Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
MOD OP EDIT: Please put general conversations about Trump here. Anything that is not exceptionally deserving of its own OP on this topic will be merged into this discussion. And let's keep things relatively polite. Thanks.
Comments (24161)
When the mean lifetime was 40 ys and childs dying in infancy was a common thing.
Whereas now, without anarchism, we have Covid-19 spreading like wildfire across the globe....
...or maybe, just maybe, picking two states of affairs which happen to coincide doesn't sufficiently prove one caused the other...?
Yep, back when you died of toothache. The life expectancy was below 40 years iirc. Personally I'd take dentistry and medicine over self-rule, but that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a happy medium between strict authoritarianism and anarchism.
I think self-rule is impractical in a society of mobile strangers and diverse moral opinion. I think it would be pretty easy for antisocial elements to just commit a savage burn and move on to the next town. Self-rule requires uniformity of morality to be more than simple might-is-right. Oppression and marginalisation of minorities would be all too easy when justice is majority opinion.
I won’t derail this whole thread with it but if you’re curious how I think that would work:
http://www.geekofalltrades.org/codex/politics
That’s right. Despite the fear mongering, the comparisons to every dictator from Mao, to Mussolini, to Hitler, he never once seized dictatorial control. When presented with the greatest opportunity, such as a global pandemic, it turns out lockdowns, the seizing of economies, police states, curfews, arbitrary punishment is the modus operandi of countless other politicians, none of whom the fear mongers warned us about. How wrong they were.
At worst he held a rally told people to exercise their first amendment rights. Not quite my idea of a dictator.
A boring, unsexy thing called social liberalism, where the state tries to guarantee a reasonable standard of life for all citizens but still allows for personal initiatives. But maybe not the paradise for young offspring of lawyers, artists or capitalist, seeing saving the world as a possible meaning of life, daytime work working hours unthinkable.
We used to have that in the country where I live, considered leftist by most US people. But academical family born leftist have spoiled it all with dreams. Now racism is worse than ever and our political system is in chaos. A bit anarchistic, maybe. People shoot each other. They did not use to do that here.
:up:
Quoting Ansiktsburk
Where are you?
Quoting Ansiktsburk
I don't think that that's a "happy medium" in the sense that anarchism is too far in one direction, but it is a medium, and yeah, it's an alright one, a whole lot better than authoritarianism, or unchecked capitalism, which each collapse into each other.
A problem with some anarchists, which gives a big problem to all of anarchism's public image, is that they make perfect the enemy of good, and act like anything besides complete absolute freedom and equality is basically fascism. Pragmatic anarchists, like myself, or to name the first big name off the top of my head, Noam Chomsky, recognize that while fully functioning anarchism is the ideal, if we're not going to have that ideal it's better to have the next best thing than to say "fuck it" and give up completely; and if we can't have that next best thing, then the next best thing to that; etc.
So at the bottom end of the scale, you've got fascism, which as I've said is the industrial or post-agricultural face of feudalism, in both cases, the complete collusion of state and capital, state capitalism, maximal authority and hierarchy.
Various misguided political movements try to increase liberty from there in a way that ignores or excuses the continuing hierarchy, trending toward so-called anarcho-capitalism; or else to increase equality from there in a way that ignores or excuses the continued authority, trending toward state socialism. Neither is sustainable and both inevitably collapse back into state capitalism.
In between those two competing extremist "ideals" lies a perfect balance of liberty and equality, each maximized to the extent that they can possibly be stable, having government but no state, having free markets but no capitalism. This is the anarchic ideal. We could have even more liberty or even more equality than that, but not in a way that could possibly remain stable, and attempting to do so we would inevitably end up falling to one side or the other, state socialism or anarcho-capitalism, and from either of them back to state capitalism again.
But even that anarchic ideal is itself unstable, just not impossibly unstable. For all its flaws, state capitalism is very stable, very good at perpetuating itself. Maintaining distance from it takes constant work. And we're not usually great at keeping things going when they need constant work. So somewhere in between that state capitalism and the ideal anarchism, but not off to either side toward anarcho-capitalism or state socialism, are various other degrees of balanced liberty and equality, limited states with limited capitalism, even if neither is yet completely abolished. That's the liberal social democracy that's found in the best countries in the world today.
Actual anarchism would still be better than that. But actual anarchism is hard to maintain. And if we as a people aren't up to handling that yet, then liberal social democracy is an acceptable place to rest on our laurels. And as we recover and gather our energy, we can improve upon it, further limiting the state without getting rid of good governance, further limiting capitalism without getting rid of good free markets, and in doing so inching closer and closer to the abolition of both state and capital, which is anarchism.
Or y'know we could play some punk rock, throw molotovs through some windows, and then kick back as the fascists use that as an excuse to take over even further.
The KGB ‘played the game as if they were immensely impressed by his personality’, Yuri Shvets, a key source for a new book, tells the Guardian
David Smith in Washington
Fri 29 Jan 2021 03.00 EST
Donald Trump was cultivated as a Russian asset over 40 years and proved so willing to parrot anti-western propaganda that there were celebrations in Moscow, a former KGB spy has told the Guardian.
Yuri Shvets, posted to Washington by the Soviet Union in the 1980s, compares the former US president to “the Cambridge five”, the British spy ring that passed secrets to Moscow during the second world war and early cold war.
Now 67, Shvets is a key source for American Kompromat, a new book by journalist Craig Unger, whose previous works include House of Trump, House of Putin. The book also explores the former president’s relationship with the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.....
Shvets, who has carried out his own investigation, said: “For me, the Mueller report was a big disappointment because people expected that it will be a thorough investigation of all ties between Trump and Moscow, when in fact what we got was an investigation of just crime-related issues. There were no counterintelligence aspects of the relationship between Trump and Moscow.”
He added: “This is what basically we decided to correct. So I did my investigation and then got together with Craig. So we believe that his book will pick up where Mueller left off.”
Unger, the author of seven books and a former contributing editor for Vanity Fair magazine, said of Trump: “He was an asset. It was not this grand, ingenious plan that we’re going to develop this guy and 40 years later he’ll be president. At the time it started, which was around 1980, the Russians were trying to recruit like crazy and going after dozens and dozens of people.”
“Trump was the perfect target in a lot of ways: his vanity, narcissism made him a natural target to recruit. He was cultivated over a 40-year period, right up through his election.”
A lot of good that did. What they got was a pro-American, “America-first” agenda. The KGB fell with their commie empire. Maybe Trump cultivated them and we can thank him for the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Based on recent events, I'd say he is far from useless. He is a very useful figurehead, and it looks like the attempts of the more moderate republicans to extricate the party from the grasp of unrestrained populism have failed.
Right now, all signs point to more of the same, which given the trajectory can only mean authoritarian regime or bust.
He's got to keep up the agitation or else the guillotine falls. He's not in a happy place.
Sure, for Trump it makes sense, the more influence he can retain the better for him. But as for the Republicans, they're either very short sighted or just really don't care about how they get into power, so long as they do.
Hell of an insight into how you rationalise Trump from the vile, pathetic human being he is to the American hero you see him as. Usually people consider things like evidence and logic but you fasttrack the shit out of it.
Years of Russia conspiracy theories and where were you? It sounds like double standards but there is no evidence you have any. Is it because you have a Trump-shaped hole in your heart?
Yeah, I could care less if Russians bought Facebook ads. Biden employed Facebook and they censored information that might look bad for Biden. Where were you?
But yeah if you have evidence that Biden colluded with foreign powers to win in 2020, throw it up. That's evidence in the usual sense, not in the sense of photos of his son smoking in a bath, i.e. we shouldn't have to make twelve leaps of faith to get from the evidence to the conclusion.
No, I couldn't care less because there is no crime or evil occurring anywhere folks like yourself have been crying wolf for the past half-decade. Trump, like the mods and rockers, just happens to be the source of your hysteria.
I've never said nor implied Biden colluded with foreign powers to win in 2020, so I'm not going to bother.
... your point was utterly irrelevant, yes.
Quoting NOS4A2
Depends how much you care about democracy, I suppose. For people who do, a President that courts foreign interference in elections (and then attempts to interfere with his next election) is a huge cause for concern. I think after Jan 6th everyone is cogniscent of the fact that his supporters are somewhat more ambivalent about the security of their democracy.
[quote=CNN]A person familiar with the departures told CNN that Trump wanted the attorneys to argue there was mass election fraud and that the election was stolen from him rather than focus on the legality of convicting a president after he's left office. Trump was not receptive to the discussions about how they should proceed in that regard.[/quote]
Everyone's saying that the verdict is a foregone conclusion, but I still reckon the Impeachment Managers might have a few tricks up their sleeve.
Exposing someone’s dodgy past is an important journalistic function.
//on the other hand, drilling down into the author of the book Tim mentions, he is a writer for the NY Times, so I'm inclined to think he's credible, I withdraw my remark that his book might be dodgy. There's a lot of dodgy material around on both sides of the Trump story, but I don't think Craig Unger is part of it.//
:roll:
That would be quite corrupt (and therefore you're right, that's what will happen). Congress has already answered the question of whether an ex-President can be impeached: those 45 were in the minority. The question put to the Senate is whether he is guilty of what he is accused of. Voting in the Senate that he should not be impeached would be undemocratic, i.e. counter to the will of the democratically-elected House. Since Republicans are undemocratic, we should expect it.
There's shit loads of evidence, you just explain it away, like any good conspiracy theorist will do.
Quoting NOS4A2
Quoting NOS4A2
What you didn't seem to grasp four years ago, and still don't seem to grasp is that there are laws against foreign participation in an American election. It is a crime.
Twitter and Facebook have nothing to do with American elections, so all that nonsense about Russian bots and fake news on social media was piffle. You guys live in some weird alternate reality.
Just what we need: more authoritarian pantywaists in power chilling free speech. This is a show trial in a kangaroo court,
The theme that Trump used throughout his political career, simply varying who were the establishment and who were the invaders. A simple message for simple minds. An obvious haunted universe statement.
It’s a weird conclusion because what Trump was “really saying” (according to the author) is contradicted by what he really said. One can search his entire archive of tweets and not find a single mention of “invaders”. And given that the author’s analysis is restricted to Trump’s tweets, it leaves out a vast amount of rhetoric Trump used elsewhere. So it’s a poor analysis for poor minds.
Michelle Carter exercised her free speech by encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself. She didn't kill him, so why should SHE have been punished when she was just exercising her free speech?
You banned @Michael??? Infighting in putin's cortege?
Right, keep repeating it it will come true. Democrats are going to invade their own country.
Exactly.
Wrong. In court, Carter's defense consisted of claims that she was exercising her free speech. The Massachusets Supreme Court ruled her speech was not protected because it was, "integral to a course of criminal conduct."
The same applies to Trump's incitement. There are limits to the exercise of free speech.
TBH, I was surprised at NOS4A2's response. I stupidly assumed everyone would agree that girl deserved to go to prison.
After which, the Republican Party really ought to change its name to the Anti-Democracy Party. Or maybe the Anti-Constitution Party, or some meld of the two.
Their names will live in infamy forever.
They’d probably agree to the “Anti-Democrat Party” at least.
Of course.
But they are only thinking of how many of those 74 million or so that voted Trump are indeed "Trump loyalists" and think that the election was stolen. The Republican politicians are just meandering here not to get those people to dump the GOP, nothing else. They are thinking more about NOS4A2 than Trump.
The good thing here is that Trump is so utterly incompetent in leadership qualities as otherwise he really would make it his party. The fact that simply take away the ability to send tweets with his smart phone and he has been totally incapable of reaching out to anybody. Has Trump given an interview after the election? No, or at least I didn't find it. Has he participated otherwise in the discussion? No, I don't think so. Is he controlling the GOP. How? This isn't a man in control or planning to make a comeback. This is a defeated, humiliated, grandfather who sits in front of his television and bitches about everything and has an average level tantrum about the performance of his lawyers in the impeachment trial.
He has many minions throughout the party organisation who will happily kneecap anyone who speaks against him. I agree with you that he’s finished, but it’s really dispiriting to hear the bile spewing from his defenders in the Senate. Defending the indefensible with blizzards of lies. A dumpster fire, and the stench is awful.
The My Pillow guy?
What you have is many people using him, riding on his wake. You see, Trump isn't a party leader. He isn't any kind of leader of people, a person who would organize people to do something. What he basically would be, if his Twitter account wasn't closed, the master of commenting issues through tweets.
The thing that the majority of GOP members are doing are not impeaching him. That hardly means that Trump is in charge of the party and controlling it. (Who controls a party is for example Vladimir Putin and his United Russia -party, which btw hold 74,4% of the seats in the Russian Duma.)
No, the State branches, the Republican Party organisation right across the country. Nothing to do with that Pillow idiot. Trump IS the defacto leader of the Party, which is why they will vote to acquit. Probably. I’m still holding out hope, but not holding my breath.
Discuss?
Not until he's in jail.
Edit: Although see here. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was removed by Congress in 1898?
What he isn't is a Party leader. Period. (And yes, obviously the GOP doesn't have a leader now...)
What he's interested is his own image, and even there he flunked the test. Just look how "interested" he was about the senate seats in the end (that the GOP then lost).
You see, it's one thing to sit at a table and have people introduce you policy questions and options from what you choose something of your liking. That's what a POTUS does. That's basically what an investor like Trump does. It's another thing to organize a party and get various people with different objectives and agendas to work coherently as a group. In other words, to lead them.
Just how cowardly are the GOP?
The man killed himself, committed suicide, but the girlfriend goes to jail for manslaughter. How do you square that circle?
But no, in this trial a democrat can preside over the case, be a witness, and sit on the jury at the same time.
If you are listening to both democrats and the republicans which are saying different things how do you reconcile what they are saying? Is one side lying in the other side telling the truth? How do you know which one is lying in which one is telling the truth - that they have a D or an R next to their name? Are they both lying?
If you look at the evidence without being politically swayed by one side or the other, it is obvious that the accusers are hypocrites and trial is a farce.
The only evidence needed is Trump's speech on January 6th. Specifically, what part of it was inciting violence?
Photoshopped tweet:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/JenLawrence21/status/1359623622206267392?s=20[/tweet]
Lies about Sen. Mike Lee:
https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/10/966638864/much-ado-about-nothing-house-managers-strike-claim-about-gop-senator-from-record
Video with all exculpatory evidence removed:
Unconstitutional judge:
Article 1 section 3 of the constitution:
"When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside"
Who is presiding?
Trifecta of Roles for Leahy: Witness, Juror and Judge in Trump’s Trial
The Lincoln Project, Facing Multiple Scandals, is Accused by its Own Co-Founder of Likely Criminality
Totally normal.
But it's totally just a Democrat hoax or whatever...
//although I have to keep reminding myself the vote hasn’t been taken yet, but I’m expecting an acquittal.//
That's not true at all. All of Trump's actions following the election, especially his incessant claims that the election was "stolen", ought to be considered as evidence. The event of January 6th was planned long in advance, so it is not just a matter of looking at what happened on that particular date.
If the election wasn't really stolen from him, then the inciting of his followers to protest, is a matter of fraudulent behaviour. And wherever there is fraud there is the intent of wrongful gain. Therefore we need to ask what did Trump intend to gain by inciting his followers to protest at that particular place, on that particular date.
The specific article of impeachment is “incitement to insurrection”. The problem is, as far as I’m aware, no one has been charged with insurrection. So the question is, how can someone be charged with inciting a crime when that crime has never occurred?
Come on NOS, I can incite someone to commit a crime, and if the police arrest, and therefore prevent that person from carrying out the crime, it doesn't mean that I am any less guilty.
I think you'd have a better chance arguing that inciting is not a crime.
But can you incite someone to commit a crime while explicitly telling them to do the opposite? That’s the magical power Trump has.
But yes you are less guilty. “ Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444
That magical power is called contradiction. It's not hard to tell someone to do one thing one minute, and the opposite thing the next minute. Choose to hear what you want to hear.
Do you believe it is possible that when a man says “We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women”, he means this and not mean insurrection?
Do you believe it is possible that when a man says “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”, this is what he intends and expects, and not insurrection?
Not only is it impossible, it takes a sheer act of deceit and self-deception to believe otherwise.
This is why Trump’s opponents and the press refuse to play these quotes in their sound bites, because it cannot be twisted to mean something else. An uncharitable interpretation of someone’s words is evidence of fallacy and personal animus, not of intention or incitement.
I believe it is possible for a man to mean that, as you are suggesting. But what is possible for "a man" to mean with those words is not the question here. The question is what that man meant in that particular context.
So when we put Mr. Trump's speech in context we can see very clearly that it isn't possible that he meant what you are suggesting he may have meant. It isn't possible, because that man had been speaking for months to those very same people, about a very obvious landslide election win he, and they had, which had been stolen from them, through fraud. And now he says they have to fight like hell to get their country back.
See, he was in a fight for two months to battle the publicized outcome of the election, and he intentionally brought those supporters into that battle with him. How can you possibly believe that he meant anything other than insurrection? He didn't tell them to show up at the court houses to help with the legal fight. Yet he was fighting against the outcome of the election, and getting his supporters to join the battle with him. What other option could he have been thinking of, when he was inviting those people to join his battle against the thieves who stole the election, other than insurrection?
There were no lies told. On the basis of the available reporting something was stated about Lee. Lee objected and it was stricken. Whether it's true or false is still entirely unclear. CNN hasn't adjusted its reporting and Lee claims it's false. I don't have the information to tell who's wrong. The real point there is whether Trump called, or tried to call, senators to delay the vote during the riot. Did he?
Quoting NOS4A2
Who is President now?
So, you have nothing. Meanwhile, check out Michael's posts.
Edit: meaning the acquittal is certain.
It is a kangaroo court in that respect because almost nobody in politics is committed to principles, only to outcomes.
Swallwell, who has been compromised by Chinese spies, read her tweet as cavalry, not Calvary. They photoshopped her tweet. But no, let’s not get hung up on the house manager’s lies.
Lee, who should know what he said, said it was false. They tried to submit circumstantial CNN reports as evidence instead of witnesses. This is what we get: lies.
Judge, jury and witness. I get to watch as a self-described lawyer dismisses that as if it happens everyday.
You have nothing.
This after his murderous nursing home policy.
“Cuomo issued an order that required nursing homes to accept COVID-19 patients being discharged from hospitals, as long as they were "medically stable," in order to help free up hospital beds for the sickest patients. Under the policy, nursing homes receiving the patients were barred from testing the patients to see if they might still be contagious.”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/cuomos-office-hid-nursing-home-covid-19-data/story?id=75853764
This is anti-Trumpism at its worst.
Quoting NOS4A2
And you know Lee isn't lying because? The statements were stricken from the records because the issue isn't relevant. Again, did Trump call during the riot to ask senators to delay the vote?
Quoting NOS4A2
You claimed it was unconstitutional, it isn't. This is just whining that the rules aren't the way you want them to be. There's no judge in any case, there's someone who will preside over the trial.
Yea, that doesn't even make sense. He also screwed up NY's vaccination drive by handing responsibility for it to large hospitals instead of local health departments. He's like Trump Jr.
How is Canada handling vaccination?
Sorry, I disagree.
It makes you wonder why he didn’t us the USS Comfort and Javits center field hospital to house those patients. I am almost certain he did it because he didn’t want to give Trump credit.
Vaccine rollout in Canada is probably the worst in the developed world. The healthcare system and government is also one of the most overrated.
Subpoena Trump. It would be crazy to not require the defendant to testify.
Probably. Politics is more important than people's lives, though Cuomo says he won't run in 2024.
Quoting NOS4A2
Really? I wouldn't have thought so. But you're probably closer to Russia than to Montreal, right? :razz:
That's a nifty princple!
If a person does something that would normally be prosecuted, but they do it close to the end of their term, in a time-window too short for the legal proceedings of prosecution to take place, then said person must be allowed to get away with what they've done.
Yay!
Probably true, but I live below the 49th parallel.
Did he?
The US is a free country and everyone is responsible for themselves.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/nbcnews/status/1360693147676930048?s=21[/tweet]
...and there's your problem.
It wasn't a show trial, you know what he did. Apparently he won't be running again tho. He'd have to reveal incriminating records to do so?
The Republican leader said Trump committed a “disgraceful dereliction of duty” by refusing to intervene as his supporters carried out a violent insurrection at the Capitol.
“There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically, and morally, responsible for provoking the events of the day,” McConnell said.
