies throughout the electorate and media? The Republicans are signing on to all manner of nonsense conspiracy theories. The Democrats are doing everything they can but the situation is diabolical.
Adam Schiff has said the DOJ should have been doing their own investigation. Trump should have been indicted by now.
The fact that Trump he is STILL not indicted, the fact that Garland might refuse to prosecute, the fact that this obvious traitor might well run again, and WIN, speaks volumes otherwise.
Agree.
Think back to the Mueller Report. Mueller has been castigated for his perceived weakness, but what he actually said, or strongly implied, was that there were grounds for impeachment, but that Congress needed to make that determination. And how did that play out?
We have a coterie of people in positions of power in Government, who’ve already shown time and time again that they will acquit Trump, no matter the charges, no matter the evidence. If it were the Republican Party of 1970 then it’s quite feasible Trump would have been impeached, expelled and disgraced after the Mueller report, but that didn’t happen. I remember it being said at the time of the first impeachment, if you’re going to go after the King, you have to make sure the blow is fatal. It wasn’t, and it could easily happen all over again. So, no, I don’t hold the Democrats responsible for this situation, the fault is wholly and solely with the Republican Party, aided and abetted by Rupert Murdoch.
Trumpism will be defeated in places where people eat, sleep, work, and play. But because the difference regarding policy between the democrats and republicans in these spheres in exactly zero, people think Trump will be defeated in small rooms where a tiny coterie of well connected and excessively rich people will dispense democracy from on high. These being the only places where the pseudo-opposition to Trump can play out for the sake of spectacle to pretend to be doing anything. It's idiotic and a begging for fascism.
If your political focus is on 'trials' and 'hearings' and other small-room round-tables, you're part of the problem. You are the problem to which a Trump is the logical solution. People like @Wayfarer are complict in Trumpism from top to bottom.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/us/politics/texas-republicans-approve-far-right-platform-declaring-bidens-election-illegitimate.html
Never mind if there is overreaction against him. The fact is that he is an extremely lousy leader.
It's clearly that the party has lost it's way.
Quoting Jackson
Even the idea of this is pretty bad for Biden. There's likely a recession coming and the US vote on their leaders above all on the economic performance of the country.
If 74 million Americans voted for Trump and you are stupid enough to respond 'OMG the GOP lost its way' then you are the idiot, and the reason why the GOP will continue to win.
It's been 6 years since Trump was elected. If you still can't "make sense" of why the GOP backs him after 6 years - when 74 million people can - then you, specifically you, are stupider than every Trump voter in existence.
"Outside of politics"? Not in the slightest. Outside of the narrow, poverty-stricken and anmeic idea of what you think 'politics' consists in, absolutely. Politics consists in people being able to pay their rent - or alliteratively live in their own houses - in being able to feed their babies, in children not shooting other children in the face while in school, in not being subject to ruinous, car and mall-centric city planning, in not having the children who survive school not getting murdered overseas for American imperial ambitions. Literally all of the things that both the democrats and the republicans [s]couldn't give a shit about[/s] actively work against, and all of which feed directly into people like Trump. Trump is not a political problem. Trump is a political solution.
But yeah, let's focus on 'reports' and 'hearings' and 'insurrections' and things that are irrelevant to anyone's day-to-day because politics is a fucking Hollywood movie with set-pieces made for the liberal commentariat to oogle over. If your idea of 'politics' is 'what happens in small rooms where people talk for a bit then sign a piece of paper' then you do not have an idea of politics.
What a stupid, inane response. I argued that one should focus on people's living conditions rather than the spectacle of what happens in little rooms and you think this amounts to a choice between the status quo and 'order completely breaking down and anarchy prevailing'? What the hell is wrong with you?
All the things that the democrats and republicans are united on opposing. Biden, that war criminal piece of shit corporate fuck with an approval rating lower than Trump's, is, as it stands, a red carpet to Trump, and refusal to criticize him to the point of his near-death makes one the equivalent of a Trump supporter.
The Biggest Clear and Present Danger To The United States of America is the Current Composition of The United States of America.
Are you, like me, a socialist? In your case a very angry socialist.
I have a few American friends who make statements like 'the civil war has never really ended' and 'the rule of 'survival of the fittest,' guides 'the American dream.' Do you agree with such statements?
America is such a melting pot of cultures that it represents an attempt at a human society which imo regularly demonstrates what does and does not work.
Individual freedom, YES, but how do you ensure your personal freedom does not infringe the freedom of others.
Xenophobia/cultural or traditional preference. If some people living nearby look different from you and act differently from you then what has to be done so that we can celebrate/enjoy/learn from that variety rather than war with it.
'Power corrupts!!!' There must be a way to stop nefarious individuals from reaching positions of power and influence or at least there must be checks and balances which can activate to remove them.
Every person must do what they can to help!
No social/political system has been created yet which is benevolent to the vast majority of the people it represents. We can keep trying or we can surrender to the hilarious antinatalists!
I agree with Steven Pinker when he points out the improvements we have made.
We don't live under such vile systems as in ancient Greece, Rome or Egypt.
We fought world wars against imperialism and fascism.
The internet offers ways to grow movements from ground swells up to global sizes very quickly.
This can amplify evil as well as good movements, so pick your team and let's get on with it!
In history, ALL TYRANTS and all tyrannical systems fall, eventually, WITHOUT EXCEPTION! they fall.
Not an argument I’d want to entertain. I still hold out hope that sanity will prevail and that not all Republicans are delusional and mendacious.The big problem in America is ‘empowered stupidity’ - for various reasons stupid people have far too much influence in the US. The Australian electorate on the whole is much more sane.
Hmm, was it something I said? :sweat:
It's just very tiring to have a rising tide of fascism and the response of liberals is 'we need a more robust set of committee hearings'.
Or, as it turns out, this elitist, bourgeois crap about 'stupid people', that @Wayfarer just posted.