McConnell emphasized that the insurrectionists turned violent because Trump had told them a series of lies about the presidential election.
“They did this because they’d been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth because he was angry he lost an election,” McConnell said. “This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories.”
The Republican leader then pivoted to making a jurisdictional argument against conviction, saying the Senate is not meant to act as a “moral tribunal”.[/quote]
So Mitch is saying that Trump is guilty, but voted to acquit because he claims to believe that ex-Presidents can't be impeached.
God I hate that man.
Edit:
God, I really hate that man.
It was a show trial by definition.
How so?
Sorry but Trump’s words are protected by the constitution and do not rise to the level of incitement, let alone incitement to insurrection. This is probably why they never went to criminal trial in the first place.
55-45 no witnesses. Presumably everyone knew that the 2/3 majority conviction was out of reach, and the GOP threatened to hold up any and all proceeding aside from the impeachment until after... So... vote on record and get it over with.
The pattern of behaviour before during and after is the evidence. It's more than adequate.
It was never about seeking justice.
That’s not true. At no point did Trump advocate violence, which is a necessary test under the first amendment.
Guilty: 57 (67 required)
Not guilty: 43 (34 required)
I imagine Trump saying "he's a good guy, I like him" to various non-guilty'ers, and swearing and name-calling on various guilty'ers. :D
Bullshit. Trump will be charged.
Impeachment isn't about justice. It's about whether a certain person should be removed from the office of president.
I feel like you were insulting me to suggest otherwise. Were you? Or do you not understand what impeachment is?
Given their propensity for witch-hunts, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. But it would be unconstitutional and unjust and would set a dangerous precedent.
Senate votes 55-45 in favor of calling witnesses in Trump's second impeachment trial
Not sure of the numbers. I've watched on PBS, and that's the story they've been telling(the one I repeated).
There's nothing unconstitutional about charging a former president.
They made a deal to move to closing arguments without calling witnesses. Trump’s team threatened to call Pelosi, Harris, and more.
No, I was speaking of criminally charging someone for incitement to insurrection when his speech is fully protected by the 1st.
Not all speech is protected.
Well, I never said that. Trump’s speech, however, is protected.
Speech that can be shown to incite insurrection is not protected.
Right, Trump's team threatened to call hundreds of witnesses and drag the trial out for months, preventing all the other work that needs to get done from getting down. It would be just like Trump being in control for a few more months. After those months of Trump wasting everybody's time, and preventing the legislature from getting anything done, they probably wouldn't get the votes needed anyway.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-gop-just-spit-in-the-face-of-american-democracy-by-acquitting-trump-at-his-second-impeachment-trial?ref=home
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/opinion/sunday/trump-republican-impeachment.html?smid=url-share
This type of response it what is expected of someone that is indoctrinated with group-think.
The Dems were incessantly claiming that Trump stole the 2016 election. The Dems DID steal the 2016 Primary from Bernie and did it again in 2020. The Dems failed to call back their violent constituents and even encouraged them and people died and property was destroyed.
So please don't try to pass yourself and the Dems off as holier-then-thou because they pull the same shit as the Reps.
If you think that Biden, who came in last place in the 2012 primary, got more votes than Hillary and Obama in the 2020 general election, then you're fooling yourself.
The reason why the Reps aren't fighting the results is because they rig elections too and any investigations would likely expose them too.
Just listen to Tulsi Gabbard who said that after new representatives finish their orientation the Reps and Dems go their different directions and each work separately to get wins for the party. In DC, political party comes first and the needs of the citizens are a distant last.
You're fooling yourself if you think that there were 15,415,410+ illegitimate votes.
I didn't say that. How do you reconcile what I actually said with what you just said?
This is nonsense Harry. The Dems never contested the results of the 2016 election, nor were there accusations of theft. There was accusations of illegal foreign interference, which were investigated and proven as true accusations.
The Dems did not steal the primary from Bernie. What could that even mean? It's the primary of the Democrats, how could they steal it from themselves?
And I don't see how the third point is even remotely relevant.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I didn't and I won't.
Hillary got 65,853,514 votes in the 2016 election. Biden got 81,268,924 in the 2020 election. You claimed that Metaphysician Undercover is fooling himself for believing that Biden got more votes than Hillary. Therefore you're claiming that 15,415,410+ votes for Biden weren't legitimate.
Right. So, please tell me why Biden got more votes than Hillary when he came in last place in the primary against her and Obama? And Kamala came in last place in the 2020 primary. It seems to me that the elitists are determining who leads the party, not the actual voters.
Because Biden was competing against Trump, not Hillary or Obama. Democratic voters prefer Obama to Hillary, Hillary to Biden, and Biden to Trump. It's not rocket science.
Do I have to think independently for you, MU? This was just the tip of the iceburg.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/no-trump-electoral-college-challenge-233294
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The foreign interference showed that the Dems were rigging elections to ensure their guy was the one that made it to the top. To think that the Dems were the only ones engaged in such activity would be just as blind as one who thinks the Dems possess a monopoly on morality.
LOL! Yeah right:
See Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’
And oh, she gave that interview LAST YEAR, btw.
So it was more for a hate for Trump than a like for Biden. That is no wonder considering the assault on the man's character throughout his tenure. Just imagine if you or I became president looking to change the way things are done in DC. Those in power are going to hit back hard if you try to put a halt to their gravy train. The system is rigged against an outsider trying to come in and change things.
In this case, it was the voters that were rigged, not the actual votes.
To be consistent, if it's possible for people to be influenced to do things that they normally wouldn't do - like engaging in violence and theft, given that they were told that they were being oppressed in some way, then it is just as likely that people can be influenced to vote a certain way given the barrage of negativity that the media has generated over the last four years.
I was being cynical.
It seems that the only way to live up to the American ideals of freedom and responsibility would be to abolish the United States of America altogether.
If nation states should have a logic to them.
But they don't.
The strength of the US is that the US means so many different things to different people.
The perfect Humpty Dumpty land, then!
I watched reporting on the House presentation on both the CBC (Canada’s state run news) and the BBC, but there was zero critical analysis of the House narrative, almost as if they have become the foreign echo-chambers of the liberal media complex. Very disappointing.
Right, there is very clear evidence, and a formal inquiry, which came to the conclusion that there was illegal foreign interference in the 2016 election. Therefore what Clinton said in that interview that the election "was not on the level" is well justified.
However, no one formally contested the results of the 2016 election. That's the difference. Trump did formally contest the results of the 2020 election, with about 60 or more court applications. Do you see the difference? If you beat me in an election, and I go to the media and say look, there was such and such going on behind the scenes, there were people assisting ssu using illegal practices, and I work at the effort of bringing those involved to be held accountable, that's one thing. But if I go to the authorities charged with overseeing the election, and request that the election be annulled, that's a completely different thing. The two are not comparable as if they are the same thing.
Do you see the similarity?
When you say "The Dems never contested the results of the 2016 election, nor were there accusations of theft", I simply make the notice that those elections weren't so fine and dandy, but a lot of bitching about the results then too. And accusations about theft?
Like in WP this one (from Dec 2016, among others): The 2016 election was stolen. Got a nicer way to say that?
:point:
:point:
Yup. It has shown itself to be exactly that.
Using this logic, Hillary should have beat Trump. So it appears that at least one election was rigged - the 2016 or the 2020? We already know the Dems were rigging their own primary in 2016.
More people did vote for Hillary than Trump (2,868,686 more), but Presidents aren't chosen by the popular vote.
So did the DNC.
https://archive.vn/HPUoo
That he was murdered by someone wielding a fire-extinguisher.
He wasn’t murdered.
“He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape,” said Ken Sicknick, his brother, as the family drove toward Washington. “Apparently he collapsed in the Capitol and they resuscitated him using CPR.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/officer-brian-sicknick-capitol
That’s quite the claim for someone who was just murdered by a fire-extinguisher.
The House managers used the lie in the memo, and the New York Times spread the misinformation to their readers, but I’m the liar? You’re a useful idiot, Tim.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
This guy misses Trump so much he's crying about a possible misreport by the NYT that has in fact been updated as new information appeared. Like god damn what a boring loser.
Yep. McConnell made the case clearly. He padded what may seem to be a contradiction(because of his vote of acquittal) by virtue of explaining that the impeachment process is not the place to try Trump for inciting the insurrection because if found guilty, the mandatory move/result is mere removal from office, and that would just let Trump get away with it. Nothing is stopping Trump from being charged for the crime in the justice system, aside from not doing it. McConnell even said clearly that whether or not Trump gets away with it will be determined not by the impeachment process(which had no ability to render punishment for the crime aside from removal from office), but rather by whether or not he is tried in a court of criminal law.
Right. Cynics say that McConnell was having a bet each way - not voting for impeachment so as not to antagonise the Trump base, but then declaring Trump culpable because, well, he is. He's a slippery character, McConnell, but at least he said it.
Indeed. Cannot stand that guy. He is not a sincere person. Very dishonest, in a lies of omission sort of way. He should be impeached for openly admitting that he could not perform his sworn oath to be an impartial witness in a presidential impeachment(the first one). That was ground for recusal, but he stayed and acted as a juror nonetheless.
As far as I'm concerned, each and every public official that fostered the big lie needs to be removed. All of them. McConnell is not one of them though. He was very careful regarding what he said about Trump's right to redress grievance during the whole Trump go fund me lame duck session.
Since you cry at the mere sight of truth, believe things uncritically, and use "like" in the worst fashion, I'm forced to imagine your voice with a high rising terminal.
Since you write like this I'm forced to believe you haven't gotten pussy in well over a year
It also contradicts American law and 1st amendment jurisprudence. But people such as yourself are not concerned with actual law, just political show-trials.
It would make my life easier if you put a question mark after each of your sentences. Like this?
The point was that more people should have voted for Hillary when it was Hillary vs. Trump compared to Biden vs. Trump. Hillary should have won by a larger margin than Biden did. If you want to actually believe that Biden received more votes than Hillary when he came in last place in the primary against her, then I guess you'll believe almost anything.
However, if you can admit that Biden did receive more votes, but they were misinformed votes, based on the unchecked character assassination of Trump over 4 years, that hadn't happen when he ran against Hillary, then we can probably agree on something.
Hopefully this is the first step to the Republicans disassociating themselves from Trump. If that happens who knows what will become of all the disenfranchised Trump supporters, maybe a third party? That's what ought to happen.
That "unchecked character assassination" was acts of informing, not disinforming.
Biden won 81,268,924 votes. Hillary won 65,853,514 votes. You're delusional if you think that 15,415,410+ votes for Biden were fraudulent.
You might as well argue that because Trump won 62,984,828 votes in 2016 and 74,216,154 votes in 2020 then 11,231,326+ votes for Trump in 2020 were fraudulent. It's nonsense.
The simple fact of the matter is that 26,646,736 more people voted in 2020 than in 2016, with some going to Biden and some going to Trump. Some of these people weren't eligible to vote in 2016 and some of these people chose not to vote in 2016 but chose to vote in 2020.
Now for the Democrats, Trump is what Hillary was for the Republicans in 2016...just on steroids. So good luck for Republicans picking him up for his "second term" in 2024 (at the age of 78).
Or perhaps Americans love polarization so much, that they could do a rematch of Trump vs Hillary again in 2024. And why not? After all, no younger people than young octogenarians need not to rule the US, right?
Unfortunately your capabilities only allow you to make the accusation, but you can never back them up. I can refer to Supreme Court precedent to show why Trump’s words aren’t incitement; you cannot. So if you can ever find some bite behind that bark, let me know.
The Republican Party badly needs to put out an official release disclaiming Trump’s lies and conspiracy theory nonsense. In other words, they should back McConnell, political hack that he is. The fact that they won’t, or can’t, shows that something is still deeply rotten in that party. All of the Republicans that came out against Trump are having the blowtorch held to their belly, but they’re the ones who should be leading it.
Truth matters, facts matter, and no honest person could say that Trump is not a pathological liar. Acknowledgement of that has to become part of the public discourse.
And we all know how accurate polling in 2016 was.
Quoting Michael
I already explained what I meant by "fraudulent". Would you consider voters misinformed by the left-wing/right-wing mass media and celebrities as fraudulent? This is why political parties need to be abolished because indivuduals only get information about the two parties which typically consists of the other party labeling the other with derogatory names.
To think that you need to vote for one because the other is soo bad is what is delusional. They are both bad, keeping either one in power and maintaining the status quo is what is bad. To think that your vote has the power to change the election is what delusional. Its best to vote for what truly represents you, not be influenced into believing that there are only two choices and one has to win because the other is so bad. In this sense, votes are fraudulent in that most people have been manipulated into taking a side that doesnt really represent them thanks to the media.
The answer isn't a third party because people then worry that one party will siphon votes from another guaranteeing that the other will win. Abolish all parties and that eliminates that problem.
This is what you said:
Quoting Harry Hindu
Quoting Harry Hindu
The fact is that he did receive more votes than Hillary and Obama.
Whether or not voters were "tricked" into voting for Biden over Trump is irrelevant to your above claims and my response. But on that topic, no, I don't believe that voters were tricked. The Democrats and the media were accurate in their portrayal of Trump as incompetent, criminal, harmful, and otherwise unsuitable for office. Voters made the right choice in voting for Biden.
The only realistic choices were Biden and Trump. They were the only two that could have won. And Biden is by far the better choice than Trump.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No, they were voting for less racism and corruption in voting for Biden. Trump and the Republicans are far more racist and corrupt than Biden and the Democrats.
Its not realistic when people have been manipulated into thinking that they are the only two choices. Again, thinking that your one vote is going to decide the election between two parties is what is delusional. You feel better voting your conscious, not voting for something because someone has scared you from voting for the other.
Quoting Michael
:lol: evidence? Remember Biden has been in power for nearly 50 years where he had the ability to funnel his racism into legislation. If you want to whine about systemic racism, Biden is one of the primary manufacturers, thanks to his 50 year tenure, of how the US is systemically racist today.
GOP Admins Had 38 Times More Criminal Convictions Than Democrats, 1961-2016
And as the quote says, the figure doesn't include anything from Trump's term. Here's a bunch of indictments and convictions for that.
Quoting Harry Hindu
It's not manipulation. It's a fact.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Reality doesn't care about your feelings. If you prefer Trump to Biden then a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump wasted and if you prefer Biden to Trump then a vote for a third party is a vote for Biden wasted. Either Trump or Biden was going to win, and their win would have a very real and major effect on people's lives. If you believe (rightly) that Trump is incompetent, criminal, harmful, and otherwise unfit for office, then you should vote for Biden. Preventing people and the country from suffering under a Trump administration is more important than you being principled and taking the moral high ground by wasting a vote on some "better" third party.
Quoting Promotions for Female Generals Were Delayed Over Fears of Trump’s Reaction (The New York Times)
No. The fears that “any candidates other than white men for jobs mostly held by white men might run into turmoil once their nominations got to the White House” is false in its face.
This Is the Woman President Trump Wants to Be the First Female African-American Marine General
Have to disagree with this. If you think the 2 party system results in poor government, then voting for a third option is the the way to go. It may take many elections to build support, but your counsel of despair for any alternative other than narcissist old fart or senile old fart is not true, and perpetuates the status quo. Encourage folks to vote for real change by voting for real change!
No, that's only the cry that the two-party system feeds the people and has successfully brainwashed many Americans to think (and hence stay loyal to their corrupt two-party system, whatever happens).
I think that a multiparty system would be an improvement to the US. If parties have to make coalition administrations, that has a positive diminishing effect on the polarization that is rampant today. The parties simply have to work together unlike now. Besides, now you don't know what you get when voting for a party. A good start would be if both of the two parties would break up into two.
The GOP Is Now the Party of Thugs, Terrorists, Racists and Dopes
And the lunatics really have taken control of the asylum.
:shade: Couldn't have found a more legit source?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mediabiasfactcheck.com/rantt-media/amp/
All you are doing is proving my point.
Quoting Michael
Its not a fact. Do you even pay attention to who is on the ballot, or do you just look for all the Ds on the ballot and fill in the circle next to them.
Quoting Michael
I'd prefer Trump over Biden, but there were others i preferred over Trump, and is who I voted for. At least I'm consistent, unlike you who voted for the manufacturer of systemic racism. You do realize that there were non-racists on the ballot, right?
Well there's the final nail in the coffin of the idea that a third party is necessary. What you are actually saying is that we need four parties and then for the Dems and Reps to split at the same time which isn't likely at all.
The primary reason to abolish political parties is because it a form of group-think. Political parties are no different than a religion.
Are you suggesting that there were Democrat officials who were indicted/convicted but not counted and/or that there were Republican officials who were counted but not indicted/convicted?
No I'm not. I'm proving my point. The Republicans (including Trump) are more corrupt, as the number of indictments and convictions show.
As I said, "The only realistic choices were Biden and Trump. They were the only two that could have won".
I didn't vote. I'm not American. Whether or not you're consistent is irrelevant (and I don't even know what you mean by this). Trump and his administration are a danger, and so anyone who recognizes that should have voted for the only person who could beat him: Biden. If enough of these people waste their vote on a third party then Trump would have won and people and the country would suffer more because of it. Your "principles" aren't more important than people's lives.
Walk me through what "abolishing political parties" would look like, and how it would differ from enshrining one party as the sole official not-actually-a-party-I-swear.
It would be like "abolishing religion". What you end up with is a state-mandated view of what is or isn't correct to believe... a state religion, even if it doesn't feature God or other things characteristic of normal religions.
I don't like religions, and I don't like political parties, but I don't see how you can mandate their abolition without in practice setting up one above all others, which would be even worse.
Groupthink can happen in any group where conformity is valued over dissonance to such an extent that serious errors result. Trump seemed to surround himself with yes-men, and serious errors were made in his administration.
What I am suggesting is that you are only providing one biased source for your "evidence". If I only provided one source that was biased, would you take it the same way, or would you be a hypocrite?
Looking at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_officials_convicted_of_corruption_offenses
There are more Democrats than Republicans.
Quoting Michael
The fact that you are only providing one biased source shows that you are only interested in "facts" that support your premise. You don't even question it. You believe whatever you read if it supports your premise. That's not the way it's suppose to work.
Quoting Michael
Only because people like you keep thinking that those are the only choices. Its like saying that the only realistic belief is one in which most people believe. There is such a thing as a mass delusion. If most people stopped believing that, then it wouldn't be a "realistic" choices. So it's not that there actually are only two choices, it's thatmost people have chosen to limit themselves to believing that there are only two choices because the two parties have indoctrinated them into thinking that the other is so evil that the only other option is them. Like Tulsi Gabbard said, it's all about getting wins for your party.
Quoting Michael
Strange. You seem to have more to say about American politics, when you don't even live here, than about the politics in your own country. Is the right-wing in your country also more corrupt than the left-wing?
Being consistent is everything, or else why speak at all? Being inconsistent is equivalent to not saying anything at all, or just making scribbles on the screen.
This is a specific sub category of crimes so a different dataset.
Edit: @Michael this is interesting which suggests Democrats are more corrupt and both your statistics suck. http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/
It’s a sort of cultural imperialism, spreading through various Internet echo-chambers as quickly as the Washington press will allow it. I also don’t live in the US, but our press no less resorts to the same churnalism as other countries, and everything comes out reading like a CNN article. I fear there isn’t an original thought among them.
Many of you who support Biden and post here are projecting your sense of guilt about wherever you really picked the right guy and are trying to convince yourself he was the right choice or that you had no choice in when you in fact did, and many of you just want to see a return to etablished norms, perceived stability.
Many of you who supported Trump are playing the "I told you so" card, given that Biden is in the line of blame now, and as many of you see it, he is senile and arguably not running the show, and you also feel hurt that your period of whitelash has come to and end and that you really needed 8 years of Trump to nulify the color of Obama .
Just my take. I mean what's done is done. Neither camp can everse its choice. Shouldn't you just grow up and not post stuff like this in a philosophy forum. Wallowing in and projecting your misery or false sense of satisfaction won't fix anything or improve your life.
We were talking about corruption, so it isn't a different dataset. We should also add local and state officials to the mix and see what we get.
Quoting Benkei
If you were paying attention, you'd know that the point I was not trying to make is that Dems are more corrupt than Republicans. Remember, I'm advocating for the abolition of ALL political parties.