Is that just for fear of the real possibilities involved? Many Americans have already declared themselves 'hostile,' which won't go away. Evil thrives more when good people do nothing.
Quoting Wayfarer
I think you are underestimating truly nefarious people by giving them an 'excuse' card labeled, 'sorry I am stupid.' I am willing to forgive the followers of the nefarious but not the leaders or their main power brokers.
Do you believe that the human race is capable of creating a social/political system that is benevolent to the vast majority of people it represents and can maintain and preserve the ecology it exists within?
I hope that democratic systems of government can aspire to that. I don't know what the alternatives are.
As regards the civil war - it's astonishing, and saddening, that it even occurred. America seems to have kind of streak of violence deeply embedded in it. As for 'survival of the fittest' America's capitalist laissez faire culture certainly seems to encourage that. I've sometimes wondered if the idea of the 'pursuit of happiness' has some share of responsibility for that as it's a very individualistic aim - the idea of the 'commonwealth' never seems to have taken root there.
I don't think stupidity is an excuse for anything, especially the kind of wilful stupidity exhibited by many politicians.
I think you, me and @Wayfarer have more in common than we have in conflict.
The French under Mélenchon has demonstrated how to unite against an impotent centre and a nefarious consolidating, extreme, right.
All past revolutions have been started by humans/humanists/socialists who feel revulsion about what is happening to a majority exploited by a nefarious FEW. History shows that the FEW are destroyed by the 'had enough' MANY. Those good people who 'revolted' are then usually usurped by a nefarious few from their own ranks who replace the few who were just 'overthrown. Books like 'Animal Farm,' etc have dramatised this so well.
True socialist leaders are always the first to die in such circumstances. This is what must be 'studied' ad nauseum. New powerful checks and balances MUST accompany any new move towards major change.
Do you think humans could achieve such?
How about the military? It must be possible to keep access to the military outwith the reach of any one person or group who are/become nefarious.
Quoting Streetlight
This would be a funny joke if I didn't know you were being serious.
Taking away economic power from private individuals and putting it in the hands of government gets "money out of politcs" how?
Quoting Streetlight
And who is going to do that? The politicians that have created this mess? Intellectuals that you happen to like? You, yourself?
Moving on...
Quoting Streetlight
Quoting Streetlight
Swell. How are you going to pay for that?
Quoting Streetlight
Quoting Streetlight
Quoting Streetlight
By ruining the country economically, politically and socially, apparently. Interesting approach to fixing things.
Quoting Streetlight
Gee, I wonder why.
Quoting Streetlight
I don't even want to know what else you would add to this blueprint of wholescale destruction.
More destruction obviously. If there is something on my impromptu list that is not utterly destructive of the US as it currently stands, I'm not doing it right.
So, I assume then that you support democratic systems, as do I and I think @Streetlight does to.
Is this an example of that 'common ground' I was talking about.
Has the election of Albanese in Australia been a positive for you?
Quoting Wayfarer
I am currently reading the memoirs of U. S. Grant. I think the politics and culture/traditions of the South were based on the old European aristocratic/imperialist systems, whereas the culture/traditions of the North, were based more on the aspirations of the old European 'poor and hungry masses.' I know most Historians could shoot many well-deserved holes in that viewpoint and that the truth is far more nuanced but I think it's also, basically, correct. There was too much 'male chest-thumping,' for the civil war to be avoided.
Look at how 'loyal,' past Australians have been to 'the British.'
Even the fact that Oz was used as a dumping ground for those that the ruling brit morons considered undesirable/criminal and the use of the Anzacs as 'fodder' in WW1, etc has not compelled Australians to reject the British monarchy. That's how deep the shit of the nefarious can penetrate.
Quoting Wayfarer
You make a very important point! Especially when the pursuit you mention, is common to a person from Australia, Scotland, USA, Russia, Ukraine or anywhereland.
We all know is a globally common goal but YES the devil lies in the detail.
It's the same as individual freedom! One person's meat is another's poison.
Those who wish to live apart/separate/rarely or never contact each other must be able to do so, to avoid conflict.
We need more space and resources to achieve that.
I can only suggest a future solution.
The Universe is vast. We need to move into it. Move off planet!
Part of the reasons I support Scottish independence is that perhaps its easier to unite with others when you are more secure about your own identity.
Do you agree that the concept of 'currency' is changing?
The total in your bank account is a number that goes down over the month then it gets replenished, if your circumstances allow for such. Paper/metal money is on the wane.
In what ways might this cause change as we move forward?
What do you think of efforts towards a UBI(Universal Basic Income)?
Are you content that your life is so influenced by the amount of money you have access to?
If you don't like the money system? Can you not envisage a different/better/more benevolent system for humans to exist under?
Paper "money" and metal money are markedly different.
Paper "money" is not real money, but currency. It's a means of exchanging value.
Real money is also a means of exchanging value, but has as one of its key characteristics that it is scarce and difficult to produce. Coins, gold bars, other precious metals, etc.
Paper currency does not check this last box. It is very easy to produce, and so it has been in copious amounts by the Federal Reserve. (see the discussion on inflation)
Since the letting go of the gold standard there's no money underpinning the value of our currency anymore and that has been cause for worry for a long time. The value of our currency is now completely a matter of trust in the institutions of government.
So to answer your question: the concept of currency isn't changing, but currency has taken a different (in my opinion very questionable) role in our economic systems.
Secondly, paper currency might be on the wane, being replaced by digital currency, but both are valueless and problematic in their current role - it doesn't make much difference whether your currency is paper or digital.
Real money on the other hand is not on the wane. In fact, the value of gold has been on the rise for a long time, peaking during times of economic crisis.
Quoting universeness
Our current system is based on whether the public believes in fairy tales, and people are starting to wisen up. Once faith in governmental institutions erodes sufficiently (a process which I think is already started) people will go back to real money. After all, everyone is free to buy gold in order to safeguard their wealth.
Quoting universeness
I think it's a Trojan horse.
Quoting universeness
The things that matter in life can't be bought with money. As long as I have food on my plate and a roof above my head I'm as content as material wealth will make me.
Quoting universeness
I could certainly try, but such visions of a better world must always be nuanced by an understanding of the flawed human nature.
Never forget that their security executed an unarmed veteran. This sort of propaganda only justifies their evil.
Yes.
It's not that the Democrats in power can't make sense of the reason why Trump came into power, it's that they don't like the implications of the answer. Better to think that they're not the problem and that they don't need to change then to go through the trouble of stirring up the status quo.
The Dems can get rid of the filibuster on a party line basis, but the senators from Arizona and West Virginia thought it more important that congress remain an impotent body.
And before anyone says that this will give Republicans free rein to pass whatever aspects of their agenda they want when they get into power, then I very much welcome them to try and do so and face the political consequences. Better for them to try to gut abortion access in the public eye than to try and play backroom games with the SCOTUS.
All your descriptions of 'currency' and the associated value placed on metals like silver and gold etc are mere human inventions. Humans can therefore manipulate such systems in any way they choose.
Consensus to make such changes is what is required.
I don't see how regression back to what you call 'real money' or 'rare commodities,' such as gold would help change the importance of money to the human condition.
Any 'financial crisis,' is mainly caused by abuse of power and/or money systems, it is not down to resources magically disappearing from the Earth
Quoting Tzeentch
Who or what do you think is hiding inside your trojan horse?
Quoting Tzeentch
Do you think that what you describe above should be an ENTITLEMENT for all humans born into a human community or do you think that they must be able to afford it?
Quoting Tzeentch
Sounds like we have some common ground here but I am not fatigued by the thought of facing 'flawed human nature,' as I think the nefarious and the narcissistic do not see themselves as flawed.
The nefarious few want power and control over the many or they place their personal will and significance above that of others. This is not a flaw, their machine works fine, its intentions are very deliberate.
Indeed, Manchin is pretty much a Republican. That’s well known. Its West Virginia. Not sure what Sinemas deal is either but Arizona is not known as a bastion for liberal politics either. Mainly libertarian republicans.
I support democracy but I don't advocate for bloody revolution.
I advocate for defense rather than attack but I also advocate for change through the democratic process.
Well, You're here now! You might as well help try to improve things for others whilst recommending that life should fade away asap.
You can advocate for antinatalism all you want, but meantime, you can do your best to help those who are suffering.
To be fair, Manchin at the very least supported reversing the Trump tax cuts (or at least that was his public statement). Sinema opposed those same tax cuts back in 2017 but then reversed course suddenly without explaining why. I mean, I think we can probably all guess as to why, but it is quite baffling.
To be fair to the Democrats, I was referring to this bloke:
Quoting ssu
But yes, the Democrats are Trump enablers. They have been ever since Hillary Clinton's brilliant campaign strategy to elevate Trump in during the Republican primaries, and they have been ever since. Or maybe it was since Trump was a registered Democrat back in 2001. Of course it doesn't really matter because the two parties are the same party with differing heraldry.
Democrats impeached Trump twice. How are they the same party?
Oh what's that? They said 'boo' very loudly twice?
If they keep going, they'll get to do it a third time. A fourth even. What fun they'll have.
I see you're a right winger.
The clear and present danger was about the attempt to overturn a free and fair election and the openly espoused plan to make a concerted attempt to do so in the future based upon legal and historical precedent. It failed in 2021, but some are actively putting in place all the pieces necessary to succeed in the future, should the circumstamces arise to do so.
Absolutely. What astonishes me is the godlike status these parties are afforded such that any policy they come up with is waived through as being at least reasonable, but every alternative is treated as if it were utter madness. It's just baffling the faith these people seem to have in the status quo. As if it were designed by benevolent philosopher kings.
Given their unrelenting documented history of utter contempt for ordinary people, that an idea is not on the manifesto of either party is one of the most compelling arguments in its favour.
A weaselly fudge of an expression - "the democratic process". What is that exactly?
It's unwise to be derogatory towards that which you claim to not understand.
Why are you asking me 'what it is exactly?' If you have already labelled the term 'the democratic process,' 'a weaselly fudge.'
You reveal your lack of control over your own bitter and twisted thinking.
Which process do you prefer over the democratic one?
Ah, the final question was rhetorical.
But on the off chance you're uniquely able to define what is and isn't part of the 'democratic process' then crack on.
As to my bitter and twisted thinking, that's between me and my therapist.
No my final question to you was not rhetorical.
I am not uniquely able to define what is and is not part of the 'democratic process,' but I am able to.
Why would YOU need me to or want me to, if you already think it's 'a weaselly fudge?'
I do not wish to come between you and your therapist. I am just happy that you must live in a democracy which provides you with one. Free of charge I hope, but if not, then perhaps you could help fight for better free mental health services in the country you live in.
:up: I despise policies set forth on the far right as I despise those set forth on the far left. Where is the middle these days? I'm dropping a party affiliation and going independent.
Ironically, Trump supporters would fight you tooth and nail on all of that.
:grin: I hope you are predicting Scotland's future, as I think that would mean the end of our version of the American republican party, the Scottish tory party.
Nonsense.
Not sure what's ironic about that so much as obvious?
Becoming a Teal.
Might the middle class be sufficiently disgruntled with both parties that the vote for neither? What then?
Not having proportional representation is a basic flaw in the US Constitution.
I would take a look at someone like Jane McAlevey. I think she describes one solution very well. It involves organizing. Not lecturing others, but listening and helping them identify and solve problems. Militant unions, a strong labor movement, etc., are going to be part of any solution. That involves real work. It involves, first and foremost, a genuine care for working people. Not contempt and condescension.
Both parties are corporate parties— but asserting they’re the same isn’t exactly true. There are minor differences which we have to acknowledge, however we dislike them. Those differences matter in a superpower like the US, as you both know.