My point was,
" Instead, what should be illuminating is to peruse those Wikipedia pages and see how many scandals and convictions there are on both sides. That should be enough to make one hesitant to become a cheerleader for either party."
http://memepoliceman.com/are-republicans-more-corrupt-than-democrats/
I don't get this logic. How would one party acquire power if there are no parties? I'm going to need you to walk me through that in order to properly answer your question.
Quoting Pfhorrest
In a way, yes, it would be like abolishing religion. But people will still believe in a god or spirituality, even without a religion. So abolishing political parties isn't to say that we've eliminated the belief in what the right way for you to live is, just that you can't impose that on others.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Yeah, I just don't get how a party can come to power if they are all abolished. Abolishing parties would force citizens to listen to the candidates rather than resorting to the lazy method of looking for the Ds and Rs next to candidates names.
Agreed, but then with all of these non-Americans' emotional investment in American politics as if it were their own country makes me wonder if these non-Americans are really more interested in pushing the United States into another civil war.
You obviously haven't been paying attention. Where on this forum have I ever said that Trump was my favorite?
Quoting tim wood
I agree to an extent. Systemic racism is a myth. Like I told Michael, IF you want to whine about systemic racism, Biden is one of the primary manufacturers, thanks to his 50 year tenure, of how the US is systemically racist today.
So, I'm going to ask you to define systemic racism and then ask you to try to reconcile your definition with the fact that Biden has been in power over the last 50 years.
Quoting tim wood
Thanks for informing us that you don't value consistency. I can now safely ignore your posts as they won't be containing any actual information.
The problem is that we have camps in the first place.
Political parties are a consequence of freedom of association. US law does not recognize political parties as part of the governmental structure; they're just private groups of people pursuing the same political ends together. So I'm not clear what you want done to ban political parties, if not just banning people with similar political interests from working together toward those ends.
No. It seems like you are the one arguing forthe sake if arguing.. Be more specific. What is the subcategory that you are talking about? Corruption is what we were talking about, so what part of the link that I provided is about something other than corruption?
This doesn't address how one party would come to power if there were no parties. You're moving the goalposts.
I'm not saying that ppl can't work together towards a common goal, except when the goal is subverting and oppressing others, or when your primary goal is to hate another group because they have different goals. Most ppl would come together for a single issue and trying to incorporate other issues will just alienate some if the group that doesn't agree on every issue.
The problem is that the parties have adopted contradictory positions and there isn't any meaningful distinction between them. And if the only two groups don't represent your interests then it sucks to be a minority in that respect. There is a two-party system privilege in the U.S.
Winner-take-all is a law that prevents other groups from having a viable chance. Diverges law states that 3rd parties can't compete, not to mention the media that would rather give a voice to hypocrites and maintain the status quo.
Is that not a contradiction? Just asking.
For what?
I would wager on him escaping the country first...
Likely he will be treated as a hero at least by the CPAC crowd, I forecast.
So much for the GOP having a sincere look at what went wrong with the 2020 elections (and with the Trump Presidency).
Whatever they can find him guilty of. Don't you think that the greatest witch hunt in history is bound to make a judgement of guilty at some point, and proceed with punishment, regardless of the person's actual guilt or innocence. That's what witch hunts do don't they?
That’s what corrupt, immoral and unjust witch-hunters do, yes.
So, what do you think? How long until he's in jail?
My point is you have referred to criminality and corruption this whole time without being able to mention what crime he has committed or if a crime has occurred at all. In other words you advocate for using a criminal justice system to harass your political opponents. That makes you corrupt and weak at the same time.
Who knows? 30 plus investigations and nothing yet. What’s another 30?
Oh how the mighty have fallen. :fear:
Quoting praxis
As I did expect his official page is only in English despite the fact he was the president of the most influential country of the world. Also he refers only to American people, he doesn’t care about the rest of the world despite his administration put a lot of worldwide conflicts.
U.S. Intel Walks Back Claim Russians Put Bounties on American Troops
"It was a huge election-time story that prompted cries of treason. But according to a newly disclosed assessment, Donald Trump might have been right to call it a “hoax.”"
That's interesting, because some folks I know in the community said, at the time, it was a non-issue; not because it didn't happen, but because it's been a long-standing SOP for, like, ever, and so, ho hum.
I say the Trump supporters should pick their medicine. Either no one should care because it didn't happen, or they shouldn't care because it wasn't new.
Unfortunately it’s a dangerous game. Such hoax-worthy lies have brought the US and Russia that much closer to war. Skepticism of the story proved not only right, but prudent.
The article you linked said:
"U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue."
How do you get "hoax" out of "unproven and possibly untrue"?
The link does not disprove the story or prove that doubt was prudent. We were propping the Mujahidin against Soviet Russia in worse ways, and all the players around the world continue to play games like this to this day. The *only* reason the issue was a story at the time is because our POTUS was backing Putin over his own intel people. It would be funny indeed to see him now citing Biden's intel people as proof he was right. WTF?
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, dangerous indeed. To the people on the ground. But not existentially dangerous. That would be having a foreign leader's hand up your ass, moving your lips. Or putting you nukes in the other's back yard.
The “intel people” have been notorious failures. The Iraq war was premised on “intelligence” derived from methods of torture. When they start rattling their sabres it should be doubted on principle.
So we should not trust the recent intel showing that maybe Russia did not put bounties on American heads?
I can trust that they had to walk back their conspiracy theories. They have already got what they wanted: stopping troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Unfortunately in so doing they have edged us closer to war with Russia.
So, when it suits your bias, they are gold. When they don't, they are suspect. Got it.
I remember Scott Ritter et al, walking it back, and it was not the intel community that spun up the war: it was politicians who spun the intel. Intel is usually okay and straight up. It's the pols that spin it. You know, guys like you.
I never said that. But spin all you like. I don’t expect anything else.
The first intel about bounties was bad. The second intel walking it back was good. Sounds like spin to me.
Do you believe the intel about bounties was good?
I honestly don't know. But I do know people who used to play the game and they told me it was par for the course. On the other hand, as I said, politicians spin intel all the time. But since I was not a BTDT on this issue, I won't take sides. I'm assuming you don't know any more than I, but perhaps you were on the ground over there and know the truth of the matter.
You should take sides on these matters. All out war is at stake.
I don’t know more than you do. I just think it was bad intel, therefor walking back is good. If there is evidence I am wrong I need to hear it, but until then...
“Throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames. I went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star to President of the United States (on my first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius....and a very stable genius at that!”
— Donald Trump tweet January 6, 2018, in response to the book Fire and Fury in which he was called a horse’s ass.
The horse’s ass was behind a horse. The horse, of course, is the original stable genius, Mister Ed, the talking horse. Mister Ed would only talk to his owner, Wilbur (played by Alan Young). The Mister Ed show ran from 1961-66.
Mister Ed won a Golden Globe in 1963 for best comedy show. Trump’s Apprentice show was nominated for Emmies but never won, because, of course, that horse race is rigged:
“The Emmys were horrendous...the absolute worst show!” “The Emmys are all politics, that's why, despite nominations, The Apprentice never won--even though it should have many times over.”
— Trump tweets from September 24, 2012.
Mister Ed was much more modest. From his theme song: “People yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day But Mister Ed will never speak unless he has something to say.”
Mister Ed’s real name was Bamboo Harvester. Ailing, he was put down in 1970 at 21. We’re still putting up with Trump at 20 (in horse’s ass years).
I have to say, Trump is acting exactly like a foreign agent who is hellbent on destroying American democracy. The only reason I believe he's not, is that it's beyond the powers of the Putins and Kim Jong Uns of the world to actually do what he's doing. It's all driven by Trump's narcisism, which is now inflated beyond all possibility of correction.
I suppose, and hope, the best-case scenario is, that he really, truly destroys the Republican party in the polls - that they lose big time in 2022 and again in 2024, because the rump of fanatical so-called 'Republican Voters' is not big enough to actually win, in which case, it's enough rope, and let him lead the lemmings over the cliff. Not out of any animus towards that party in particular, but because the endorsement of the lies and malfeasance of Trump is indefensible.
:lol:
Quoting Trump Thinks That He Will Be Reinstated In The White House (Caren White, May 2021)
Quoting Trump Thinks That He Will Be Reinstated In The White House (Caren White, May 2021)
Quoting Trump Thinks That He Will Be Reinstated In The White House (Caren White, May 2021)
Is White exaggerating?
"i feel like liberals, who mostly avoid rw media, have no idea of the craziness they soak in daily that millions of our fellow americans truly believe. roving bands of antifa, cancelling disney cartoons on the behalf of powerful blm militias. *they believe all this shit*"
It was also opined that, while the politicians may know better, they play this for people who don't know better.
So my question is this: Isn't it incumbent upon "liberals" to go into the lions den, troll if they have to, rock boats, stir pots? For if "liberals" likewise self-isolate in their own little safe-spaces, aren't they just playing the same game? And, if "liberals" are to go into the lions den, shouldn't they send their very best?
I've been banned from more discussion boards than Carter has pills. I use to play the gadfly to the right, until given the boot, then I'd play gadfly to the left, until given the boot. Then back again. But my methods were crude and unsophisticated. My methods were as to my audience as Trump was to the press corps. (Perhaps that is why I could appreciate his trolling of insolence that could not be cajoled into asking probing, polite questions. But regardless, nothing came of it. Or did it? Maybe the insolence has become more polite and professional and probing, having learned a lesson from Trump? Even if so, that would just provide fodder for the right, pointing to the different treatment Biden gets. Sorry for the digression.)
Don't we need a counter-insurgency program, specifically designed to upset stupidity? Or am I wrong? Is Hillary really running a child sex ring out of a pizza pallor and Mike Gaetz is a white knight? Maybe we just stand down and pray Joe Biden can lead by example?
Regardless, I ask myself, how best to turn the craziness when the truth will not suffice? When facts will not suffice? Maybe the craziness should not be turned? I hate to use terms like "truth" and "facts" on a philosophy board, because I know what can be done to me for using them, but I'm at a loss.
I am certain that it is just a matter of time before Trump or his children win the presidential elections.
Don't give up the day job.
Just kidding around. In all seriousness, I have a deep interest in your profession. I once considered becoming a top pastry chef, only I don't really knead the dough.
Quite. And this is all I have to show for it.
People, Trump and co. really could win.Then the fun will be over.
Been there, done that.
That is certainly true of a true democracy. In the U.S., the founding fathers tried to prevent a tyranny of the majority with a Bill of Rights, representative democracy, federalism, life time judicial appointments, etc.
The dishonest leadership (gaslighting) that was experienced was also caused or driven by the usual power & greed phenomenon of human nature: Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils. - Thucydides
The most important thing for those who have been duped by trump is: does he want to be perceived as a victim or a loser? If he's perceived a loser, he gets no money or power. So it's in his best interest to perpetuate the [a] lie. How disturbing is that?
A common sense characteristic of highly flawed individuals. (The voters are smarter than you think.)That's why he lost re-election (dishonest leadership).
Nos4A2!
I fact-checked the link you sent and read the story. It was determined to be fake news. Want to know how I found out?
I wouldn't put too much faith in the "Trump will bring down the party," logic. He won in 2016 despite his liabilities, giving the GOP full control of government and its best showing at the state level in a century.
He came very close to winning a second term, missing the electoral votes he needed by very narrow margins. I think it's safe to say that without the pandemic he would have made an easy second term.
To be sure, his brand will eventually kill the party, since it does terrible with young voters. Bush split young voters (18-24 year olds) almost 50/50. Trump lost them by 15 points. He lost voters under 55 by landslide margins in both elections (9 and 11 points). That said, seniors are by far and away the most reliable votes and aren't going anywhere by 2024.
Trump did better with Latinos in 2020 than any Republican in two decades (which is still fairly poorly). The idea that he'd doom himself through demographics never played out. Given the large structural advantage the GOP has in the Electoral College and Senate, I think Trump will be highly competitive in 2024 and the odds on favorite to win if a recession hits by then, which seems highly likely given record high corporate debt levels today.
In general, I'd expect Far-Right political parties to continue their string of victories until developed nations figure out a solution for the issue of immigration. One can only hope that, if we're stuck with them, they might actually develop to become more competent and less corrupt.
Sad, but true. His ongoing appeal is still a symptom of some dreadful malady regardless.
Quoting James Riley
Quoting James Riley
I think these questions are in the right direction. My own view is to resist the temptation to engage with the opposition, especially on the Internet (and even more especially on social media platforms), and instead to focus on gathering and organizing people who share the same values/goals -- or those who can be swayed (of which there are many).
Why? Because I'm sorry to say that there's a chunk of the electorate that's just immovable, mentally. They're sinking further into a vortex of pure chaos, an alternative reality of "alternative facts" that far exceeds any kind of craziness on the left -- and is much more dangerous. The "Q" phenomenon is a prime example, but also the Big Lie ("election was stolen") and the sacking of the Capitol. There's really no reasoning with them anymore, and there's no time -- especially not online, which is where a lot of this banter takes place. If it's gonna happen, maybe it'll happen in real time between real people (neighbors, friends, pastors, priests, doctors, community leaders).
We can learn some lessons from history. We beat them in 2020 by 7 million votes during a high turnout year. Given the electoral college, that's still not good enough in my view -- especially against such an awful incumbent. On the other hand, incumbents historically win, and Biden voters were far less enthusiast than Trump voters in 2016 or Obama voters in 2020. Given the Republican gains in Congress and the state legislatures, however, it only shows how unpopular Trump was (e.g., Trump lost Maine but Susan Collins won re-election handily). Is this level of participation good enough? Not at all.
We need to do more, not only bringing more and more people away from the right and the center, but away from apathy and non-voting (the largest "voting" bloc there is by far). Our job, besides voting, is to organize these people.
I think the focus should shift away from national issues and towards local issues -- the state legislatures, local elections, councilmen elections, etc. Creating groups in person or online of like-minded people around your community. Otherwise all this news-consumption and yelling into the social media ether (Tweeting, re-tweeting, sharing memes, hitting a "like" button, writing long political posts, etc) and endless complaining amounts to is political hobbyism. (I should know -- I've fallen into that trap too. I see it all around me -- and there's good reasons for it; it's not just laziness.)
As far as national issues -- we should try pushing this administration and the Democratic party as a whole towards what we feel are the right issues. Here I am in Noam Chomsky's camp. Bernie Sanders has already done that in his own way, and it's showing in Biden's administration. I'm not at all fooled by the media's portrayal of this, making him out to be the "next FDR," but I simply don't see him going as big as he is without having to kiss the ass of the large number of Bernie voters and the vocalness of AOC et al. One reason to push, apart from the fact that they're simply better policies, is that if these measures pass they will have real, noticeable effects on people's lives and, once they get a taste of it, it'll be very hard to reverse -- and will lead to greater turnout. (I think Obamacare demonstrates the former point -- and I'm not a big fan of it, but it is far more popular now in it was 10 years ago.)
So, on the federal level: push them in whatever way you can to implement policies that will help the majority of Americans, and this will (arguably) lead to higher approval and turnout. More importantly, on the local level, start getting involved. This necessitates the things you mentioned: talking to others, trying different strategies, discovering better methods of organizing, etc. That itself takes group collaboration. So if there's any mantra here, it's that we've got to be more social.
Those on the Right know it, and they're better at it -- they're far more organized than the Left. They're also desperate, have a coalition that are becoming more and more unhinged (which are turning off a lot of corporate America despite their party being far more likely to give them everything they want), and increasingly rely on structural factors (electoral college, Senate representation) and cheating (gerrymandering, voter suppression) to maintain power.
We don't share the same problems. We already have the numbers, and we have the policies (large majority support for most of them). But we're simply not as organized. You can't run on demonizing the other side forever, and running simply on "I'm not as bad as that guy," even if it's true. Eventually you have to do something. I think handing out stimulus checks was a good start, and some of the proposals (child care, universal Pre-K, taxing the rich) are decent, but it's got to continue.
I live in NH -- close to Maine, where Collins won. I can't help but think if I did more to assist her opponents campaign that the Democrats would not have to be held hostage by the likes of Joe Manchin. So there's a little connection for you. (Not to say I have that much influence, of course.)
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Are corporate debt levels very predictive of recessions? What data are you looking at, and can you pass along please? Thanks.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't think people really care much about immigration if there isn't a "crisis" or the media isn't whipping them up in a frenzy. Notice the hysteria about the border from last month has completely subsided. This shows up in polling, too. It's there, but other things like healthcare, political corruption, the economy, etc., consistently poll higher in importance.
Wise words. Especially about showing them what it means to govern for the people. But it always comes down to shoe leather.
My sister, in Maine, said Collins was pushed over the top by some last minute outdoor T.V. personality that everyone loves.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Hmm— do you recall the name?
I did not, but I found this on Google: https://www.cjr.org/politics/bill-green-ad-susan-collins.php
Probably him.
Sedevacantism is a thing.
Quoting Wayfarer
Or just evidence of how the world really works.
Sure, and I live in a country that has such a system. There is a trend toward simplification, polarization into two camps. The political parties sometimes differ pretty much only in name.
So the idea to abolish political parties (extremism) is extremist? Perhaps it looks like that to people who fight racism with racism.
By all means.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/us/politics/trump-michael-cohen-fec.html
The dreams of Trump’s perp-walk slowly dwindle.
That's how the rich get away with crime: They have minions do their dirty work for them. They can then pretend they didn't know. Notice it was dropped because they couldn't prove Trump knew, not because it didn't happen. So, all you have to do is say "Be a shame if anything happened to Loui."
That’s more a presumption of guilt than innocence, and there are reasons we avoid such tyranny in free society.
Uh, no. It's a presumption of innocence. That's why we let them go. Remind the right next time someone on the left is accused of something, or walks because of a failure of proof.
True, but it is a tried and true principle. I can’t think of any reason we’d assume the opposite, but here we are.
What do you mean "here we are"? Didn't they drop the charges?
The presumption of innocence applies to a finder of fact (jury, or judge in a bench trial), not to the public. You know he's guilty as f and so does everyone, including him.
Reviewing his term, when elected the Republican Party had a majority in both chambers of congress and held the executive branch. They lost it all in only four years, and particularly ungracefully at the end. Republicans don't learn is what you seem to be saying.
Begrudgingly, they did. But I also think the principle of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt need not apply only to those concerned with law, but also to those who believe in justice, human rights and common sense. You either believe in it or you don’t.
The burden of proof that it was "begrudgingly" would be upon you. And, since you believe a presumption of innocence, I know you didn't mean "begrudgingly", right?
Quoting NOS4A2
Maybe it should, but I think certain segments of society see it as a matter of who's ox is being gored. The same guy who wants Trump to get the benefit of the doubt as a matter of principle, will not give that same benefit to those who dropped the investigation.
Quoting NOS4A2
One can believe in principles as a matter of principle, but not let principles cloud common sense. That's one reason we have juries.
I’d love to see this common sense in action, but I have asked for proof of Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in this thread for years now with nothing to show for it, so I don’t expect much.
Maybe I’m jaded. We were promised the next Hitler, nuclear war, economic collapse, race wars, fascism, the Kremlin, and a litany of other bogeymen, none of which materialized. So I doubt such accusations as a matter of course. I can only imagine how the world would be today had those tasked with informing us warned us about real threats. Now we find ourselves under the yoke of every leader and bureaucrat but Donald Trump. Sad.
You used common sense when you suspected the dismissal was done begrudgingly. I agree. Nevertheless, our common sense does not rise to the level of a principle we both hold.
This is probably a digression, but "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a criminal burden and an extremely high one at that. The civil standard is usually "a preponderance of the evidence." Any way, the wheels of "justice" turn slow. Some times it takes years. We all know (common sense) Trump is a dishonorable coward and a liar. But applying civil or criminal standards to that is another thing. Had Obama done one smidgeon of the things Trump did, the right would have their panties in a knot, their hair on fire, and they'd be dancing around and screaming themselves horse.
Quoting NOS4A2
Thanks to the left.
Quoting NOS4A2
You mean like Faux News and Limbaugh?
Quoting NOS4A2
Yeah, you're all yoked up. LOL!
Being said, I feel kind of bad for NOS4A2, as, though every new user of this forum has defeated them in a debate within this thread can be fairly entertaining for the other users here, I'd bet that this has somehow left them lacking in self-confidence, a complex that more or less every supporter of Trump must have on account of just how readily apparent it has been that he may have been the worst president in United States history.
:100: I'm slowly starting to get the lay of the land. :smile:
I've just noticed that they entered this debate, at least, two years ago around page 144 and have consistently commented within this thread since. There's something to be said for perseverance, I guess.