Look at the Supreme Court, to take the obvious example. If Clinton had been elected, we wouldn’t be seeing the end of Roe — which will have very real effects for years to come. As will the upcoming ruling on guns and on restricting the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions. That’s not nothing. That’s not an endorsement of Clinton, of course, but it’s true nevertheless— I think we can all agree?
Given this alone, if things like abortion rights and the environment matter to you, it would be preferable if we didn’t go backwards. That may not sway your vote, but it’s still a difference.
Trump and the GOP tried a coup. The House Democrats are trying to get Trump indicted for crimes. I would say there is a profound difference between the two parties.
They’re nearly all corporatists.
To argue there are profound differences because of this ridiculous media farce really isn’t serious.
The media farce of Trump's violent coup attempt?
Pelosi was fighting tooth and nail for anti-abortion democrats over left candidates right as she released sop-story press statements about the importance of woman's rights in the wake of the supreme court leak. Clinton's unbeliveable incompetence and the Democratic party's anti-democratic internal corruption all but ensured - and continue to ensure - that Republicans will be in place to continue America's march toward its fascist future. Democrats are the same insofar as their existence leads to the same results, not because of hypotheticals that one can take imaginary comfort in apres coup.
If there is one point of major difference it's that there is no more effective tool than the Democratic party is murdering left and progressive energy. Not even the Republicans can do it as effectively and with more devestating results than the Dems.
Edit: Not to mention that the person who similarly fought tooth and nail to ensure that a sexual abuser like Clarence Thomas got onto the court was none other than the current sitting president. And all he had to do was humiliate and retraumatize Thomas' victim in congress on national TV to do so.
No, this commission. Another chance for ratings. Like the Mueller report and impeachment trials before it. I wouldn’t get caught up in this stuff. They’re all trying to recapture the supposed glory days of Watergate.
Trump attempted a violent coup.
I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say our Supreme Court would look different had Trump not been elected— which is indeed a different and important outcome. But yes, technically I can’t prove it.
Quoting Jackson
Fine. This commission is still a farce.
Because?
Because the outcome is predictable and it’s mostly a waste of time and a media production.
There were profound differences of opinion between Republicans and Democrats during the civil war. The conflict was over whether the South should be part of the USA.
Is that the kind of difference you want to see?
I really don’t see the relevance.
I was just asking what sort of parties you'd like to see.
I’d like to see, at bare minimum, a labor party. But this is getting off topic so I’ll leave it at that.
More significantly, which you overlook and therefore misunderstand the statistic you've quoted, 81 million Americans voted against Trump. :mask:
Consider: The failure and loss of "White's Only Democracy" has been, for over fifty years, driving the increasingly violent movement to "repeal and replace" it with a White Nationalist Autocracy, which is now the overt agenda of the Republican Party. The Counter-"Revolution" Is Being Televised, comrades, and hyper-partisan paralysis-by-design of the Federal and State governments is bringing Murica's paramilitarized populist gumbo to a boil. The organizing principle and driver is post-Civil Rights "white grievance" (no doubt catalyzed – not, however, caused – by the ravages of rapacious neoliberal policies that most of these MAGAs (and too many fucking Dems) still support).
Follow the links down this rabbit hole to ... "Magaland".
Quoting 180 Proof
No one cares about my suggestions for improving things, just about complying with the agenda at this stage. Like everyone else.
I don't disagree with any of this. Other than to add this trajectory is still one that you're on, and one that democrats are largely A-OK with, even as they like making loud noises about how not OK they are about this. So 81 million people voted for a war criminal and corporate sponsored creator of poverty and international misery. Not sure how that's supposed to be a counter-point anyway.
To be fair, I don't blame any of these people. Insofar as America is not a democracy and its voting rituals are efforts to pick the PR wing of unchanging corporate lawmaking, these choices were always going to be depraved to begin with. If you have not been the direct cause of mass and ideally global immseration, you're not allowed to be a candidate to begin with.
It's quite disheartening for me to see Americans have such an attitude about such an important proceeding.
There were a group of elected officials and their allies who deliberately plotted and carefully planned a complex quasi-legal method for overturning a free and fair election. These people also set out to convince all their supporters that it needed to be done as a result of the election being stolen. Neither of those things were true, because the election was not stolen. They all knew the election was not stolen.
Do you understand the seriousness and the future implications of all that?
Conspiracy to defraud The United States(the big lie). Seditious conspiracy(based upon the big lie). The big lie also has been used to foment the idea that our elections are not secure enough, and thus that something needs to be done to ensure free and fair elections. That's yet another conspiracy to defraud The United States. The 2020 election was the most secure closely monitored election in our history. Those elected officials peddling the falsehood already know that. Voting laws have been under constant attack and decimated since, making it much harder for less privileged people to vote. They've used the big lie as support for those changes, and continue to do so.
No.
We are facing very serious novel threats from within the government itself. The president of the United States did nothing to protect the capital building and it's inhabitants!!! The planned insurrection involved congresspeople as well!!! Many, if not most of those still hold office!!! Allowing the public to know this information is not about ratings. It's about putting a stop to this shit while we still can!!!
It's about shedding light on a topic(Jan.6) that the involved parties were trying to ignore and basically sweep under the rug immediately afterwards. From my vantage point, there are quite a few elected officials and citizens involved, and not just those who breached the building. It is a crime to know about a planned attempt at an insurrection and not report it to the proper authorities. There was a concerted effort to foment doubt about the integrity of the election, and there is now a concerted effort to convince the public that the commission is a partisan witch hunt about ratings. This narrative is being fostered by those who are guilty of seditious conspiracy, fraud, and doing everything based upon ratings.
:angry:
Agree. How corrupt has our nation become if a violent coup cannot wake them from their slumber.
Quoting Streetlight
This thread topic concerns the "clear and present danger" of the Republican Party (with and without the complicity of Dems or Libs). As far as voting in the last US presidential election, it stands repeating what I'd replied to you back in 2020:
Quoting 180 Proof
Eighty-one million votes to kick tr45h out of office – Biden was the only electoral means to that end. Apparently, you wouldn't have had the balls to do the same had you had any skin in the game. Talk shit from the cheap seats, Street, if that tickles your sack.