Though I, myself, have just done this, I do kind of feel like we ought to extend a certain degree of sympathy to @NOS4A2, as they have been repeatedly cynically and savagely mocked by more or less the entire forum for kind of an extensive period of time. Granted, you would think that they would've given up on this by now, but, still, I do genuinely feel kind of bad for them.
The left has an honorable habit of being magnanimous. But when thou striketh the king, strike not to wound. We struck Trump and it would be a horrible mistake to grant him any mercy. His ilk should be shown none, until such time as there is evidenced contrition. I personally don't have the strength to maintain much more than my vote or some words on the internet, and leave it to the younger generation. But I warn them: The right would kill you if they could get away with it. That is why, when normally it might be long range planning to maintain the filibuster and placate middle-of-the-road Democrats (Manchin, et al), the gloves are off, it's too late, this is the last chance we will ever have the House, Senate and White House. Playing nice now will result in a mid-term shellacking of the left. Time to go all in or we'll get dummy again in 2024 and the it will be civil war.
I don't know. I can't imagine that reading 400 pages of personal and political insults and attacks can possibly have had a positive impact upon a person's psyche. While it is certainly clear that, by now, @NOS4A2 ought to have either have been willing to admit that Donald Trump was not all that great of a president or guy or, at least, give up on convincing a single other person to support him here, I do think that he is a human being and that we should stop making fun of him.
As this does fly in the face of the general deportment of The Philosophy Forum, I will speak to my own experience as to why you should agree to this.
I ultimately suffer from kind of a crippling internet addiction. I am fairly intelligent, but have no gift for prose, and it is quite common, because of my awkward phrasing, for people, particularly on online forums, to assume that I am either "pretentious" or a "pseudo-intellectual", the latter of which may be true, but, for all intensive purposes, is not relevant to this discussion. Because people mistakenly believe that chauvinist displays of intellectual superiority are clever and charming, they fear being associated with anyone who has been characterized as such above imprisonment without law, which is to say that they quite often take an instant disliking to me. Needless to say, this tends to result in that I find myself within negative social environments. I, in turn, often take great pains and efforts to alleviate the social ecology which I have found myself subject to, often to the point of absurdity, before coming, all too late, to the conclusion that I should just leave. It's not that I am addicted to using the internet per se; it's that I feel compelled to travail in the heedless attempt to improve my social standing for what I lack in self-confidence. On some level, my general plight has only been generated by what complexes I have given myself and, on some level, I do kind of suspect that society is just to blame.
Anyways, often finding myself maligned and isolated, what I can tell you about that is that in no ways does being mocked make you so inclined to take any other person's opinion, no matter how well articulated or reasoned, into any form of consideration whatsoever.
By that @NOS4A2, has consistently failed to win this uphill battle for, at least, the past two years, I would suggest that, like me, they could be somehow neurodivergent or having failed to cope with some sort of life crisis or something and, by that account, do genuinely think that we should stop making fun of them.
Quoting James Riley
What I am saying about @NOS4A2 is that he is just some isolated individual and, despite the geo-political bale of the Trump presidency, it ultimately doesn't reflect too well upon this forum for us to have mocked him for two entire years. It's also just simply the case that ignoring his comments in this thread is the only thing that can make it so that we just don't have to pay attention to them anymore.
I hope he doesn't change his opinions. He's an inspiration. Fuck him.
Agreed. Self-discipline.
I don't understand why you, as one of the mods, are so dead set on keeping this going.
There's not really a way to explain this without just kind of laying it out there, but, were seeing a psychologist a panecea for any and/or all psychological plights, it kind of seems like it is the case, by that he has continued to engage in this debate for a grand total of 400 pages, he is the sort of person who needs to see a psychologist. In the interest of not having a detrimental impact upon such a person's psyche, I am suggesting that we should just this go now. He's been at it for, at least, two years.
If you weigh up the profound suffering caused by positions held by people like NOS and then find that your concern inclines to some anonymous moron on the internet, then you need to revaluate your priorities.
I haven't followed this too closely, but, to my estimation, though his position is what it is, he hasn't said anything that is too damaging. Though I haven't read all of his comments, as he hasn't been banned from the forum, I do assume for this to be true.
A person doesn't subject themselves to two years of psychological abuse on an online forum without something else going wrong with their life or mind. Even upon refusing to let go of Trumpism after Donald Trump was impeached twice, it doesn't seem like people should level attacks at such a person.
This is, perhaps, too evocative of an example, but, in high school, the people that this sort of thing would happen to would develop extraordinary complexes over later being compared to Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. As people who, at least, offer the pretense of being mature intelligent adults, I do think that we ought to be above the kind of conduct you would see from certain jocks who are avoiding coming to the realization that they have just taken things too far.
Furthermore, I don't think that the collective revelry that comes with the popular spectacle of taking shots at easy targets, from any political perspective, gets anyone anywhere. It can be fine to mock people to a certain extent, but, as he is clearly only so well versed in political philosophy, I can't help but compare this to an experience that I had in Catholic grade school where a group of fairly athletic boys had organizing boxing matches during recess that were kind of just sanctioned beatings of this kid who never could seem to repair his glasses.
What I am saying is that NOS4A2 is probably insane. A symptom of this is that he has devoted the past two years of his life to debating Trumpism in this thread. While we don't have to give any ground to Trumpism so as to be nice to NOS4A2, because he is insane, we should stop making fun of him. Even though there is a certain humor to this post, I'm not being wholly facetious and am sincerely trying to point this out.
I don't really want to keep on like this, but I just don't think that you've put enough thought into this, as I have just done so, myself.
The first one-hundred and forty-five pages of this thread are just a relatively normal conversation about Donald Trump that you would expect from a philosophy forum. The last four-hundred and forty-five pages are just NOS4A2 trying to convince a single other person here to support Donald Trump. I don't think that I've ever participated within a thread for more than five to ten pages. By that he has done that, I do think that it is probable that he is insane. Carrying on like this seems likely to exasperate that, rather than alleviate it in any way, aside from that I think that he's the sort of person who believes that he likes to feed off of negative energy. Why give him the floor in that sense?
Have you not learned anything?!
They are winners, they don't dwell on old failures and they don't listen to naysayers. Mark my words, they'll breeze over all past troubles, toward new victories.
Quoting praxis
Or they'll view it as a minor hiccup. They are resilient, tough folks with a winner mentality.
Quoting Benkei
The prime minister here (the most powerful position in the country) congratulated Trump for the victory in the presidential election. So -- I'm not so hopeful.
It's a challenge, isn't it? How should a moral, liberal, democratic, cooperative person treat someone who refuses to cooperate?
Banning them would be against one's own moral principles. So what's left?
You don’t get it. What I’m saying is, Trump’s GOP should be ruled ineligible to stand candidates, unless Trump recognises the 2020 election. If they’re not going to observe the rule of law, then they can’t expect to be allowed to participate. Why isn’t anyone saying this??
Ruled ineligible -- by whom?
Okay, but what's the point of continuing to have a go at NOS4A2 when he is probably insane and suffering from the delusion that he enjoys that this thread, which has outlived the Trump presidency, has come to revolve around more or less just everyone else here insulting him? He is not a challenging political opponent, which means that carrying on like this doesn't offer any of us a greater understanding of the world or the perspectives of those within it. It seems like the patrons of this forum just let themselves be bothered by him, when they know that he is just kind of intentionally being contrary, often escalating in a succession of vitriol. The whole thing just smacks of Nihilism.
Besides, letting things continue as such will have the effect of reminding me a period of American history that I would just as soon forget sooner rather than later.
Is there a law about it?
Is there an official election commission in the US who decides on such matters?
That would be a matter of honor. Pffft.
No, they're not, you're not being precise. Some of it is abstract discussion about the US legal and political systems and other political systems. Some of it is people letting off steam. Etc.
Quoting thewonder
Die fighting or perish on your knees.
Is there a law about it?
Is there an official election commission in the US who decides on such matters?[/quote]
Convicted felons are not allowed to run. There are all kinds of rules. Someone has to make this argument. If he flouts the rules then he can’t be allowed to play the game. Very simple.
But then they first need to be convicted felons. And even then ...
Our prime minister was found guilty by a court of law and should now be serving a prison sentence. He isn't. Anything is possible.
There's a scene in the filmed version of Catch-22 where Nately, who is played by Art Garfunkel recites a variation of that that Zapata quote to an old opportunist Italian. The Italian responds, "You have it backwards. It is better to live on your feet than it is to die on your knees.". I've always thought that that was a very clever scene. I don't think that you'd get it, though.
*sigh*
I would love to be wrong on this matter. I still sometimes hope I am wrong on this matter. I fear that I am not wrong, though.
It is as suspected. You wouldn't get it. It's nothing for or against you, as you'd have to have fucked up your life in a particular way in order to get it, but you just wouldn't get it. As much of a satire on extolling the virtues of cowardice as it is, it's also kind of a joke about how he should just take his advice. I can explain it to you, but you won't get it. People who say things like that tend to be kind of reckless, and, so, perhaps you'll get it someday? You'll laugh when you do.
That’s not necessary, pal. If I wanted high-fives and consensus I’d probably be on some dark corner of the internet by now.
I feel zero pain from the digs—they’re as soft and brittle as imagine their chins are—and I just dig them right back anyways. C’est la vie. Besides, testing your ideas against the grindstone of criticism and free speech is a great way to pass the time during lulls in work. Unlike these vectors of propaganda that’s all I’m here for.
As for the remarks about my sanity I fear you’re projecting. So I’ll be sure to tread lightly around you just in case.
Well, okay, then, but I am saying that, as an insane person, you are probably somehow insane as well. I can't rationalize as to why a person would do this otherwise.
Back in the day if we wanted to know why someone did something we asked him. But yourself and others like to invent little tall tales to fill the holes. So far I’m insane, a charlatan, a Russian bot, a nazi, a man living in his mother’s basement. Perhaps one of these days someone will get it right, but so far it’s all swings and all misses from people who fancy themselves philosophers. That they’re all fellow travellers is no surprise. I just want to know: is this a method of some sorts? a coping mechanism? catharsis?
If they were so painless you wouldn’t be so inclined to “dig them right back”. It’s okay to feel hurt, NOS. It’s okay to accept concern for your mental well-being. You don’t have to pretend to be the tough guy anymore. You can be yourself, for once. I for one give you permission to be human.
Thanks, but I think you’re overestimating the power of words, praxis. The old child proverb “sticks and stones” still holds true, in my mind. So I see the attempts at insult and belittling as little more than group think and ideological back-patting, the basest form of propaganda.
So your trauma dates back to childhood. I’m sorry to hear that.
Quoting NOS4A2
The fact that you work so hard at rationalizing practically screams your pain.
It’s okay, you can be yourself.
Use my words as your tea-leaves all you wish, but I’ll add trauma and pain to my list of swings and misses.
It’s OKAY, NOS.
Okay, so, perhaps I shouldn't have made the claim that you are insane.
What I am saying is that tim wood just compared you to a stray dog that has pissed on his living room carpet, which I imagine to be fairly dehumanizing. Though he does seem to be of a temperament that leads him to say such things on occasion, in your case, that he does seems to be fairly well received, if not encouraged or even celebrated. Given such circumstances, I would've abandoned Trumpism or left The Philosophy Forum by now. Were I to be a Trump supporter, the latter would probably be more likely.
Being said, there does seem to be a desire for you to remain here and to be fairly contrarian so as to inspired a certain repartee, and, so, perhaps, albeit distorted, there is a kind of symbiosis that I just haven't picked up on?
:100:
I offer the following for my left wing liberal brethren. What should have happened:
All former slave-owning real and personal property turned over to former slaves. As to former slave-owning families (and any true believers): The women and old men shipped off to reservations thousands of miles from home to become dependent wards of the state; All children sent to the Carlisle Bigot School in Pennsylvania to be deprogrammed from white supremacy; All men placed into indentured servitude of former slaves until such time as contrition was achieved.
Had this been done, many of the problems we face today would not exist (enemy flags, statues, systemic racism, riots, etc), and integration would be much further along.
It would also have demonstrated the appropriate honor and respect due to all American troops who fought and died for our country. This has not happened. It would also have cemented the honor of our heritage of killing enemy confederates, racists, and the champions of slavery. Reparations paid in blood then, instead of talk about money today. We have spit on our troops, and dishonored our own heritage.
The reasons this did not happen include the understandable weariness of war, and a desire to move along; let bygones be bygones, let it go, forget the past. However, white privilege explains a lot of it. Many a northern abolitionist would have balked at the ideas above. “Equal, yeah, but not *that* equal! Let ol' Billy Bob and Cletus have their land back. It'll work out.” In other words, many of the so-called enlightened ones are really just racists too.
Anyway, for all the touchy-feely liberal types who get all magnanimous and want to make nice after kicking an enemy in the rear, let history be a lesson to you. Future generations will have to suffer due to our failure to destroy the enemy’s will to fight. Sherman was on the right track but we didn't finish the job. Now we have . . . well, . . . what we have.
Can you imagine doing to WWII troops what we are doing to Civil War troops? Every time we let fascist racists raise their fking heads out from under the fridge, and give them oxygen on T.V., that is what we are doing. And for my Republican friends, every time you abide the belief that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", you just got in bed with evil. You can't expect real Americans to entertain what might be your legitimate social or economic conservative ideas when you let racist fascist carry your political water for you. You best dump trump or you will lose your party for having lost your way. You wouldn't know a real leader (Cheney?) if it jumped up and slapped you in the face.
End rant.
While I am willing to concede that you have given a well articulated and reasoned defense of your having insulted NOS4A2 as such, to my limited experience, in the three or four threads that he has commented on, though he has made a conscious attempt to derail them so as to issue a particular set of right-wing points, which I found to be fairly manageable, he was not so distracting that I was not capable of continuing the conversation otherwise. On, at least, one occasion, I was even capable of engaging with him like a fairly normal human being. With this in mind, I am willing to put to question as to whether or not he has warranted the animosity expressed towards him on this forum.
Surely Pacifism is why racism persists in America to this very day.
I didn't use the word "Pacifism" but if that's what you want to call it, then yeah, it is. Change my mind.
Regardless as to things like whether reparations could have been given following the end of the American Civil War or whether slavery could have been outlawed following the end of the American Revolution, what seems extraordinarily unlikely, to me, is that there were concrete plans for reparations being made that were abandoned in the name of maintaining peace between the North and South. You have made a highly speculative historical argument concerning the peace process at the end of the Civil War in order to slander an ethos that didn't really begin to take hold until the First World War and didn't become popularized until the Vietnam War. It's out of keeping with any historical reality. Though I am sure that the concept of reparations has existed in some way, shape, form, or another for as long as there has been an abolition movement, I also don't think that it came to be understood as it has until sometime in the Twentieth Century. If we are to look at history in chronological order, your synopsis of events contains some evident anachronisms.
The only thing that most Pacifists are in danger of is being ineffective. Pacifism came to be slandered as being somehow colonial or white supremacist sometime in the late 1960s in any number of attempts on the part of any number of political factions vying for power within the protest movement as a whole. The sum total of bosh that this has culminated in is contained within the Anarchist text, How Nonviolence Protects the State, an exemplary exercise in sloganeering, and repeatedly reiterated in the form of the "diversity of tactics" by the likes of Crimethinc. Though Malcom X's original theoretical strategy can be interpreted as technically precluding strict nonviolence, the text was actually written in a call for a broad-based collaboration of the protest movement as a whole.
Though I am sure that members of Students for a Democratic Society were not wholly absolved of every form of prejudice, it does seem implausible to me that they could meaningfully be compared to actual imperialists. I am suggesting that they were characterized as such so that quote unquote revolutionaries could conscript people into whatever cult it was that they were in the process of creating.
Pacifism, for whatever reason, is wildly unpopular in Anarchist circles these days, though, and, so, I am sure that you will assume that I am just a Liberal, which isn't actually true, but I don't take offense to.
I never mentioned the American Revolution.
Quoting thewonder
I never said there were.
Quoting thewonder
No, I did not.
Quoting thewonder
Correct. That was the whole point. Doh!
Quoting thewonder
You say too much. Regardless, there was talk about giving plantations to slaves, but it ended up with 40 stupid acres and a mule. Why?
I also take issue with your use of the term "pacifism". Are you saying the abolitionists, John Brown, Abraham Lincoln, Grant, Sherman, et al were pacifists? You should get that term out of any discussion of the actual history of the civil war (it was a war), which you are pretending to hold me to in my patently hypothetical lesson to those who would tire, invoke white privilege, or otherwise not destroy the enemy's will to fight.
Quoting thewonder
That's why I stipped to your use of the term; ill-chosen as it was. All your history lesson on pacifism is irrelevant to a discussion on whether a life-line should be thrown to one who is in bed with, and has failed to reject alt.right nationalist racist people who have absconded with whatever credibility might have existed in conservative economic or social positions.
I was providing another historically speculative example that could not be cited as evidence of that Pacifist sentiment is somehow colonial or white supremacist.
Quoting James Riley
I haven't been saying that there is no case for reparations. I do think that there is one. What I have been saying is that said case not having been made at said point in time has nothing to do with Pacifism.
Quoting James Riley
I am talking about the anti-war movement.
Quoting James Riley
We have been talking at cross paths. I was reading into your writing and not thinking of it within its context. I am at fault for this confusion.
As it concerns NOS4A2, what I am saying is that it is just nihilistic to continue to have a go at him. We learn nothing from it and it is just distracting. Had he done something like threaten Black Lives Matter protesters with an AR-15, I wouldn't defend him. What I am saying is that people have had kind of an extensive go at him here when all he has done is derail this thread. The threads on the presidency go on forever and often get derailed, anyways.
So stop already.
I agree with Wayfarer's last post.
On my thoughts, if you want to run interference for one who's opinions have found solace in the company of the man who's name heads this thread, and the people he aligns with, then I'd just as soon toss you in with them. After all, they are quick to toss anyone left of center onto a slippery slope to Pol Pot. So F them. If they wanted to step back from the edge and be reasonable, they'd file for divorce from Trump, the Republican Party, and all the fascists racists clap trap that comes with it. For they would have irreconcilable differences. But they don't. And you come to their aid and comfort. Hmmm.
He's not God.
Wayfarer is correct to correct me for also making fun of him and he is correct to assume that I have decided to champion this cause because of my own fragile psyche.
I don't want to keep talking about this as I don't think it helps anything, either. I haven't come to the aid and comfort of the Republican Party as a whole. I have merely been attempting to play off an instance of internet bullying. I haven't done so well, and, so, here we are. I say that we wait for someone to post something that is actually relevant to this thread now and just carry on like nothing happened. That's what I'm going to do, anyways.
Trump isn’t completely irrelevant at this point, I suppose.
Quoting thewonder
You’re the first to claim insanity that I’ve seen. Good work :up:
I suppose that cultivating an inflated sense of superiority via psychological abuse is a sign of intellectual maturity.
Chill-out wonderer, I’m just bust’n balls. My new favorite pastime.
Well, okay. Easy it will be taken.
This point needs to be raised - it's a meme that needs to go viral. Trump has no place in democratic culture, and there's no possibility of a 'good faith' defense of his actions on 6th Jan 2021.
:halo: :starstruck: :love: :blush: :up: :hearts:
I think the feds ought to storm Mar-e-Lago, cuff him and haul him off for treason, sedition, and working to overthrow the rule of law. Unfortunately that is just fantasy at this time. Hope it changes.
I think that if he would be indicted for money laundering would be enough. Because what else were those Russian clients buying his real estate. You think the Trump people would use "due diligence" on looking at where the money came? Especially when normal financial institutions wouldn't lent him. After all, Trump declared that his financial dealings were "off limits".
Secret Sharers: The Hidden Ties Between Private Spies and Journalists
Lock that mf up. :party:
Miss Me Yet Trump Flag
Trump Miss Me Yet T-Shirt
Wouldn't someone have to go away before you could miss them? My flag would say "Go away and let's see!"
Granted, some Republicans are actually full-on Trump, but not all. Those who are smart, yet stick with him can't all be playing for votes from the base. Some of them are in fear for their lives and family. That shit right there is unsat. I won't shed any tears if they suffer the worst when found out. The only question is, are they so insinuated into the investigative authorities (or judiciary) that nothing happens.
Leadership is on you, Biden.
Better grab them soon. I hear Trump is coming back "in two more weeks," or "by August."
Anyhow, surely this is the best outcome. Now his influence can be stretched out over 12 years.
[quote=Adam Serwer]Republicans are not blocking a bipartisan January 6 commission because they fear Trump, or because they want to “move on” from 2020. They are blocking a January 6 commission because they agree with the underlying ideological claim of the rioters, which is that Democratic electoral victories should not be recognized. Because they regard such victories as inherently illegitimate—the result of fraud, manipulation, or the votes of people who are not truly American—they believe that the law should be changed to ensure that elections more accurately reflect the will of Real Americans, who by definition vote Republican. They believe that there is nothing for them to investigate, because the actual problem is not the riot itself but the unjust usurpation of power that occurred when Democrats won. Absent that provocation, the rioters would have stayed home.[/quote]
Quoting Wayfarer
I doubt that you received any responses given the Times' window for comments, so let's try
Just because nobody owns it doesn’t mean anyone can say what it is. Don’t appreciate the card trick.
The Constitution was written expressly for a republic ruled by a now denigrated elite analogous to ancient Roman freemen. This discrepancy is slowly evolving to an unspecified resolution, which is decidedly not democracy.
It's fucking disgraceful.
Trump lied about widespread voter fraud throughout his term, and particularly often in the last year and a half. That lie was repeated often in right wing news outlets and talk shows. He alone led the long string of lies that led up to Jan 6. Half of House Republicans and nearly all of Senate Republicans are complicit in this defrauding of the American people. Nevermind the nutjobs. Now, after conjuring up enough doubt in the minds of citizens regarding the trustworthiness of elections(based upon lies and falsehoods mentioned heretofore), the republican party iitself is using that distrust(that they manufactured from lies about widespread voter fraud) as a reason to make it harder and harder to vote.
For those who keep acting like and/or believing that the US is a democracy. It is not. Never has been. It's a republic with democratic traditions. A representative form of government. A group of elected officials, chosen by the people and for the people, who are supposed to be acting on behalf of the people.
‘Elected officials’, right? So it is a democracy. Denying that fact doesn’t help to protect democracy, it only fuels cynicism. Egypt, Belarus, Myanmar - those countries are not democratic. The US despite its many problems and fractures is. The 2020 Presidential election had the largest turnout in history and was also according to the official reports, which I believe, the most secure and transparent election in history. To say otherwise plays right into the hands of those insidious forces who wish to subvert it.
What happened is perfectly clear, but a significant proportion of the populace has bought into Trump’s lies and so are prepared to accept that the riot was actually a patriotic act. That’s what is shocking about it. Read The Atlantic piece I linked in this post.
Hi, just happened by and have not followed this thread for months, so my comment is completely out of context and only directed at exactly the text quoted.
Let's say the left gets their wish and Letitia James or some other eager leftie prosecutor puts Trump in prison. Striped shirt and pants, ball and chain around his ankle, wielding a scythe under the hot sun on a Louisiana chain gang. Cool Hand Luke. "That Donnie he's a good ol' boy," in George Kennedy's voice.
Now what do you think is the effect on the 74,216,154 Americans who went to the polls and voted for him in 2020? Wouldn't they be even more upset than they are already? How about the citizens and legislators in the red states? In the red counties of the blue states? How exactly would your scenario "save America?" Or are you going to imprison the 74 million as well? Curious to know how this is supposed to play out. The Senate is split 50-50 and the Dems hold the house by a single-digit majority. The incumbent president's party almost always loses Congressional seats in the midterms anyway. Wouldn't this just bring Republicans and conservatives to the polls in record numbers and with massive enthusiasm?
So you put Trump in prison. What next? How does this bring peace and harmony to the US? How does this play out? How exactly does this "save America?"
They'd vote for someone less idiotic and criminal.
Possibly but I think plenty of people voted against the Democrats instead of for Trump, so most won't care.
Business as usual.
That you don't have a president with fascist and autocratic interests in power.
Idiotic question.
Up to the US.
You still have a functioning society, don't be a drama queen.
Or they'd vote for Marjorie Taylor Greene.
You're a cock-eyed optimist.
Quoting fishfry
Same way the Nuremburg Tribunals and Allied Powers occupation saved Deutschland for the last several decades – "peace and prosperity" mobilized by progressive anti-neoliberal fiscal-regulatory policies and force-multiplied by the inclusive, democratic, rule of law.
Justice is supposed to be blind. Thus, justice would not give a rats fucking ass about how punishment would hurt the feelings of a bunch of snow flakes. Serving justice saves America and we don't not serve justice simply because of 74m petulant snowflakes who would extort a denial of justice under threat.
Today is June 6, the anniversary of D-Day, when slaughtering fascists, like the worthless pieces of shit that they are, was an honor, involving sacrifice. We should honor all the men who died in that struggle by serving justice to Trump in their name.
In fact, a failure to serve justice destroys America and all they fought for.
Get on the right side of history. Trump is a dishonorable coward and a liar who no man would follow into combat, no man would leave his daughter to watch, no man would give his money to for protection.
The only thing I'm curious about is how his Secret Service detail will deal with Donny getting plowed by Billy Bob in his little cell. Oh yeah, that's right, he won't get justice. Nobody with money and power get's justice in America. Maybe America already is dead due to a lack of justice.
Why am I not surprised that once again you are doubting the power of the people's voice. You are hearing the anti-Trumpers in control today and if that is what the people see as a positive change from 45? Then they will vote that way but so will millions of other Americans that are living in the same county but not really as a states standing united.
We are not a perfect nation but it's the best I have seen from here and the greatest my Grandparents saw from over there. You may call me naive in my faith in our ability to rise up better but that is okay. Naysayers can be the energy behind change. :flower:
Jeez that is rich. Show me an elected official who isn't slightly better off than the average American in gains obtained by holding elected office.
Quoting Benkei
Many people, of many industries and many border states do oh so care. Trust in me, we care. :100:
It seems more likely that they already believe such things, rather than having "bought into his lies". It seems unlikely that one person would have such power over others. Rather, this is about something that is already in the people. Similar as in Nazi Germany: Hitler didn't convert anyone, people weren't "buying into his lies". Rather, they already believed those things.
Quoting Wayfarer
Don't be like the deva in the sala tree. That which you call "stupidity" is a seed, and it will grow, and destroy everything in its path.
I have to agree with you. The only caveat I would add is this: Most of these beliefs were under the fridge. Trump let them out, when the lights were on, allowing them to get brave, and getting braver.
Physically, I look the part. I've spent a lifetime with these people confiding in me, thinking I was one of them. And there are a lot of them. It had always been on the down-low: winks, nods, and, when in a conservative safe space, the quiet part was said out loud. It usually started out with little feelers, testing the waters, trying to make sure they were in "good" company. If I shut them down, that was the end of it. But if I remained silent, the stupid ones thought silence was agreement. Some thought I was "on the fence" and prime for recruitment with their absolutely, fundamentally stupid logic. Then they got shut down and crawled back under the fridge.
But then Trump came along and all of a sudden, here we are.
When it comes to putting the toothpaste back in the tube, it's going to take a real leader. I'm not so sure POTUS Biden has what it takes. I hope so. And I hope he can do it through example and moral persuasion, because the left, largely, has abdicated on their civil liberty outlined in the Second Amendment. They must now rely on government to save them and, I'm afraid, much of the subject beliefs you reference are insinuated throughout the very government we would rely upon for our defense. Who will enforce the law when the man next to them, in whom they have entrusted their very life, is dragging his feet, or worse?
Leadership indeed.
Indeed. I've said - ad nauseum - that Trump is not the problem, but rather, he is a symptom of underlying problems.
Although, in this case of claiming that the election was stolen from him, that is simply not true. He is much of the problem. It doesn't matter whether or not he believes it(whether he is lying or delusional). Trump began sewing the seeds of doubt about the election results of 2020 a year and a half prior to the election. He took action at the USPS which made it much harder to successfully deliver the ballots in time, and then complained about the difficulties faced by the institution regarding that. It was well known that mail-in ballots were going to be used in far greater numbers than ever before due to the pandemic(that he denied, lied about, and basically ignored).
So much of the problems in American society boils down to the systematic deterioration of trust in elected officials that the white American electorate has been going through since the seventies(that minorites have been going through since the beginning of the country). This includes but is not limited to the ongoing lies and false promises made to the white American people from both sides of the aisle, by each and every administration since Carter. The lack of protecting innocent citizens/consumers from predatory lending practices and other forms of blatant harmful practices and purported public services(the dismantling of anti-trust laws). The disasterous effects/affects that the outsourcing of good paying American jobs has had, and that exodus itself being incentivized and rewarded, and then sold to the American people in the guise of cheaper prices and more choices. Lost incomes and destroyed livelihoods were supposed to be avoided by workforce development programs. These were already underfunded, and they are some of the first social programs to have cuts made to them. Hillary herself proposed such cuts in her last campaign.
It used to be the case that if one wanted to work hard and follow the rules, one could find a job that would allow one to live without financial worries like choosing between paying bills or having food on the table. Many of the people who just began voting again for Trump chose Trump because he said what they had been wanting to hear... "America first", which meant regular blue collar Americans' interests ought supercede the rich and powerful peoples' desire to be even richer.
This bit does not even begin to reflect the underlying systemic racism aspect... but alas, I'm tired. Minorities were cast as the cause of the problems facing white Americans. Disgusting.
Report: Park Police Didn’t Clear Lafayette Square Protesters for Photo Op
This is the inspector general's report. Not a report by investigative journalists. It is well known that Trump had previously fired two confirmed and several acting inspectors general.
Here is what he says:
“If we had found that type of evidence,” Interior Inspector General Mark L. Greenblatt said, “we would not hesitate in presenting that, and saying that was influencing the Park Police’s decision-making to clear the park. Just so you know, if we had found that, if we had seen that type of evidence, we would absolutely have reported that, without a doubt.”
Who believes this lie?
Venality and corruption being rampant is not a justification of it. Vote for more honest and moral officials, please.
Who would have thought that Trump would lie and try to have others lie to cover up his attempts to obstruct justice. I for one am shocked and surprised.
Let me guess: you believed it, even when there was no evidence. You believe it still, even with evidence to the contrary.
No evidence of what? There is plenty of recorded evidence of what happened and when it happened. The report did not dispute that. Given Trump's nonstop lies, nothing that comes out of his administration is credible.
There was no evidence he cleared the park for a photo-op. This fantasy was the going rate for quite a time. It’s in the title of the article I posted earlier, which you responded to, and was the entire reason Congress wanted the investigation.
The report is limited to the US Park Police. Several other law enforcement agencies were involved. The report says nothing about them.
From the NYT:
Mr. Trump issued a statement on Wednesday thanking the inspector general for what he called “completely and totally exonerating me in the clearing of Lafayette Park!”
In an interview, Mr. Greenblatt said he did not appreciate the comment.
“That’s uncomfortable for me,” he said. “We are independent from any political administration. This is not at all comfortable footing for anyone in my community.”[/quote]
The report says quite a bit about other agencies.
https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/SpecialReview_USPPActionsAtLafayettePark_Public_0.pdf
But none of that matters because it is also clear from the report that the Park Police, with support of other agencies, cleared the park in order to allow contractors to build a fence, and did so in response to the continuing violence against officers and the vandalism of federal property.
Inserting other motivations into the minds of others, without the evidence to do so, is an act of fantasy or projection. That's what the media has done here and they spread this misinformation all over the world. Hell, even on this board people spread it and believed it. Sadly, I was the only one here—on a philosophy board of all places—that noticed the error in their reasoning.
From the report:
The report clears the USPP. It says nothing about Trump's decision to appear, how this was coordinated, or what measures were taken to assure his safe passage. It simply states that the USPP played no role. But the USPP was not the only policing agency involved. The report does not exonerate Trump, as he claimed, at best it exonerates the USPP.
Not only that, but even if they had sought to interview "Attorney" General William Barr, that would mean exactly zero. Hell, even if he was under oath and a threat of perjury, it would mean exactly zero.
All of that is irrelevant to the fantasy that Trump cleared the square for his photo op. The square was cleared to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence.
NYT story: Protesters Dispersed With Tear Gas So Trump Could Pose at Church. False. They were dispersed to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence.
NPR story: Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op. False. The often-violent protesters were cleared to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence.
Dude, if you think you can convince anyone here that you have special access to Donnie's soul such that you can ascertain his pristine intentions re all this, you are a seriously lost soul. It is totally reasonably to infer the intention outlined based on character and history. He doesn't have to tattoo it across his orange mug.
I'm not sure any of these inferences are reasonable if they are continuously proven false.
So says the PP only.
Quoting NOS4A2
So says the PP only.
Too bad the PP were not in charge of protecting the Capital. They sound like some real Boy Scout go-getters.
Have you read the report?
You can't prove the unstated intention here true or false. You can only infer one way or the other. We are engaged in speculation. The fact you don't seem to understand that is comical.
The intentions of those who cleared the park were made explicit by everyone involved in doing so. It was backed up by testimony, video, emails.
So, Trump said he didn't clear the park for X reason and we should believe him because, what? He never lies? Sure, buddy.
No. But then again, I didn't read the NYT or the NPR story either. I base my opinion of the dishonorable coward and liar solely upon that which emanates from his own cock holster, or what I have seen him do. Now, I'm sure Q would say all I've heard/seen that does not show him in a good light is simply deep fake, designed to harm dear leader, but I'm not there yet.
One thing I have pulled out of all this is the "look around" lesson. If you look around and find yourself on the same side as Nazis, fascists, racists, anti-intellectuals, etc. then you might want to rethink your position. Let's say you're just an old school Republican and fiscal and social conservative. You should really consider divorcing yourself from those who like the same guy you like, and the guy himself. You will legitimately be painted with the same brush.
Guilt by association. Classic.
The evidence provided by the report proves quite a bit. Those who planned the operation explicitly stated their intentions and reasons for clearing the park. If any evidence to the contrary arises be sure to let me know.
Yep, classically good. If you are going to hang with a POS then you can expect to get painted with the same brush, and deserve it. Now, if you can demonstrate that your efforts were directed at reforming said POS, then you get a pass. But when that POS has taken your good name, he should be your enemy. No? If not, then you too are a POS and can go down with him.
At least Liz Cheney has balls and integrity. She's damn sure not in bed with the left, but she does lose the right to distinction if she continues to fly the Republican flag. So there goes dignity. Anyone who stays under that party is, irredeemably, a Trumpster. Trump effectively killed the Republican Party and made it his own, because they lack leaders. For that, I thank him.
Funny, how you pretend to be cynical about politics and politicians, except when it comes to your master and suddenly you become as naive as a newborn lamb. Good luck with getting anyone to take you seriously.
The timing is suspicious. The methods are suspicious. Barr's role is suspicious. The actions of SS are suspicious.
A report from the WP the day after the photo-op:
So, there was a plan to erect the fence. The Trump administration saw this as a photo op. The Park Police may not have been aware of Trump's plan until meeting with Barr, but Barr expected the area would have already been cleared and demanded it get done. We don't know what would have happened if Trump had not used this as a photo op, but the immediacy with which Barr ordered them to act was irresponsible. Any investigation that does not look into the role his administration played is an incomplete report.
It's a common fallacy and you have every right to operate in that manner. But I suspect rather than respect that opinion.
That is fair and a far more reasonable approach. I even agree that Trump probably, if not obviously, used the opportunity for the photo op.
It is not simply that he used the opportunity for a photo op, he cleared the area to make way for that opportunity. The Secret Service and Park Police acted under the direction of Barr with a sense of urgency and immediacy. This was much more than just a plan to put up a fence.
An important statement from the report:
The SS had no interest in erecting a fence. They acted to clear the way for Trump.
I don't want my opinion respected by anyone who fails to affirmatively divorce him- or herself from Trump. Any who continue to rise to his defense will have painted themselves (not Trump or the racists, fascists' that support him). Do you see the difference between that and the fallacy of guilt by association? You earn your own guilt by associating with him, if only by demonstrating a lack of judgement.
What do you think about his holding the bible in front of that church on the day in question? Never mind. It's irrelevant.
Yes, I defend Trump. Guilty as charged. So do millions of others. Over 70 million voted for him the last time I checked. But instead associating me with them you associate me with the one or two fascists you can think of.
You engage in the same species of thinking put to use by the very fascists and racists you pretend to oppose. So while I may be guilty by some tenuous association, you’re guilty of using the same fallacies, the same hatred, and the same behavior.
More lies being revealed.
And that is itself a fallacy: ad vericundium (?). Populum, sorry.
Quoting NOS4A2
Not true: I associate you with Republicans, not one or two fascists or racists. As pointed out, Republicans (especially including any of those 70 million) had their chance to divorce but made their bed. They are now Trumpsters. Sorry, that's on them. If they want to turn their backs on him, denounce him, endeavor to return to the community of man, they can. You can too. But you'll have to leave the Republican Party to do it.
Quoting NOS4A2
Oh, I don't pretend to oppose them. I do oppose them. My father opposed them. His father opposed them, and his father too, clean back to tossing a monarch out of my country. The greatest generation opposed them. Hell, back in the day, the Republicans opposed them. The fact I use the same species of thinking does not make me like them, any more than both sides of the Civil War, or WWII or any war used guns does not make them the same species of of shooters.
Quoting NOS4A2
Again, using the same hatred and the same behavior does not allow you to paint me as you or them, nor do I paint myself as such. It's the thinking which is palpably different. My thinking is right, and your thinking is wrong. The simple fact that we both think does not make us alike. There is no fallacy when you are what you are. You defend Trump who is the Republican Party. I'd beseech you to leave, to come home, but I know how you feel about the community of man. You want the best of both worlds. Understandable, but so is ostracization or, less than that, remonstration.
...Just worth quoting.
Millions of people voted for Hitler, too. Many I'm sure were good, well-intentioned people. So can we really judge them all poorly for helping along a disaster?
Yes.
:100: I was pretty sure it wasn't vericundium so I looked it up again and found ad populum is what I meant; tellingly appropriate for this discussion though, was reference to "appeal to the mob." LOL! Spot on.
I think some of the 70m are okay and just got caught up in the pack mentality. We all know how conservatives love a good dog pile. But it's too bad they couldn't find a better rep to help turn over an apple cart that may need tipping. Hell, with the right person maybe we all could have gotten on board. But no, they had to pick Trump. Jeesh. And now all they need is one, just one real leader to stand up on his/her hind legs and call that bitch out. But no, they all seem to be on the Trump train. Sad. What the hell happened to America?
On that point, what are they going to do when Trump goes? Matt Gaetz? Ivanka? Who is the heir apparent? LOL!
And the political dynasty was born and many in the world took a collective deep breath :sparkle:
Normally I would say that even Trumpsters aren't that stupid. Then I remember. I think they'd rather float Ivanka because she's hot and you know conservatives. They want her to dominate and pee on them, and they probably think the left would rather have a woman.
I evoked the 70million+ to show that your generalizations were on the hasty side, not to say that I was right.
I’m a registered independent, “unaffiliated”. I cannot vote in any primary in my home state even if I wanted to. But I wager none of this absolves me from any sweeping generalizations.
Sure it does. Your rhetoric is one of groupthink, in-group/out-group stuff, "othering" and all that piffle. If this is how your "community of man" operates I want no part of it in any case.
There will be no one like Trump in my view.
Remember that he spent 40+ years cultivating a brand, appearing in TV commercials for Burger King, in movies, on magazines, talk show interviews, on the Apprentice, and so on. He was able to "read the audience," and as essentially an entertainer knew how to pander to what he (rightly) saw was the more enthusiastic wing of the Republican party -- what were initially the Sarah Palin/Tea Party type people, and was able to repeat populist slogans (some borrowed from Bernie Sanders), played social media very well, embarrassed his opponents by disregarding common rules of political conduct, and eventually clawed his way to the nomination. Since he stood for nothing in terms of policies, the establishment was happy with him and fell in line, deathly afraid of his voting block -- and his supporters loved him even more because he was doing what they always dreamed of -- sticking it to the liberals and what's seen as the liberal offshoots: the media, Hollywood, academia, feminism, civil rights, environmentalism, etc. etc.
He had 90+% approval rating with Republicans, and energized a segment of the population like never before with his antics -- despite his administration's policies sticking it to his voters economically. He is still much beloved, and much feared, and will probably run again in '24. How can there be another person like this?