Quoting creativesoul
Quoting Jackson
Yes, and what exactly have you two done about it? Beyond being outraged from what you’re reading/seeing?
Sorry— but there are better things for me to do than passively consume the latest media spectacle. Even picking up trash in the neighborhood accomplishes more.
Clearly you support Trump's coup attempt.
:roll:
Grow up.
I am all grown up.
Then you're already in a fascist state and you just haven't clued in yet.
-
I've been thinking that when right-wing nut jobs accuse liberals and the left of being Anti-American, they are fundamentally correct. Tump and his like are the American dream - they are the essence of 'what it is to be American', distilled to a tee. Those who oppose them, are, in fact, anti-American. To be American means exactly what the right-wing understands by the term: to be nasty, self-centered, infused with racial hatred and a utter contempt for those worse off. Trump is American as apple pie, the most American thing to have been produced since its cowboys genocided Indians all across the plain.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1538888066856718337[/tweet]
The clear and present danger to the USofA are those who do not recognize that the above just is the USofA. Jan 6 hearings? Anti-American AF. And the Republicans, insofar as they are the embodiment of everything America stands for, were correct to boycott them.
The interesting question in the OP is not who or what is 'the clear and present danger'. It's what this entity 'The United State of America' is. Because if it is not in "clear and present danger", then it's in trouble.
As @Streetlight has already suggested, these are campaign promises, not policies. I don't know the ins and outs of the specific manifestos (I'm English, though I follow American politics in the English press), but the political situation is much the same as in any two party state, each knows which section of the electorate are they need to sway to get elected and campaign promises are directed at them. Actual policies, however, are influenced by corporate sponsors and can be stalled, repealed or rendered toothless as required.
Not only do the left-ish parties have a whole raft of tools at their disposal to render their campaign promises non-functional once elected, but they also form part of a political neutering of actual left-wing politics which means that when (inevitably) the right-wing parties return to power, the stage is well set for them to make further their immiserating agenda, free of any real opposition.
I sympathise with the pragmatic intent behind "we'd better choose the least worst, lest the most worst gets in", but I think that the people who are genuinely concerned about positive change are too small a group to make a difference voting (possible in some constituencies, but unlikely). As such there's more political power in a loud vociferous rejection of both than there is in a reluctant acceptance of the least worst.
The point I was really trying to make was about policies. Even if we include campaign promises (rather than actual enacted policy), we have this fundamental dissonance between the way policies are devised and the way they're received. The policies of any governmental political body are not designed for the betterment of humanity. That's not a political statement, it's just a statement of fact, there's no cybernetic mechanism in place to carry out that guidance. They are designed to secure power. Again, not with any nasty conspiracy theory in mind, as simple statement of the mechanism by which policies are devised - the cybernetics of the system are about the effect the policy will have on securing power, not on human betterment. As in any essentially chaotic system, network pathways emerge that were not designed by which nonetheless influence data flow. The actual nuts and bolts of an electoral system is one such. There end up being pathway opportunities to the objective (getting into power) which emerge from the mechanisms which form the system that were not part of any human-design of that system (the opportunities - not the taking of them - taking them up is distinctly intentional). In democracy, these are features such as filibustering, flood-advertising, psychological manipulation, swing constituencies, balances of power (where there are, for example two houses of government), the mechanisms of voting (block votes, vetoes, session limits, amendments...), and finally whatever civil service enact and police the policy. All these mechanisms take up on opportunities opened up by emergent pathways which those who are aware of them can exploit. None of them have the least bit to do with the democratic notion of simply asking your populace what policies they prefer.
What you're describing as 'the democratic process' is a complex mechanism which has virtually nothing to do with any means by which people can promote the betterment of their communities. I'd just as sooner have nothing to do with it, and anyone who thinks it's going to save them is seriously misguided as to it's functions.
Do you know what the hearings have shed light upon thus far?
Yup.
Antitrust laws - toothless. IRS enforcement capabilities - toothless. Conflict of interest concerns - toothless. Consumer protection agency - toothless. EPA - toothless. Etc.
In The States there are policies that are actually written by those who are working on the behalf of such corporations. That is to have tremendous power over a people that have not consented and whose interest is in direct conflict with the aims of the parties involved. That power has been usurped from the people and sold to those who do not act with the people's best interest in mind!
The monetary corruption pervading American government has reached levels of unsustainability.
These are some of the things that paved the way for Jan.6 to even be able to happen. These sorts of things are what underwrite the common belief that politicians cannot be trusted, or that the government is the problem, etc. Justified distrust in the government to do the right thing for the American people! In a representative form of government, that's a big problem!
A system is only as good as it's implementation. It's not the system that's broken. It's the implemenation.
First rule of public service:Provide a service to the public. What the US government has managed to provide to those with the ability to pledge huge sums of money to elected officials is nothing short of legalized government bribery. That bribe buys a transfer of the power over American citizens that elected officials bear to individuals who are not elected and whose interests are in direct conflict with the peoples'. That is a horrible public disservice.
I care about what you think and what you suggest, especially when it supports MY socialist/humanist agenda or when your thoughts/suggestions conflict with that same agenda.
I think it's foolish to ignore you, and such as you, especially when you are in reality, many millions, more and more are also becoming politically aware and even organised.
But Lincoln was a republican president!
The republican party was a new party in the run up to the American civil war.
Lincoln started as a member of the whig party.
Most of those who supported slavery were democrats. U. S. Grant writes about the political situation quite well in his memoirs. The democrats were a completely different group compared to today. They were founded more based on those involved with the American revolution.
Quoting Jackson
I am not an American but I think you are both soooooooooo correct here.
Trump and the rest of those directly responsible for what happened on Jan 6th should do jail time.