Two things are possible: he fades away, or he remains popular. If he remains popular, that doesn't necessarily mean it will translate into votes for other Republicans. Sure, when he's been on the ballot he's done pretty well, despite losing the popular vote twice. But one way to look at this is to say that this represents their "best shot"...and the fact that it still came up short is telling. Remember: 90+ approval rating. People worshiped this guy like a cult figure. So if they can't win with him ON the ballot, what about him not on the ballot? It'll be interesting to see. I think it's more a matter of whether the Democratic voters remain energized as well. If nothing passes in congress the next two years, they'll have nothing to be energized about (without the motivation to oust Trump), and so it could very well be a disaster.
But the bottom line is: there is no heir to Trump. He's the party now. Whether that's enough to win? Who knows. Like always, it comes down to whether the majority of Americans who are against Republican policies and dislike Trump come out and vote or not.
I evoked the guilt by association to show there was no light between those who associate.
Quoting NOS4A2
It absolves you from being a Republican but it does not absolve you from defending the ultimate one.
Quoting NOS4A2
No, it does not. I do not pretend to not use the same tools as those with whom I disagree. The fact that I do so does not close any gaps between me and them. And you, defending the partisan champion user of the tools you seem to abhor, makes you one of them. If you want no part, you should cease defending him. But really, that matters naught. You have been taught here, in the other threads on Individualism and Statism, that no one, on any side, will ever let you have the peace you pretend to seek. You remind me of a deer who would complain of wolves, or the wolf who complains of the fleet deer. Except they don't complain. Suck it up, butter cup. Welcome to life.
Nailed it. As usual, it's the Democrats election to lose. Never underestimate their ability to lose.
Never underestimate how quickly people can forget the old if something new and more interesting comes up. Trump can very quickly look as old as he is.
In truth the GOP is leaderless.
He's still as much a "leader" as he ever was, in that they still pay homage to him. But he's been a figurehead all along. So where's the leadership? In the same place they've always been. It's Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, and other establishment neoliberals. They always knew Trump was a buffoon, but they're afraid because he's still popular with his base.
Quoting NY Times
Deep state, indeed.
It’s ironic because Schiff seized the phone records of Devin Nunez, Rudy Guilliani, Jon Solomon and more during the impeachment inquiry. The poor guy. The difference between Schiff’s investigation and the DOJ’s investigation is that one was investigating a crime, the other for political reasons.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiffs-surveillance-state-11575506091
That other pay homage to you or want to be in good terms with you isn't leadership.
That Trump can vouch somebody and be against somebody isn't leadership, it's close to having influence on the outcome. That isn't leading.
Nor did I once say that.
But I’ll repeat: he’s as much a leader now as he’s ever been. He’s a figurehead. The leaders are McConnell et al.
Which was grounds for investigation.
In NYC the Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, Jr's office is about to criminally indict the Trump Organization itself and maybe employees as soon as this evening or tomorrow afternoon for tax fraud, etc. Also, superceding indictments will follow in the coming weeks and months culminating in criminally charging company officers and tr45h himself.
New York State, Fulton County Georgia & Washington DC will follow later this year or early next year, and I suspect US DoJ won't unseal the Mueller Investigation's sealed indictments until late 2023 or early 2024 ... in time for the US Presidential Primaries. Meanwhile, tr45h will continue grift raising tens-hundreds of millions of dollars off his +74 million MAGA-morons to pay his mounting legal bills as his zombie companies implode and his "paper" billions go up in smoke.
:victory: :mask:
I guess I'm not as prudent or historically knowledgeable as the 'historians' but, IMO, tr45h was (and if this Republic is lucky – for a long time to come – will remain) the worst President since in US history ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/486293
I wouldn't get your hopes up. If there was solid information linking Trump to crimes it probably would have leaked by now. His CFO might go to jail. I wouldn't be surprised if Rudy goes to jail, but that's about all that can be hoped for. He can tie up any civil penalties for years, likely until he is dead, and one of the lessons he seemed to have learned from his decade of losses in the 80s is to risk other people's capital instead of his own, so his wealth will probably keep soaring on passive investment.
Quoting Baden
To quote Rick Perry: Oops!. :lol:
Quoting 180Proof
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/30/trump-organization-and-its-cfo-indicted-by-manhattan-grand-jury-report-says.html
update ...
LOCK. THEM. UP.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-organization-investigation-charges-8b2deb72f74ef13e0d45a69ee7118261
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/01/nyregion/allen-weisselberg-charged-trump-organization.html
And it makes sense. Putin is a career spy and the former head of the FSB. He took direct control also of the Crimea operation, which gained total strategic surprise. Some other politician in Russia might have doubts to do anything like this in the US elections in case of a pullback if the other candidate won. Putin understood how wrecked the system is and how easily the issue would be confused to a conspiracy theory.
Heck, if Putin wouldn't have admitted that the "little green men" were really Russian paratroopers, there would still be those who would claim that they were just Crimean volunteers (that suddenly just had in their closets the newest BDUs that Russia uses).
But of course, there's going to be those diehard that won't believe this at all, and that precisely what Putin had in mind: a Hillary Clinton administration would have been right from the start one giant hearing after hearing.
For me the final thing was the Helsinki-summit. It was simply not normal behaviour from any President, especially of the US President.
That's the Trump I have seen.
Certainly not news after the fiasco at Helsinki in 2018. Leak the kompromat, Vlad ... :smirk:
:100: I'd like to see it, but I've also learned from this man that no new low is low enough to turn his sycophants away from him. If it was two (or more) consenting adults pissing all over each other, then that won't be enough. Now, if he was taped fucking little boys or what have you, then you'd think that might do it. But I don't know. I'm sure the shit that is stuck to his shoe would just say "It's all a deep fake tape and conspiracy against dear leader by the evil Jewish space laser cabal!"
Also this:
[quote=Bill Barr (fmr AG tr45h admin, RESIGNED), Spring 2020, excerpt from I Alone Can Fix It, by Carol Leonnig & Philip Rucker]"I feel you are going to lose the election. I feel you are actually losing touch with your own base. The only reason you won last time, Mr. President, is because of the 'grab them by the pussy' comment. It actually scared you enough to listen to Kellyanne [Conway]. And for the last several weeks you behaved yourself and won by a hair. This time it's different. You cannot wait until the end. I think that if you wanted to you could walk into a second term, COVID and all. You could go down in history as an amazing president and it's yours for the taking. But it's about you, and you're turning off enough people to lose this election."[/quote]
The Big Money Behind the Big Lie (Jane Mayer, The New Yorker)
[quote=Cleta Mitchell]I don’t think we can say with certainty who won. I believe there were more illegal votes cast than the margin of victory. The only remedy is a new election.[/quote]
The Georgia runoffs later confirmed the election results, though.
Big-Money Republican Donors Are Now Backing the GOP’s War on Fair Elections (Joan Walsh, The Nation)
In the US, given a good chunk of dollars, can you purchase fraud that wasn't there? If you keep going long enough?
Reason: reckless language.
Donald Trump was, as the timekeepers call it, a doomsday factor.
A clock that never hits midnight is broken. It’s not the greatest analogy given that they are atomic scientists.
The video does mention that the Doomsday clock, 1) isn't linear, and 2) with it we can turn back time. Watch the video, it's just 5 minutes.
It’s a kind of racket. If our predictions don’t come to fruition we can say our predictions altered the course of events. Rinse, repeat. Bush acolyte David Frum did the same in his book “Trumpocracy”, which warned about Trump’s push towards illiberalism. He never warned that the push towards illiberalism would come from him and people like him in the form of covid fascism.
The much-delayed report from Cyber Ninjas, a Florida-based firm whose owner had spread pro-Trump conspiracies, had been repeatedly hyped up by Trump himself.
But the draft “confirms the county’s canvass of the 2020 General Election was accurate and the candidates certified as the winners did, in fact, win,” Maricopa County’s official account tweeted Thursday night.[/quote]
I expect that Trump, if he makes any comment, will declare that the recount is wrong. The depth of his delusion is such that no mere fact could penetrate it.
I think the spread increased for Joe. LOL! But now Texas is bowing to Trump's demands. :roll: What a loser.
:100: Maybe Texas will make it work for him. Now that they have AZ to learn from. :roll: Will it ever end?
[quote=NYT;https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/24/us/politics/arizona-election-audit-analysis.html]...for those who have tried to undermine confidence in American elections and restrict voting, the actual findings of the Maricopa County review that were released on Friday did not appear to matter in the slightest. Former President Donald J. Trump and his loyalists redoubled their efforts to mount a full-scale relitigation of the 2020 election.
Any fleeting thought that the failure of the Arizona exercise to unearth some new trove of Trump votes or a smoking gun of election fraud might derail the so-called Stop the Steal movement dissipated abruptly. As draft copies of the report began to circulate late Thursday, Trump allies ignored the new tally, instead zeroing in on the report’s specious claims of malfeasance, inconsistencies and errors by election officials.[/quote]
Reason stands for nothing when facts don't matter.
:100: Understatement +.
:up:
There might be a grain of truth in what you say. However, I'd hesitate to say it's all for show, you know, just for the cameras. It might help to, as the wise say, follow the money trail to get to the truth? What if big oil and/or nuclear power industry has everyone involved in the Doomsday clock on their payroll? Something to think about.
:up:
You’re probably right.
Sure. The Bulletin follows politics and public policies throughout the year, but officials say the outcome shouldn't be interpreted as a political statement.[/b]
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Fox News
After watching the whole press conference held here by Trump and Putin in 2018 is all that actually one needs to firmly understand that Trump's relationship with Russia was not normal. It wasn't a normal press conference between the US and some other country. It was more like Putin as Soviet Union would held a press conference with East Germany or a satellite state. It simply wasn't and isn't normal.
And likely some Americans will deny it forever.
What do people think about Trump being the Republican candidate in 2024?
And what a wonderful happy time Americans would have again if Trump would be re-elected?
Who?
Let his followers continue to worship him as they always have. It matters not. They made their strongest effort in 2020, with plenty of structural advantage and intense enthusiasm, and they lost anyway -- to a weak a candidate as Joe Biden, who barely mustered any enthusiasm.
The way I see it, there is a lot of commentary on Trump still in the media.
Plus the GOP seems to be hijacked by the "Trump crowd" ...or at least so it's depicted in the media. So Biden won. But it wasn't in the ballpark of Reagan winning over Mondale in '84 or Roosevelt winning over Landon in '36.
Has anybody seen signs of the political polarization going away?
Besides, what would be the reason why elections in the US wouldn't be dumpster fires?
However, I read Landslide, which focuses on the efforts to overturn the election, and it is absolutely hilarious. Comedy gold.
Apparently Trump wanted to make Guliani Attorney General, or a nominee for the Supreme Court. Think of all the comedy we missed!
It'll either be Trump or a Trump-clone. Biden should win unless something weird happens.
True, but think about the enthusiasm gap. The Trump crowd and Republican party was nearly unanimous in getting behind him. He had the entire media juggernaut behind him as well -- talk radio, Fox News, millions of social media followers, and help from foreign hackers. He also had, as mentioned, structural advantages in the electoral college. All of that, and he still lost by over 7 million votes.
Yes, he did do better than I would have expected, even given all of that. 75 million votes is a lot. But in the end, he still lost pretty handily. The delay in counting and screaming about fraud didn't allow this to become clear, but the final numbers reflect it.
Lastly, this was against Joe Biden. A boring, bland, centrist, old, establishment candidate that was barely registering any votes prior to South Carolina. This was almost entirely an anti-Trump vote -- for me as well.
So given all that, and especially after Georgia and January 6th, I think it's a silly mistake for Republicans to rally behind this guy still. But they're pretty much out of ideas, and they're afraid of those voters who still love the guy. They're really caught in a bad spot in this respect. All the better for the country, in my view.
Now let's see if the Democrats can do ANYTHING with their slim majorities in terms of the reconciliation bill.
And main stream media whores giving him free air time just because he know how to play them like a bitch.
P.S. Liz Cheney: more conservative than the lot of them, and bigger balls to boot.
US elections wouldn't be polarized dumpster fires if we didn't have such an incoherent and broken election system.
If we went via the popular vote, the GOP would have won one election in a third of a century. The one election they did win was by the slimmest margin in that period, with the benefit of an incumbency they picked up despite losing both the popular vote in 2000, and, based on the most comprehensive recounts released, also the electoral vote.
So, the GOP would be forced to rebrand in a more democratic system because they simply aren't capable of winning national popular votes anymore. What was once a quirk of the US system that appeared every 30-50 years, is now the entire GOP strategy.
But then the certification process, which allows room for myriad constitutional crises, like state legislatures overturning their elections, or the old Congress that was conceivably just voted out getting to throw out the electors and pick a new candidate, opens up a whole list of horribles. It's possible for a party to lose, and still use majorities from a previous election to overturn the current one.
A majority of Republican House members did indeed vote to throw out the electors and appoint Trump president. Of course they did this safely knowing it would never happen, but one could see it happening next time around. Nor will Democrats be immune. Their leadership is obviously losing hold of the party to the extent that it now seems possible they will pass absolutely nothing in terms of infrastructure or a budget, because a small minority of progressives wants their perogatives to come first, despite representing a fraction of the country.
I certainly could see a Democrat making the case that the Congress should throw out Republican electors because of voter suppression, or because they won the popular vote in the future, now that norms around the process are broken. Indeed, Democrats helped erode these norms by pulling stunts requesting George Bush and Trump electors get thrown out and replaced previously.
The present situation in the Republican Party is...silly. Yet as said, the party has been hijacked. And of course it is true that there's still time until 2024 and much will happen.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
And there's the reason just why it will stay like it is. At least if it comes to the GOP.
How can you think that such discrimination could be democratic? We'd have a 'democracy', but only those who pass a specially designed test would be allowed to vote. What would that test consist of?
To say that you can't vote if you don't have high school equivalence is discrimination based on education.
Quoting tim wood
Why good for life? What about the senile old agers with dementia, don't you think we should discriminate against them as well?
I believe the Soviet Union administered such, with critical acclaim. I wish I could have lived there too.
I don't totally disagree with the sentiment but there are a few things to consider:
1. The GOP base would be the one less likely to be dissuaded by a test. Democrats have far more low propensity voters. Additional barriers, such as having to vote in person versus via mail or drive through, needing to get some form of official ID, etc. all hurts Democratic turn out more than Republican. Trump likely squeaks by on narrow swing state margins if a new, major barrier to voting is implemented. As is, the mail in voting boosted turn out rates arguably cost him a second term, although they also surely boosted his vote total, which he is so proud of.
2. All the same problems hold for minority turn out.
3. A test that successfully weeded out Trumpism would have to actually be rigorous, something analogous to the FSOT with its wide range of questions on basic historical, legal, and economic issues. The test isn't super hard, yet it has a 1% pass rate. People not particularly interested in politics already self select out of voting, so any test that would uplift the quality of candidates would necissarily restrict suffrage, probably by more than half. Your median Trump voter his higher income and more likely to be educated, so education as a metric fails.
4. The plan is going to be accused of racism due to the history of poll tests being used to eliminate Black voters. Although, I don't know if this is particularly fair since those generally weren't actual tests anyone could pass, but Kafkaesque riddles designed for failure. You'd almost certainly end up with disproportionate exclusion of minorities with any test though, which is a real political issue.
IMO, a much better system would be to not let people vote for the chief executive. Professional city and county managers vastly out preform elected officials at the local and regional level. Professional managers already administer large US political units with millions of people living in them, mostly out West. You could avoid the problem of elections being popularity contests by having people elect a small panel (based on popular vote and region, maybe 6/5 seats) who in turn hire a president and have the power to fire them. Selection is then done by merit by a party small enough to actually deliberate. This keeps regular accountability via elections and removal, but introduces a buffer to populism.
Also, I wouldn't put it all on the GOP. If a liberal Trump could exist (far harder because everyone would try to cancel them to out flank them), I don't doubt many Democrats would love them.
I look forward to pitching my system when, following Rome and Byzantium, and Avignon and Rome, we have new systems inaugurated in Mara Lago and Washington. I will say, the "Mara Lagonian Empire" does have a cool ring to it. Rather than the legal titles of Caesar and Augustus from the Dominate, the rulers shall be proclaimed the formal titles of "Donald" and "Trump," but maybe it can be reformed from the inside after the death of the king.
I'll be interested to see how mid terms go. Trump voters are mad at the GOP leadership, rightly intuiting that they despise their "God Emperor." Meanwhile, the party is following him on campaigning on an election he clearly lost, not a good issue. Sure, 60% of the party will at least tell pollsters they think he won, but having 40-50% of your party split on your main campaign issue, indeed, having them think you are telling bald faced lies about your main issue, does seem disastrous. And as we saw in Georgia, railing about fraud that hasn't occured kills your turn out. So a big upset could be on the way.
The GOP doesn't need the Electoral College. They win majorities of House votes. The Democratic dream of minority votes surging against the GOP has never materialized, and by the third generation, new immigrants are far more attracted to the party. Their problem is that their loonies keep winning primaries, and their variously insane and racist messaging is killing them in national elections.
However, the President's party usually loses in mid-terms, the economy faces major risks in the form of historically high corporate debt, the pandemic won't go away, and worst of all, the Democrats seem unable to govern, so I can see them getting wiped out. It looks 50/50 that the AOC bloc of the party tanks an infrastructure bill that was already passed by the Senate and ends up giving people absolutely nothing. That bloc seems unaware that if a race was run with Trump, a centrist Republican, a centrist Democrat, and a hardcore progressive, they would almost certainly come in a distant last place. Like Trumpism though, this can all be explained by the oppression of their base, the evil media, and voter suppression, clearly it couldn't be that they just aren't that popular and need to compromise...
If you want a check on bad leaders being elected, a body of people chosen for party loyalty and donations who only meet once every four years, with no deliberation, is really not what you want. Even if the Electoral College was supposed to serve some function at one point, it has no instructional legitimacy in doing so and no functional ability to vet candidates, or even its own membership. You'd have something even more chaotic than the election, a bunch of small business owners who donated to their state party getting to choose the future leaders.
I don't even have to think far outside places I've lived for bad Democratic elected officials. Charlie Rangel, censured by the entire House, a rare unanimous Republican and Democratic vote, for corruption. Bob Mendez, corruption he was able to avoid prison for (reasonable doubt standard) but can surely be held to have been involved in (preponderance of evidence standard). Rod Blagojevich, almost comically incompetent corruption trying to sell Obama's Senate seat. Bill Clinton, if a decent executive, also with multiple sexual harassment and assault claims against him, made more credible by his confirmed behavior.
Whereas there have also been competent Republican leaders. George Bush Sr. responsibly raised taxes when deficits rose, had realistic, limited war sims in the Gulf, managed the collapse of the USSR expertly. I would argue he was the best foreign policy President since Truman developed Containment.
I know this is from quite a while ago; The Trump thread appeared on the first page and I wondered why people would still be posting on it. When I opened the thread this was the first thing I saw. I am familiar with the first sentence of this quote from Emerson. " A foolish consistency"; I have always wondered about what is meant, about what would make consistency foolish. Pedantry perhaps?
The second sentence speaks of consistency as such, no "foolish" qualifier. Should we tale Emerson seriously here; is it OK to be inconsistent in your thoughts, opinions and beliefs? If Emerson really thought that, then he might have been a precursor and role-model for Trump (albeit far more brilliant), to bring this thread back to its topic.
Any day now….
But when we see that you have fallen for numerous such hoaxes it is entirely explicable.
Trump was impeached.
Thanks for the update. Prosecutung Trump would put him back in the spotlight. That would serve no one but him and his supporters. Plus it's not your fucking country so why are you riled up about it?
How does American politics affect you?
Trump clearly tried to engineer a coup - actually, a very specific kind of coup, called an autogolpe, 'when a head of government, like a president or prime minister, attempts to seize extraordinary control over that government from within.' Clearly and unarguably. He has succeeded in convincing a large proportion of the American populace that the Presidential election was fraudulent, even though it's been shown again and again that it was not, thereby undermining faith in democracy. He's still poisoning the Republican party from within, corrupting its officials, lying about the election. He should be in jail. Over and out.
If Japan defaulted it would bring down the global economy. Are you as fascinated by their prime minister?
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes. He miscalculated. The US probably will become a dictatorship eventually.
Cynical? Me? :roll:
The Japanese are a lot less rambunctious than the Yanks. They'd never do anything like that, it would be impolite.