It was an attempted coup! I wonder what would have happened if Trump was more than the physical coward he is. If he had actually shown up and supported his 'mob.' What if Pence had also backed him? Could they actually have produced the military support to complete their attempted coup?
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
I think we could all do more but we all justify what we do or why we don't do more, including me!
General and personal apathy is a major concern.
I agree with the majority of the content of your posts Xtrix but some stuff you post, I don't understand.
You seem to think that the current efforts to make Trump and his main power brokers face justice for their nefarious actions are a waste of time. I don't understand your reasons. Avoidance of the inevitable 'media circus' seems a limited reason to me.
I remember your post on another thread that seemed to assign value to 'aristocratic' rule as well.
I felt that also contradicted your generally 'humanist/socialist,' viewpoints.
Perhaps I just don't yet see your 'big picture.'
I understand many of the apathetic points you raise. You type with the same frustrations of many many others. You seem to be politically fatigued and de-energised towards those who are working so hard to change the human experience for the better.
No one ever ever suggested that creating a human society that is benevolent to the vast majority and to the ecology it exists within, would be easy.
I learned a long time ago to dissociate the labels that an individual claims and uses with what they actually do and demonstrate on a day to day basis.
I accept that sometimes you have to dance with the devil to learn its moves and counter them.
Democracy is an essential imo. I don't care how many times you can exemplify:
Quoting Isaac
Your examples will probably be quite accurate and your alarm raising, is completely valid and necessary and I would even say, 'is a service to the democratic process.' Each one of the abuses/loopholes etc identified must be laboriously realised, analysed, understood, countered and finally defeated.
Socialists have been trying since and before the days of Spartacus!
Through 10,000 years of tears, if you like.
In the cosmic calendar however, that's just a splash in the time ocean.
So I think my 'give us a f****** chance mate,' complaint, remains valid.
I think global socialism/humanism is and always has been, inevitable. The only question that remains is 'how long can the nefarious hold it back?' I don't know that answer but I fight any apathetic feelings that rise in me.
When the clear differences between those who claim to be socialist in the UK and those who are tories become hard to see, I remember that this is not a failure of any socialist tenet, it's a failure or revelation of the individual(s) who abuse the label. I also don't blame god (even though I am very confident that no such nasty creature exists) for the actions of some theists.
Quoting Isaac
I can use a hammer to help build a shelter for a human or I can beat the human to death with it.
A hammer, like the democratic process, is a tool that can be used benevolently or nefariously.
I don't blame or abandon the very useful hammer due to the way some choose to use and abuse it.
:clap: Absafragginlutely! :death: :flower:
Just a 'quirky' aside. I think in places like Italy, the :ok: symbol is a compliment normally directed towards food. But, is it not places like Mexico/Spain where :ok: is taken as an insult? You are basically making the shape of an anus so 'are you called me an asshole agent smith?' :lol:
:gasp:
I gotta be more careful! Merci for the heads up! I wouldn't call anyone an asshole, not my style you see!
Do you advocate for a Christian Theocracy? Speaking for myself, not a good idea. Theocracies have a poor track record!
The tradition has been to favour the theory of cockup over conspiracy. But times have changed, and although partly we are seeing the shit that has always been going down but we didn't know it, because internet, we are also subject to voodoo economics and voodoo politics. It used to be that 'divide and rule' was the rule, but now it's become 'divide and exploit chaos'. The social capital of the last couple of millennia is being squandered for a momentary advantage in the coming total collapse of civilisation. The masses are no longer needed because robots are cheaper, so they are being scrapped.
They're all going to fight for freedom until they're all dead.
:scream: I wouldn't worry about it too much :cool: Almost every hand gesture you can make can be problematic. Even raising your hand to greet someone or indicate your wish to ask or answer a question or indicate where you are in a pub can be misunderstood. Traditionally it comes from leaders of waring tribes showing that they had no weapons in their hands so it was safe for them to approach each other.
So you are actually indicating to your friends that you have no weapons in your hand to kill them with but if you get the angle wrong or the shape you make with your fingers, it can be anything from a Roman or Nazi salute to a power fist threat towards your opposition.
I am sure the American republican party members have their own full-arm-raised salute for their orange-faced god.
I am an atheist Agent Smith, I would be ejected from a theocracy or killed in it before I could utter the words 'There are no f****** go....... aaaaarrrggggghhhh!' :death:
I don't think the former supports the latter. That a system is only as good as its implementation means that a system which is failing might not be broken (only badly implemented) but it does not show that it is not broken (only badly implemented).
I'm not sure if all the problems with democracy are fixable, but I can't think of a better general system of actual governance. A vote is just one of many means by which we can influence society. Getting someone more amenable to our objectives in power is a very, very small part of politics.
My objection here is over when the soap opera around who is in power is allowed to detract from those other, more important aspects of politics.
Quoting Xtrix
It appears to me that Creativesoul is itching for a new Civil War in the USA.
Good to know that behind your ill-chosen typings, (such as describing the democratic process as 'a weaselly fudge,') there is a person who can't think of a better system of governance than one which is at least, democratically elected.
Quoting Isaac
We ignore or trivialise any event or happening in politics, local or national at our peril.
Take your eye off the ball for a split second and the nefarious will have it away/change your access to it/make it almost unrecognisable to you.
We need so many eyes on all things political that they cannot make a single decision that is not scrutinised by 'very powerful detectors of all nefarious intentions.'
Before you ask, NO I don't know quite how to achieve that but I remain convinced that humans can and eventually will. I always liked Obama's 'Oh yes we can.'
Well, that's not supposed to be an argument. Rather, just stating the facts as I understand them. In order to know if the failure is inherent to the system or the implementation thereof we need to understand the system first in order to know whether or not it's being implemented properly.
It's not. In fact the sheer volume of revolutionary writings that very clearly show that the founders very well understood the danger that "pure capitalists" posed to the country by virtue of being loyal only to profit, and not to country or countryman(their words). Add to this the emoluments clause, the strict limit upon an individual's campaign contribution, the separation of powers, and well, an originalist interpretation could not escape the conclusion that there have been a number of direct violations against the constitution. The end result???
The best government money can buy.
Indeed, the political theatre desensitizes... Shock sells. Intentional exaggeration for the purpose of selling something mundane, if done enough, causes harm. Boys and wolves come to mind...
:up:
Indeed, one can't be too careful these days...
When I was a kid in Texas I would wear my cowboy hat and shoot my cap pistol while singing, "The eyes if Texas are upon you . . ." :roll:
Only if one lies about abortion being murder.
Only that your pride requires blood
I have no idea what that means.
Well. I would still vote Democrat for the greater good
So Independents, Libertarians, Republicans and apolitical women do not also "murder the unborn"? For clarity's sake, cite some corroborating evidence to support this claim. :brow:
:grimace: :groan:
:snicker:
I'm impressed by American democracy.
American democracy is by it's very design, a republic with democratic tradition. It is a representative form of government that is remarkably different than a pure democracy in that rather than majority rule, the people choose from a selection of candidates, and those elected official's are responsible for acting on behalf of the country.
It was of the utmost importance to the framers to take intentional measures to ensure that they prevented too much power from being in too few hands. We can see that throughout the system.
Elected officials have certain duties and responsibilities bestowed upon them by design which help to prevent any accumulation of power. It is clear. It is plain. It is quite easily understood. No magic tricks. No doublespeak.
Emoluments clause, and how a campaign for office is to be funded and subsequently enacted.
There are some very clear rules being broken by different elected public officials across the spectrum. Breaking them has somehow and in some way become the norm. The emoluments clause has been being broken by countless elected officials, president notwithstanding for decades. Divesting one from one's own financial interests is not just a suggestion. It's not just an unspoken norm. The emoluments clause is codified. It remains an indispensable component of a carefully articulated system of checks and balances. Breaking it amounts to improper implementation, to put it mildly. The framers included it as a means to eliminate the conflicts of interest between the elected official's best interest when and if it is contrary to the overwhelming majority's.
Breaking it has been a secret kept out in the open. Most Americans already believe that there is a fair enough amount of monetary corruption influencing their elected officials. Most Americans believe it's some unspoken norm for a public official to seek office as the primary source of income. Most Americans believe it's the norm for public officials to enrich themselves as a result of being an elected official. Most Americans believe that elected officials make campaign promises that they do not intend uon keeping. They accept these as an incontrovertible fact; as if nothing can be done. It's not that way at all.
Something can be.
Getting someone more amenable to our objectives is THE issue at hand as best I can tell. I
Wisdom. Who would take such a sap as I?
:brow:
What did you mean? Republicans are trying to end abortion.
Is abortion the only thing that matters to you?
No, I said that saving the planet from heat death supercedes it
So, abortion and heat death. Nothing about violent coups.
Genocide and saving humanity are pretty far up there, ye
So you think the US is committing genocide. Odd.
The world is. I am not Catholic but one of the previous Pope's said abortion is the new Holocaust. I agree
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
How? What's the mechanism you propose?
In his uniquely dialectical fashion, Hegel writes, "In the ordinary course of nature the condition of the child in its mother's womb is a condition neither merely bodily nor merely mental, but psychical- a correlation of soul to soul. Here are two individuals, yet in undivided psychic unity: the one as yet self, as yet nothing impenetrable, incapable of resistance: the other its actuating subject, the single self of the two. The mother is the genius of the child; for by genius we commonly mean the total mental self-hood, as it has existence of its own, and constitutes the subjective substantiality of some one else who is externally treated as an individual and has only independence in name. The underlying essence of the genius is the sum total of existence, of life, and of character, not as a mere possibility, or capacity, or virtually, but as efficiency and realized activity, as concrete subjectivity."
This is not the place to debate abortion I guess, but consider how a mother in her soul takes care of her child, protects it, and comforts it into existence. What could be more evil than for the woman to stop this move of nature and assert a "right" to be free from the motherhood she already possesses?
When quoting, please cite the source.
Philosophy of Mind, paragraph 405
To not derail the thread, feel free to have the last word
The discussion was about political policies
Shedding light on these failures of governmental implementation is crucial, but you asked for a mechanism...
Sanders was the best chance I've seen in my lifetime...
Mechanism?
I do not know. All oversight has been rendered toothless by those needing it. What is needed is for enough elected officials to act in the best interest of the nation instead of self-interest. The problem, as the judge articulated nicely, is that those folk may not even believe or recognize that they've ever been faced with such a choice.
Isn't Amurica great?!
Well, yeah, but that opportunity has already been headed off by having such a high threshold of expensive and tightly regulated media coverage required to even stand a chance of being elected.
It's another of those systematic failures. The sheer volume of people whom a national politician needs to persuade means that both finance and media are absolutely essential.
This puts financiers and media moguls in charge of who can even stand a chance of getting elected.
The only solutions I can see are to forget national politics entirely - get things done at local level (where media need not be involved), or to bypass media by mass protest, or to simply make existing political agendas impossible by refusal to comply.
Which makes it even more distressing that, in a post-appearance interview, Bowers said that if Trump were to stand in 2024, he'd vote for him!
Gone are the days when one could presume that 'reason will prevail' or 'the truth will out'. American Republicanism really is a brain-eating virus or profound cognitive disorder, a symptom of a society that is literally destroying itself.
Quoting unenlightened
add cryptocurrencies to that list.
After watching Biden as president it's a reverse Sophie's choice I fear.
Quoting Wayfarer
We'll keep that in mind.
There is no "tightly regulated media coverage" of an American election. Elections are most certainly expensive, but that fact is not due to an inherent flaw in the American system of government.
To quite the contrary, that fact(that American elections are expensive) counts as prima facie evidence that the rules to safeguard the country against government bribery have been broken. If those rules were enacted they would serve their purpose to prevent wealthy private citizens from rewarding the lawmakers for writing laws that would ensure the wealthy donors made even more money while knowingly quantifiably injuring huge swathes of American citizens.