//besides, the problems caused by an American default would dwarf anything the Japanese could do, as the US$ is the world's default currency. An American default would instantly destablise the global banking system, it would be a financial armageddon.//
Are you aware of Japan's situation wrt their debt?
Quoting Wayfarer
A Japanese default would take out the US.
So it's not really the threat the US poses to you. You appear to be oblivious to the real threats on your doorstep.
Oh yes, their God Emperor.
I actually remember one true Trump believer using that name in 2016. Now he was a genuine racist (worried about the white race dying in the US) and living in a trailer (and not on this site, not even as a banned member). Yes, stereotypes have their actual living examples.
It's a religion for them. Or a cult (would be more proper). That people here are outraged at Trump and hate him gives them pride that their God Emperor did win the 2016 elections. They will happily jump in the "stop the steal" bandwagon for what it's worth. It annoys others, so they like it.
So it's a hijack.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
It's actually quite typical. The most hardcore supporters dominate the primaries, which isn't in the favor of mainstream voters, especially those who can change the party they are voting.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
This is the likely outcome, actually. People will just stay away from this loonie crowd. It's not like an angry movement will emerge from somewhere demanding "their party back"! Change will come in the way of people just forgetting past stuff.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
It's a religion. And religions are a faith based issue. Not a fact based issue.
A good comment, @Count Timothy von Icarus! :up:
I find this doubtful based on the evidence from Landslide, and various other interviews. Trump's Jan 6th involvement with the crowd was quite limited. He wasn't particularly interested in the protest beforehand, seeing brow beating Mike Pence as his route to staying in power. His speech, filled with ridiculous lies and grievance, was basically the same speech he had given in the preceding weeks, given with less energy than usual.
There isn't anything showing intent for Trump. He treated Jan 6th as another rally, and wasn't particularly pleased that he didn't get to plan it. With no planning to incite the riot, or use it to his advantage, and indeed, only a minority of the crowd originally planning to enter the capital, there just isn't much there.
Trump doesn't scheme or lead. He riffs at members of his court in an angrier version of his public speeches and people act based on his rants to please him. It makes intent very hard to prove. It also makes me doubt he can be tied to his organization's financial crimes because he lacks the patience for tax fraud. Maybe his call to Georgia will go somewhere, but proving intent will also be difficult.
The bar for white collar crime is probably too high, but it's also Trump's management style (not managing and just ranting emotionally) that keeps him safe.
The problem lies solely in the Democratic Party, which seems likely as not to shut the government down on its own President, and not pass any infrastructure bill, giving the people nothing, because a minority of the party seems to think their party's razor thin majority gives it's most progressive members the ability to dictate terms. It doesn't.
To be sure, the fact that reconciliation only comes around once a year, combined with the filibuster is part of the problem. A Congress gets one and only one chance to pass new laws with less than 60 Senate votes before the next election, forcing any hope of reform into this one bill, but they knew that back in January. They didn't need a crystal ball to know Mitch would lead a vote for default to keep the pressure on. They needed to hammer out what they wanted back in the summer, not spend all the time grandstanding. Biden can't be the new FDR because Democrats aren't popular enough to win big, they need to realize that. Democrats aren't popular because they keep embracing suicidally unpopular positions like getting rid of gifted programs in local schools, and seem wedded to a race based advocacy of their programs that, when tested, makes voters of all demographics less likely to support them.
That's my understanding, although Woodward's new book apparently reveals that he thought he could get the SCOTUS to overturn the election. Plus he was altering military command thinking he might have them intervene on his behalf.
I am against discrimination on the basis of education. One's capacity to be educated is somewhat dependent on socioeconomic conditions so an individual's level of education is not completely a matter of choice.
I have thought about it, that's why it took me three days to reply. The thing is that I am not a strong proponent of democracy, for the reasons outlined by Plato in The Republic. The vast majority of the citizens in any society, do not have the education required to choose a good leader. So the politicians of a democracy behave like they are offering candies to children, for the sake of getting elected. Allowing the general population to vote produces a bad government. Therefore Plato thought that democracy was a corrupted form of government. My opinion is that we cannot fix the problems inherent within democracy by applying some standards of education by which we can distinguish a class of eligible voters from a class of non-eligible.
And regardless of what you think, I am not in favour of discrimination on the basis of education. This is because a person can only truly prove one's level of education in any particular respect, through one's actions. And to deny a person the ability to act, thereby prove one's education in that respect, because you believe that the person does not have the education required to carry out the act, is a form of prejudice. So if you want an educational test as to who can and cannot vote, you might as well just ask who the person would vote for, and if they make what you consider a stupid decision, deny them the right to vote, based on their education level.
Those are examples of getting service from the place where that service is made available. They are not examples of discrimination based on education.
One can only conclude that Tim is a Trump supporter.
:up:
Im curious, do you think Trump should have been banned on twitter like he was?
Sure, but specifically to your comment about depriving Trump voters a voice I wondered whether you thought Trump should be deprived of his voice? Or were you doing a sarcastic impression of a Trump voter? (It can be hard to tell via text)
I go back and forth on it. Its clear that there are significant portions of people who make people like Trump dangerous by listening and accepting what he is saying but its also clear to me that its extremely dangerous to make rules (twitter bans etc) that restrict people in that way because then that tool is there for anyone to pick up and use. I can’t think of too many institutions I trust with that tool.
Who is more dangerous, a guy like Trump or the people who voted for him? Is it better to restrict Trump (easier, for sure) or to educate people?
Also, I was under the impression mores soon he was banned while president?
This is the reality. What suits them best are the facts. It's all just political rhetoric, everything. Talk about making your own reality.
A bit postmodern, don't you think?
I don’t know what you mean.
Ok fascist.
"I'm against craziness - I just want to institute fascist measures and accelerate support for Trump across the board, I'm so bog standard".
How did Trump win, and why will Trump win again? Exhibit A,Tim Wood.
As long as your faith is in our lord and savior Joseph Biden, you're one of the good guys.
:up:
In the Cultural Revolution struggle sessions, where Chinese intellectuals were publicly tortured until beaten to death, there were three stages:
1. The victim remained proud and defiant.
2. The victim became numb and sleepy.
3. The victim came to believe in his own guilt, weeping uncontrollably before the crowd, begging for forgiveness for interfering with the great revolution through reactionary rhetoric.
If an American is grateful for crumbs that fall off the table, which stage is this?
Maybe earning the right to vote by passing an examination like the bar exam. Though even if preparation for the examination was made freely available to all the poor would most likely tend to be under represented, but that wouldn’t be anything new.
Advocate
To speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly.
Consider
To think carefully about, especially in order to make a decision; contemplate; reflect on.
There is even the slightest possibility that this is a good idea.
I am very intelligent.
And funny.
That's the diplomatic way to say it. The other way to say this is that there aren't objective truths and it's all subjective truths and so I can make my own truths...because that's power.
It's all just a power game.
That kind of postmodern thought.
I think it should start from things like felons would never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated.
Citizenship should be enough for to have the right to vote.
Yep.
Among the worst effects of Trump is that he turns even his so-called opponents into fascists.
Dumb fascist that I am, I still don’t get it. You’re saying that you can’t tell truth from lies?
American "elections" maybe.
The rest of your waffle are just excuses for more American fascism.
You can’t blame him, my ego would definitely want to disown that irrational hostility.
No.
I'll try to explain. So someone said this:
Quoting praxis
To control the truth, or just force others the subjective truth is what Postmodernism views this thing. A power play.
For a democracy to function sets demands for the citizens. Voters have to have some knowledge and especially interest in the collective decision making. The basis is that the majority of people do have common sense. That's all. And it works. Somehow. Not a perfect system, but still far more better than authoritarianism.
Yes, constitutions, minority rights and other issues are OK as "safety valves", yet if the electorate wants to imprison all red haired women as being dangerous witches, there go the redheads to prison. We assume that the majority of people do think that imprisoning women based on their hair color is a lunatic idea and hence nobody will come up with the idea and get majority support for it. We should see the real motivation when there are limitations to voting: usually they aren't from the fear that the voters would vote recklessly and "put female redheads to prison" or something similarly ludicrous.
Usually someone in power fears that by going to the simple "citizenship is 1 vote" idea would politically give them a political disadvantage. Hence for this reason, just to give one example, Puerto Ricans aren't given the right as US citizens to vote in Presidential elections as Puerto Rico isn't a state or part of any state, but a territory (and their representatives in the House don't have a vote). And this of course was very typical with other colonies...when European States had more of them as now.
You’re saying that silencing opposition and controlling the truth may both be strategic power plays?
What would need to change is the perception of the value of education.
There has been a general worldwide trend to view education as a means to an end -- education as a means to be better able to get a well paying job.
It is not popular to view education as a mode of cultivation with the aim of being cultured, in the old-fashioned European sense of what it means to be cultivated, cultured.
Modern education systems basically aim to produce plebeians with advanced degrees.
It simply seems to be part of American culture to view things in white and black terms, in terms of competitive oppositions, us vs. them mentality, the Wild West, the relentless struggle for survival, for wealth.
American culture is, at its heart, plebeian culture.
It's a move in the wrong direction. The issue which you are looking at is not a matter of uneducated people voting, it is a matter of apathy, which results in a significant portion of the population not voting.
The block of non-voters plays a much more significant role in any American election than the group of uneducated voters, who do not vote as a block. Any move to increase such a block, like your proposal, is anti-democratic and will not be well received. But a move to decrease the block can get oneself elected. The role of the non-voting block is an unobserved role, so it tends to go unnoticed.
I'm always one to defend the plebs, who, after all, are all of us anyway, despite what we like to think. But really, I don't like culturalist 'explanations' for anything - culture is explanandum - that which is to be explained - not explanans. Americans - like most other people, to be fair - are victims of liberal politics which is incapable at dealing with any issues at a systemic level. Social and political problems are always displaced into individual ones, which is why the go-to reaction is punishment. American liberals are just the other face of American conservatives. They just happen to like to mete out punishment to different demographics. Where conservatives like punishing women (cf. Texas), liberals like punishing the uneducated. Both delight in punishing the poor. Trump is the result in either case.
Weird.
Incidentally scrolled by the other day:
You gave an example for conservatives but neglected to give one for liberals.
So help me out. It shouldn’t be that much trouble.
If you’re referring to Tim Wood’s comments about preventing Trump supporters from voting, that’s punishing Trump supporters, and it’s not actual policy.
And yes we were talking about the fascism of those who want to deprive the voting rights of [s]political opponents[/s] supporters of political opponents, that is correct. 100 points to you.
Look, if you have anything of substance to say beyond making things up and not following conversations, come back to me.
Quoting StreetlightX
You mentioned this actual policy and ask us to compare it with something but neglect to give a comparison.
That is the real question here.
How do you assume that the polarization would stop? There really is the danger that the election of 2020 (and it's aftershocks) is going to be the new normal. I'm not seeing a way it would get better. Populism rules supreme.
May be? I think they are quite obvious ways. Political power is to control how things are talked about and how people see the issues. It's not only about truth and lies, the discourse is important too.
A reassuring counter-opinion to Kagan in NY Times. Trump may be a meglomaniacal narcissist but still too bungling to actually bring down the Republic.
If a person starts with:
And then ends with:
There is something obviously something out of touch. If you assume that there is a reasonable chance of mass violence and breakdown of federal authority, arguing about election technicalities is a bit strange. This is simply because with mass violence and breakdown of federal authority election technicalities don't matter.
If the US would be, as Kagan writes, "is heading into its greatest political and constitutional crisis since the Civil War", election technicalities aren't the answer. To do something about the polarization of politics is the problem. The political discourse is just spiraling out of control. It's like people are just waiting for the next clash to ensue. Who would want to join politics in this kind of political environment? Basically seeing part of the voting public as the problem won't help: it's a way to advance the polarization, encourage alienation and separation of the voting blocks. And naturally the right in the US has already for years has been on this path: the other side simply hasn't lousy policies, it's a mortal threat. And this drumbeat just continues.
Anyway, the next mid-terms will be ugly. Not a great start then for the 2024 elections.
Douthat points out, in the other article I linked, that Kagan also said back in the day that it was absolutely imperative to take out Saddam Hussain as he was a threat to the whole world.
I seriously think that large part of this problem can be solved by prohibiting any type of targeted advertisement, news, videos, links etc. and break the bubbles. I suspect that as a result most narratives will become more centrist, more "the average" etc. and people will be more readily confronted with opposing views, learn to deal with those views and talk about it with unlike minded individuals. You know, actually have a conversation with a neo-Marxist, paedophilic fascist or a right-wing, racist, dungeree-wearing-pitchfork-wielding, fascist only to find out those caricatures have nothing to do with who your fellow citizens are.
You have to be very careful how to do this, because more censorship likely isn't the answer as likely many politicians aren't so inept as Trump, who hasn't been able to communicate so well as once off Twitter (as he of course has minimal leadership or organizational skills). It will likely just irritate people more.
There is the ugly path from political polarization to political violence, which then can become the "new normal" that further erodes the democratic process and strengthens calls for authoritarianism. You have had already prime example of political violence in the US, naturally with the Jan 6th riot, but also starting from the shooting incident of Gabrielle Giffords in 2011 and the other incident that happened at a congressional baseball game for charity in 2017 or the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. The shooter in the baseball shooting incident was actually an leftist terrorist. Luckily some of the Republican members had army medical training and could immediately give first aid to Scalice and the Capitol Police could pin down the terrorist that he couldn't continue firing at the congress members.
President Obama with Giffords after the shooting:
The real worrying sign is how little these incidents actually raised any debate about political violence. Of course this is very typical: political violence is a taboo. It happens only in "Banana-republics", not in civilized countries. And this is true both in Netherlands and Finland as in the US. For someone lets say going to a political demonstration and then getting killed or the event of a political assassination are not the things either the media or the political leadership want to remember. Nobody will admit it would be anything else than a extremely rare thing that doesn't have any links at all to the present political climate. The sad thing is that usual it does.
No, my fear is how bad it will have to become before Americans will admit that they do have a problem with violence. Because on the positive side, it really isn't yet a real problem, but all the hallmarks that it could be in the future are there. Yet again, things can also get better.
How is this censorship? I'm just prohibiting Google from offering you another conspiracy theory video in Youtube just because you looked at one a second ago. You know, force people to get information how they did in the 90s.
Define conspiracy theory video...to the goddam algorithms already present in our searches. Don't think that you could micromanage the issue far better.
The next video should be about aboriginal dot painting. Then one on the plight of coffee growers. Then one on the origin of the word "Idaho"
They should let me be in charge of this.
More deep-state, neocon dinner theater from Kagan. The specter of Trump’s fascism was already proven to be a canard, and has long been eclipsed by the efforts of run-of-the-mill collectivist politicians, most of whom have ruled by diktat, seized entire economies, erected police states, denied basic liberties, prohibiting people from leaving their house, opening their business, going to work, going to school. The worst thing is this is the type of febrile projection that ushered it all in.
I just checked mine. It's queued up to play some movie.
Well, if I put "Conspiracy Theory" into Youtube, I'll get "Finland doesn't exist (Conspiracy Theory)". Yet basically this is basically how the internet works.
On most occasions that targeted offering is basically OK. And you can get the personalized searches off. And you can choose your friends and what they link to you. Yet I think that there's an internet that is full of garbage is the reason for this.
That the political environment is so toxic is far more to do with politicians and the political parties themselves. No need to make coalition governments means that you can be as mean and aggressive as possible towards other parties and it's a well known way to get people to vote your party. When actually there isn't much options for the voter to choose on.
Yep. As Trump didn't have any leadership skills, he couldn't do what he wanted to do. Hence the strange admiration of Putin and other authoritarian leaders.
All of it in the context of unjust political investigations and impeachment inquiries, not to mention the fevered media treatment unlike the world has ever seen, peering into every facet of his life. No wonder the strange admiration for authoritarian leaders: they don’t have a corrupt opposition party and administrative state obstructing their every word and deed.
You’re starting to talk like Trump, at least when you’re too rushed to consult a dictionary. And the fevered media treatment, seriously? Biden can’t use the wrong fork at dinner without it being dragged through unfriendly media outlets and them calling for impeachment. I exaggerate of course.
It’s writing, and yes I’m serious. The coverage is vastly different.
https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2021/04/28/at-100-day-mark-coverage-of-biden-has-been-slightly-more-negative-than-positive-varied-greatly-by-outlet-type/
Interesting statistics. One of the most striking differences is the percentage of stories framed around leadership/character vs policy/agenda, with 74% about leadership/character in the Trump nightmare compared to only 35% during the same period of the Biden administration. How is that at all unexpected or surprising though? If Biden made himself the star of a reality tv show, made it all about himself as much as inhumanly possible, the media would certainly accommodate him.
The question is, how can someone who ignores constitutional norms then invoke constitutional privileges to shield himself and others from their unconstitutional actions?
Same with his proposed candidacy for the next presidential election. Surely a pre-requisite for standing in an election is the obligation to respect the results of the election . If he cannot accept the results of a fair election then he ought not to be eligible to stand in the next one. Very simple,. I don’t know why this point hasn’t been picked up by the commentariat.
Information spreads in various ways. It has spread since history and likely much of it has been incorrect. Yet the cause of people getting angry about the present, the rise of populism isn't just how people get information.
It simply doesn't go like that. The simple fact is that if people are fine with their life, economically have no worries, the public sector works, they simply don't get angry just because of algorithms.
NOS, he was just an inept leader. Simple as that. A great commentator and could engage with his supporters yes, but the position wasn't for the Tweeter in Chief. That's not leadership. In that role, tweeting and engaging the public discourse he was great, at least Twitter was happy.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mmcauliff/status/1446119965434675207[/tweet]
Certainly taking the media commentary at face value would lead one to such beliefs, but in comparing him to other leaders worldwide, I don’t see it. It’s as simple as that.
I've been on this and the old forum since 2003. Discourse has significantly changed here too. Before, it was only philosophy of religion that was shit. Nowadays it's politics too.
Here's a short article just about targeted ads: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/05/targeted-ads-fake-news-clickbait-surveillance-capitalism-data-mining-democracy
I really invite you to read more about the information apocalypse, how deception unmoors us from reality and how it becomes increasingly difficult to tell reality from fake news How targeted distribution of information leads to information going "viral" in ways it didn't and couldn't before. Eg, how the Plandemic gets millions of views is caused by targeted video offerings not because people actually searched for it.
It's pretty bad. It's even hard to find words to say if one considers the very real consequences of this phenomenon. Making everything reducible to terms of profit is going to kill us all.
What a way to go.
Here's a thought: Instate Trump as the rightful POTUS, under the condition that he tells people to get vaccinated. Ha!
Sure, in absolute terms, those numbers are increasing, but in relative terms, percentagewise? You don't have any actual data for this, do you?
Quoting Benkei
Do you know of any time in human history when this was not the case?
I don't. Sure, the superficial methods change over time, as technology changes, but the underlying principles are the same. Pick any actual time in human history, any actual year and place, and research whether people in that year and place had free access to all information.
Was there ever a time when the distribution of information was not in one way or another targeted?
This isn't just in the US, it's a global trend. Polarization (and simplificationism) appear to be the logical consequences of democracy.
Democracy wasn't born out of some deep mutual respect people would have for eachother, but is merely one of the options for what to do when there is no hereditary monarchy (or its equivalent) in place.
Don't forget that the original motto of the French Revolution was Liberté, égalité, fraternité ou la mort.
I like what you wrote there. But polarization is also the logical consequence of free speech, or at least speech less confined by the conventional limitations. We’re at a point where anyone’s views can be expressed and viewed on some medium or other, which has hitherto been unseen. I suppose that’s a kind of democracy. But it necessarily leads to people reading or listening to views they’re not used to, and finally to censorship.
It’s not the discourse itself that is spiralling out of control, for an increasing accessibility to avenues of expression and communication is arguably an encouraging occurrence, but the reaction to it will lead to far greater perils.
Then you don't want to look or simply refuse to look. There has been a few, one African president that refused to go after losing elections... and after a bit of insistence went out.
Quoting tim wood
Giving the finger to the Constitution and wanting to stay in power by whatever means isn't a way to kill a country. Have some trust in your country.
I think the really ominous sign was people like general Flynn who insisted that Trump should get the armed forces involved. Luckily Trump is just a bully and wouldn't really go through (or in his ineptness incapable of doing so.)