Emoluments. Campaign finance. Conflicts of interest.
The system guards against government bribery; the accumulation of against excessive power in too few hands; inadequate representation; abuse of power; and usurpation of the people's power to freely choose between individuals who have what's best for the overwhelming majority of Americans in mind during any and all deliberation/discussion about potential bills(legislation) or any other potential government action effected/affected the American people.
When preventative safety measures deliberately built into the system are blatantly ignored, it is not a flaw inherent to the system if the neglection of the rule results in exactly what the rule guards against.
How elections are currently funded goes against the system's safeguards mentioned heretofore. Campaign finance. Conflicts of interest. Emoluments.
You had me entirely captivated by your wry wit...
...all the way up to there...
The Republican Party is not a clear and present danger to the United States, but the ultimate expression of the United States in its unblemished purity. You cannot be a danger to what you fundamentally embody.
I'm sorry, are we on the same planet? The one where a journalist is currently facing inhumane imprisonment for his media coverage? The one where the government are actively instructing social media platforms on what content to ban? The one where virtually all media in America is owned by just six companies and five of them are effectively owned by two asset management companies?
That planet, is the one where there's no tightly regulated media?
Quoting creativesoul
If a system cannot provide adequate means for it's integrity then it is a failed system. But...
Quoting Streetlight
...is absolutely right. I should not be talking in terms of system failure when the intent has actually been met. I should talk instead in terms of system atrocity.
IS NOT THE RESULT OF TOO MUCH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION
Unaware of this case.
Freedom of speech is not unfettered. Especially when so few have so much power over what gets put into the public sphere for it's political consumption.
No, it's the result of the American system working exactly as intended, regulation or not.
No. It's the result of exactly the right amount of government legislation to achieve that state of affairs.
Quoting creativesoul
Assange.
Quoting creativesoul
Restrictions on freedom of speech are not the issue, the issue is who wields that power.
American elections are expensive. We agree there. I'm not seeing the relevance that the above has to that agreement.
:brow:
Not clear of the actions he performed or the charges he faces.
Who gets to be the final arbiter of truth?
I for one, am thankful for the DNC leak regarding the deceptive practices in the 2020 primaries. I knew it all along. Clinton Obama season had 29 or so public debates. Clinton Sanders had 4 or 5. The debates showed that Sanders' support increased and Clinton's took a tumble afterwards.
I'm not naive. I'm vested. I am doing everything in my power to improve and/or help what I can, when I can, and how I can. The framework has been ignored when it comes to safeguards against the bribery of elected officials. The Constitution has been violated. The results of those violations are what you seem to be railing against. I'm suggesting a sober look at how those issues arose. You seem bent upon damning America for it. I'm bent upon fixing it, and I'm nudging and/or gesturing towards how to do it.
It means that anyone wanting to run needs lots of money. That places restrictions on who can run and on what demands will be made of them. Securing finance is never free of constraint.
Quoting creativesoul
The US government is trying to prosecute him for espionage for revealing information about their war crimes to the electorate.
Quoting creativesoul
I don't understand why this question has all of a sudden become an issue. Caught between the right-wing individualist answer "we do", and the current trending answer "the government".
We already have a system of expertise measuring in place where previous experts judge whether newly minted experts are, in fact, sufficiently knowledgeable about their field. It's not exactly flawless, but it's crazy to speak as if the question has only just arisen.
A professor of medicine is qualified to speak to the truth of facts about medicine. A professor of international relations is qualified to speak to the truth of matters regarding international relations. A professor of military strategy is qualified to speak to the truth of military strategy.
I don't understand what the reasons were for people abandoning trust in that system, but to pretend it never even existed is madness.
In order to know that you'd have to be privy to the framers' thought and belief. That's quite a presupposition.
No. I do not give one single damn about the lost daddy syndrome that Americans have. The framers were rapists and slave owners and what they thought means less than nothing. The constituion is largely a decorative piece that happens to be interpreted by another set of rapists and power mongers who are worth even less. America is shaped by those who govern, and those those govern are quite happy to let Americans - and the rest of the world - eat dirt so long as they accure power and wealth.
Yes. That's a problem, not because it costs so much. How current campaigns are financed is the problem. That means violates the Constitution.
Again, not a problem with the system, but rather with improper implementation.
The broadened brush reveals the lack of precision prior to. It does not make up for it.
You know better than this.
Meaningless.
I can see how that could be true for you based upon what you've said here.
It would simply take alot less mental gymnastics on your part to accept that the US has always been a country founded on mass murder the immeseration of all those without means. The three successive phrases of American history that sum up the entirety of that miserable country's existence is simply: genocide, slavery, and war. The fourth will be theocratic totalitarianism. Your excuses for the system simply perpetuate it. You are on the side of the same fascists you worry about.
The Republican party is the party of America and all that it stands for. If you don't accept that then you've never understood America's function and place in the world. It helps of course that Biden is a reverse-RINO - a Republican in everything but name.
The constitution is not the sum total of the system.
The current weaknesses in the system you describe, is what must change!
I would restrict all political campaigning to a single TV/Internet communication channel, controlled by elected 'international' representatives and funded via national tax systems. Perhaps it could become a part of the UN and give them real power and influence.
Any politician or political party must appear, and be interviewed/scrutenised, live on TV/Internet, on request, regarding any national issue. Refusal would result in removal from office. The run-up to elections would be controlled by groups who would be formed at the time from the people who will be governed. Professional/technical media staff will be available to help them. They will debate with the political parties seeking election to govern. These debates will be live on the TV and Internet channel. The politicians will have no ability to influence the content of the issues discussed. A single political leaflet will not be allowed to be posted through a letterbox, anywhere.
I am sure my idea 'needs a lot of work,' but we need some such system imo.
You’re referring to the constitution, yes?
It is indeed worth reading. It’s also worth reading about the context of the framing. I recommend Michael Klarman’s excellent book The Framer’s Coup.