Flynn, who has worked in special forces and has lead the Defense Intelligence Agency, are the kind of guys that you really have to look out for. They wouldn't fuck around (while Trump is all about fucking around). If given the power people like Flynn wouldn't just watch on TV how the events are happening after getting the people to march to the Capitol Hill as Trump did.
Yet that 9/11 moment of total strategic surprise has gone past and an autocoup, a form of coup d'état in which the leader of the state that has come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers, isn't going to be so easy anymore in the US.
This is the first thing I've read that sparks some doubt about Trump for me. Indeed, why didn't Trump get the armed forces involved after having lost the election!
Have you followed the debate about the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley?
The US armed forces are not exactly a pushover institute. Since the George Floyd riots, there had been friction between the military and the Trump team.
First, basically Trump would have had to basically fire all the heads of the military and replace them with yes-men. Possible, even if difficult, but this would have needed a plan and decisive leadership to be carried through. Trump lacked both. Trump pinned his hopes on Pence and when that didn't work, had nothing left than just to watch his followers have a blast at occupying Capitol Hill. Just as nearly everything Trump did and does, is decided on the moment and fired from the hip.
In fact Milley has been quite consistent on his view that the armed forces won't get into politics. And if you think that he or the US armed forces will do anything and have a "yess suh, whatever you say suh!" attitude toward Presidents, please listen to the following clip that Milley gave in a speech during the chaotic last November 2020. The speech is pretty much intended as a communication to the Trump people and where the military stands on the election, because it's not your ordinary speech you give in a museum:
Armed forces typically don't have to acknowledge election results. That happened in the US in the last elections.That Milley was worried about the possibility of Trump launching a strike at the Chinese (or somebody) and questioning Trump's abilities just shows how much distrust there was between Trump and his military.
I was much surprised by this at the time, and couldn't make sense of it.
This is peculiar.
The country I live in, Slovenia, has been having a crisis as well. The right wing government issued a decree according to which most government employees would have to be either recovered or vaccinated in order to still come to work (with the decree, the government removed the T condition from RVT). The union of the police filed a motion to the constitutional court to assess whether the decree is constitutional or not. The constitutional court temporarily held back the enforcement of the decree, we're still waiting for its decision.
The salient point is that about 30% of the military and the police are not vaccinated and if these people would not come to work, the military and the police would be rendered defunct or at least seriously impaired. I am very much surprised by this, given that it always seemed like the military and the police are on the side of the current government (and the current government did put many of their own people in high positions in the military and the police).
Democracy is a necessary safety valve. But basically if the economy goes bust and people are really unhappy about the situation, then ugly things and talk can emerge. And then it isn't just the administration in charge that people are angry about, usually people get fed up with the mainstream political parties and some start looking at what earlier was "the fringe". And this is how radicals can seize the moment and the loonies get into the center stage while people start to hate "the moderates".
Quoting Benkei
I usually didn't (and don't) participate in the philosophy of religion forum. Well, the talk was still quite heated when the war on Iraq happened, that I remember. People came to the old forum "to defend" the actions of the Bush administration in invading Iraq. So the present isn't so new.
Quoting Benkei
But notice one thing: Both you and your countrymen as I and other Finns share this similar media environment with the Americans. Yet Dutch politics or Finnish politics aren't as polarized as US politics with houses of government being occupied (at least that I know, I could be wrong about Dutch politics, but do know how it's here).
I would say one decisive difference is that both in Finland and the Netherlands and unlike in the US, there has to be coalition governments, which means that the parties simply have to get along somehow. In the US 'winner wins everything'-system there isn't any need to be diplomatic with the other party. It's the other way around: the two parties who actually share a lot of policies have differentiate from the other and activate people to vote for them by depicted how bad the other party is. And this has gone totally out of control in the US.
So basically my point is that the "information apocalypse" doesn't polarize politics itself, but once if polarization is sought, it really amplifies it a lot. Yet there has to be larger reasons for the polarization itself. Otherwise I guess Finns and Dutch people would be storming their Parliaments and talk about a new civil war....for, I don't know, for some reason.
Enjoying the global media issues in the Netherlands...
...and in Finland, try to spot the persons of colour in the crowd.
This is actually what is happening and has happened in many countries. The pandemic has put the ruling administrations in a tough spot and if the emergency laws aren't up to it (as usual), it causes this kind of friction where governments have to back down because of legal reasons. Has happened here too. But I guess it still far from a threat of there happening a self coup or the polarization of politics in the US.
Quoting baker
The police or the military don't go on strike as other government workers can do. They do understand their important unique role. Yet don't think that they as government employees wouldn't share the features similar with other government employees. They naturally have an idea of how to do their job. It's always one thing for a political leadership to make up policies, totally another thing if the goverment bodies implement them.
ahahaha, it is definitely polarised and getting crazier by the year. We're lucky we have a lot of political parties which means the extremes don't have a lot of chance.
Btw, have a look at this: https://mashable.com/video/facebook-leaker-frances-haugen-60-minutes
Trump is Showing Us What His Second Term Would Look Like (Oct 3, 2021)
:lol:
I’m shocked.
I imagine that’s a perpetual thing with you, Mike.
Actually, our current government has been using the pandemic to advance its own agenda. These same politicians have tried to establish a totalitarian right wing regime before when they were the government. As irony would have it, there was a political crisis and a change of government (with the current one coming into position) just a few weeks before the outbreak of the pandemic.
Laughing at your utter predictability? Yes, that's a perpetual thing.
It's not only that. Some administrations really, genuinely don't care about the people, and they make that clear. Some administrations expect that the citizens need to earn the favor the government.
People would probably be willing to put up with quite a bit of legally grey things that the government does or wants to do, as long as people would have a sense that the government can be trusted and that it cares about people.
But once the government behaves like a business owner, treating citizens as its employees, that trust is gone, and trust substitutes must be put in place (such as a law for everything the government does) .
He just is allowed such.
Could Trump walk up to the outer gate of the White House, and walk through, without anyone stopping him? He probably could.
Could he walk through the door of the White House without anyone stopping him? He probably could.
Could he walk into the Oval Office and sit down into the president's chair, without anyone stopping him? He probably could.
Sure, some people would probably be outraged. But would anyone actually, physically stop him from doing any of those things?
*sigh*
You complain about the distribution of information being targeted nowadays. I point out that this is actually business as usual.
So what gives? In response to what will you tell me "I told you so"?
Quoting baker
Yeah, they obviously cannot think of simply locking the door in the White House.
Locked doors do stop people, you know.
I dread to name names, but I know that this can happen. Some people simply have such power.
Yeah, I bet the present administration would then humiliate him by not letting him in. But he sure would create a media frenzy with that stunt. If he would get them their.
Well, one person like that was Napoleon. But Trump isn't actually a Napoleon.
[quote=Eric Frank]It’s my belief that they were trying to get cases of Democrats doing voter fraud. And that just wasn’t the case.[/quote]
[quote=Eric Frank]Was he looking for a celebrity or a political group as a whole? I don’t know what he meant by bigger fish.[/quote]
Maybe a "Big Lie" type thing.
The Big Money Behind the Big Lie (Aug 9, 2021)
@Xtrix will have a psychotic break.
I pray that doesn't happen. He'll then be a martyr and you know damn well it will have been a secret deep state doctor that slipped something into his Big Mac. Then his Brown Shirts will be in open revolt.
Quoting tim wood
I hope those in the executive know we are watching them. And I don't mean POTUS. Shit better happen and it better not be too late when it does. I'm as 'Murican as any one else and I want justice and I want it NOW!
Then there's that little matter of the stacked court.
I did need to look him up. :blush: But you are correct. In this day and age, he will suffer the likes of Tucker Carlson though. No one is above smearing if they don't tow the Trump line.
The real issue is that the poison of aggressive populism has taken over one major party with the extremists in control. That actually isn't going to go away. And the other side is viewing this as an threat to the existence of the Republic. Neither the hatred of each other, described with the term "polarization", or "tribalism" and the vitriolic stances will go away. Polarization is the way forward, because moderation or consensus will be balked or seen as "surrender". You see, this isn't about Trump anymore (even if this thread is about the old man): it's the way how dysfunctional US politics has become. It's hostile, paranoid and full of hate and fear. That's the way forward. Democracy doesn't function in this kind of environment. It didn't function in the Weimar Republic either.
Few seem to remember how it was with the Clinton administration. That administration went from scandal to scandal and the GOP understood that they could dominate the political scene with attacking ferociously the Clintons and going with the scandals. We then had an impeachment, which worked as a rallying cry. And somehow when wife Clinton was nominated to be the presidential candidate, the Democrats had somehow forgotten what kind of red cloth she was for the Republicans. Now the Democrats have found the similar vein with Trump. We have had many impeachments. As people know, I do think Trump was a disaster, but the way the media paints Trump as an existential threat does remind very well how the GOP playbook went with the Clintons.
And it won't get better before it gets a lot worse. Elections are going to be the dumpster fires we have witnessed already. That's the real ugly truth.
Ah, everything is happening because of the two-party system.
Actually, the two party situation and that one party can have it all, both the Presidency and the control of the both houses of the Congress, is the structural reason for the "poisoning" of US politics.
First of all, naturally when there are only two parties, coalition governments don't happen. This is one of the most fundamental reasons why the parties can be so estranged from each other: they don't have to be team players. A strong third party would change this. Multiparty politics can at times town down the vitriolic rhetoric as you cannot portray the other party as dangerous madmen and then make a coalition party with them. It's true that multiparty party system can be as bad as the US system, but usually they work a bit better.
Second, you basically have a centrist party and a right-wing party. The left has not been there for a long time in US politics. Some will think it's a blessing, others as the reason for all the problems. Nevermind the democratic socialists like Bernie and AOC, they are in the DNC only to gather the leftist youth vote in a country that never has experienced true leftist policies. In a similar manner "the religious right" is close the GOP, but hardly makes a dent in true politics like a real religious party would make. Now the American voter might notice how limited actually the options are, so it's crucial for both parties to portray the other party as these dangerous loonies who will destroy utterly everything if they get into power. It's to get the voter at least to pick the less worse option. I would emphasize that it's crucial for any democracy to work that all major political stances are represented, because otherwise this leads to voter alienation, which is harmful. When there is no party that many people can find to represent their views, things get ugly. Democracy doesn't work, it doesn't feel at all to work for you. So hell with it, is a typical answer then. That's how the poisoning spreads.
The third crucial thing for the biparty system to survive is that they have convinced that "primaries" are part of the democratic system. The idea that change can be done through changing the political party itself. Actually Donald Trump did breathe a lot of life to this as the old GOP elite did lose it's grip of the party (and basically made it leaderless, as Trump is an orator, not a leader). The DNC with it's superdelegates etc. has been able to handle the theater better with great actors like Bernie understanding their role and sticking to the script.
Finally, the fourth reason is that the two parties have successfully discouraged the American voter of thinking that he or she can really instantly change the political landscape. That this could actually be done quite quickly, if there would be the will. No, this isn't understood. What is thought is that third parties won't work, they will spoil the chances of the "reasonable" candidate, and that it's impossible to gather root support emerging in all of the states. I know this apathy. Finns thought the same way for a long time also, that no new parties can have the ability to emerge. That people will vote for the old parties...because they have voted for the old parties. Well, of course, suddenly there was the anti-intellect people's choice party, the True Finns, which even in it's political statement describes itself of being 'populist'.
So...we got that too. :roll:
And some facepalms. :)
Of course it is early, and we have (hopefully, finally) learned our lesson that you can never underestimate the stupidity of Americans (? is a traitor still an American?) but there are some signs of hope:
Then again, the media may just be doing their thing of ginning up a fight.
I remember on the playground when two antagonist really didn't want to fight but some fuck was always slithering around the perimeter, calling into question the bravery of either side, or starting the chant of "FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT". That's the U.S. media, including those surreptitious, conniving bastards in the MSM.
Also Biden is less than useless and is a and always has been a slightly longer detour to Trump anyway.
I don't follow him. How is he doing out there?
Quoting StreetlightX
Everyone is less than useless. But some are still better than others. Biden is better than Trump. To the extent all politicians are dishonorable, cowards, and liars, Trump is the gold standard. And those who follow him are racist white nationalist fascists. The idea that "I just wanted to tip the apple cart" is long gone. Guilt by association is no fallacy.
I don't know why people like to say this like it means anything. Or even think it's true. Biden was the condition that enabled Trump to get to where he is, and surprise surprise, he's being that very same condition again. And Biden has done more long term damage to the States in his career than Trump has - although a second Trump term might even the odds. Except people act like Biden popped out of thin air a couple of years ago or something. Biden's a fucking monster, an absolute ruiner of lives. Trump just wears it on his sleeve like a brand.
They like to say it because it is true. It means something to Americans.
Quoting StreetlightX
It is true.
Quoting StreetlightX
Biden, et al, were only the condition that enabled Trump to the extent they were magnanimous in victory. They should have hunted down and killed every last racist after the civil war and every last fascist after WWII. So, to the extent they failed to do that, you have a point. But the arc of history bends toward justice, slowly, notwithstanding liberal magnanimity. It's something I guess we don't want to give up.
Quoting StreetlightX
No, he has not. The only person who ever did more long term damage to America (and the world) than Trump, was Jr., Dick and the neocons. They broke the world and we're still trying to put it back together.
Quoting StreetlightX
No, he's not. People who think so are stupid. Monster's don't exist.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yeah, a guy who pretends to be a monster that does not exist is worse than one who isn't and doesn't. Pretty simple, really.
The opinions of morons don't count. But sure, keep up the propaganda. Maybe one day people like you will look into Biden's congressional record, but I don't hold out much hope. See you at the next Trump presidency.
Actually, they did count. They elected Trump. So you stand corrected.
Quoting StreetlightX
Are you a Trumpette? Or worse, are you one of those people who pretends to moderation like Joe Mansion? Or something else? Hopefully you are not a Trumpette. I'd have to stop giving you oxygen.
Quoting StreetlightX
Yeah, he was/is a real Hitler. LOL!
And people wonder why Trump remains a threat - they think he is some kind of aberration, and not cut from exactly the same fabric as Biden is.
No, we don't wonder. I already corrected you on that point:
Quoting James Riley
Morons, racists, white nationalists and fascist are the reason he remains a threat.
YEA! Another covert! Vote liberal!
Yes, voting cancer would be a terrible idea! That would be like voting for Covid! Learn how to read, silly.
That's why I said "vote liberal." Liberal is not cancer. Liberal is the fount of all that is good, including that which conservatives now want to conserve, and which their forebears fought against.
:lol:
Keep going, Kim Ill James.
Name one man-made thing you like that was not brought to you by liberals over the kicking and screaming of conservatives at the time of it's genesis.
I can't speak for all liberals, because I'm not as magnanimous as they are. But I think you are correct. Hitler makes a good reference point and if he didn't exist, we'd have to use someone older, like Nathen Bedford Forrest, or Mitch McConnel. :rofl:
Also American 'liberals' simply are conservatives by any sensible measure, so it's not really a distinction worth any difference.
I guess you don't know your history. Liberals gave you all that is good. It was conservative forces (and their bitch, religion) which maintained all that was bad that liberals were trying to move on from.
Quoting StreetlightX
Actually, no. Liberals enticed the cowardice of conservativism to come out from under their rock and invest their ill-gotten gains. But they could only do it by agreeing to protect the cowards from having to take personal responsibility for their own actions. You see, they aren't really risk-takers unless they can hide behind the big government skirts (i.e. corporate veil).
To the extent liberals wrested anything with violence, it was just the return of stolen labor and/or capital.
It's crazy that Americans think only other countries engage in propaganda.
I love this. I didn't realize parodies could be this real.
We don't think that. We know full well Trump and his acolytes are masters at propaganda. Of course, they have help from Putin, et al, but still. If there weren't a home-grown conservative apatite for it, it wouldn't work.
Quoting StreetlightX
I didn't realize you thought all liberals and all Americans . . . blah blah blah. You'd fit right in with the Trumptettes, if you already aren't one. Say, are you a Trumpette? Just want to know if I should ignore you or not.
That would ruin the fun. I much prefer watching you spin in incomprehension from inside the little parochial political box you've set up for yourself.
Oh, I get it. You're a fucking troll. Same difference. Trump is a troll too. That's what half his minions like about him. Oh well, you outed yourself even if you were trying not to. DOH! Fucking moron. Bye!
P.S. Look at the thread title. Can't spell liberal and can't spell Trump. Illiterate to boot.
Anyway, everyone remember the time Biden trapped students in inescapable debt at the behest of credit card companies and enabled sexual abusers on the supreme court? Can't forget the global warcrimes he heartily supported too. And now a Trump accelerant. Ah, good times. Just a small sampling too. Wonder where all the liberals who cried crocodile tears at Trumps 'kids in cages' went since Biden continued the border policies whole cloth. Such a mystery. It's like liberals believe in nothing so long as they are comfortable.
The ideals of social democracy have been forgotten. In the words of an old Dutch Prime Minister, the equal distribution of knowledge, income and power... Nowardays one side wants liberalism, social but also economic, a second side revolution and a third (which I did not see on the preceding pages) the recognition of diversity in language. None of these views cater to actual needs of people who have to make ends meet in an increasingly complex and alien world.
I fundamentally agree with you, but disagree with your rendition of social democracy. That might be due to the mistranslation of political terms in US and Western European political idom. In US politics there is nothing like social democracy, although I think Sanders tried to introduce its corse tenets in US politics. Social democracy, essentially, is about realising socialist aims without revolution or a dictatorship of the proletariat, which brought it into head on collision with communist parties in Europ, especially in the German Weimar Republic. After the war it was a strong force in Western European politics, forming the Western welfare states. In the Netherlands at least it reached its zenith in the latter 1970s wwith a socially progressive and economically egalitarian government.
In the 1980s, under the spectre of recession, the backlash came. Market capitalism became dominant, under the influence of chicago school economics, shareholder caitalism as well as the world leaders of the time, Reagan and Thatcher. The traditional social democractic parties, the labour party in the Netherlands, but also in the UK and the SPD in Germany, embraced the 'liberal' ideas, more akin to US politics and embarked on a kind of social liberalism. That is what I meant with the 'forgetting'of social democratic values. The'facade' was not social democracy of the late 1960s and 1970s, but the turn towards some form of social lieralism, which indeed marginalized the working class. There we are very in agreeent.
In the debate above this option has also been forgotten. We are presented with a choice between liberalism and revolution, scylla and Charibdis. Academic freedom, irony an a kind of magnanimous tranquility do not seem safe with the current brand of revolutionaries. I think they are essentially conservative and essentialist, but that is another debate.
In other words, it trades on an optimism that was always bound to fail on account of its inability to grasp that class warfare will always be waged - and won - by those who always had a far more realistic understanding of how power works in society: the capitalist class. It's the same reason Sanders failed. He played by the rules as every institutional weapon was brought to bear upon him even as he had mass support. The Democrats would rather Trump win than ever let a man like Sanders near the presidency. They play on the same side. Ditto Corbyn. That will always be the record of social democracy, agreeable as it is. It cannot reciprocate the class war that will always always always be waged upon it.
It's awesome that nobody mentions that Sanders is a Jew. If he'd been the Democratic candidate, we would have heard about that over and over. It would have been so disgusting.
Yep.
1940 - the same year he took his life while running from the Nazis. You can read the whole thing here. As for the rest, one only has to look at just where the attempts to 'channel class warfare and encapsulate it in discourse and consensus politics' have gotten us. Here. That to me is more utopian than any revolutionary aspiration. To look at everything burning down and say that we just need a bit more of this. Power always wins. The arc of history bends to the barrel of a gun. Only question is who has it.
I am less pessimistic. Not all is well, by no means, but not all is terrible either. Never before did so many people enjoy a comfortable life. We have miracles at our disposal people 100 years ago could only dream about. No modern times is not without its problems but it never was. The endless fight for the gun wil just be that, an endless fight for the gun and in the process millions get shot and die. As did Walter Benjamin, by his own hand in a society deeply embroiled in 'the struggle for the gun'.
Not if we win :blush:
Baby steps. Democrats played hell getting a Roman Catholic in, over the kicking and screaming of the WASP Plutocracy.
Race baiting still works. That's why it's perennial.
:100:
Who cares if povetry at the global level has gone down. It's still me myself and I just hidden in the outrage against the filthy rich, somebody else.
We are not on different sides. Just remember not to take part in any executions without regard for due process of law. They tend to take place uring revolutions an awful lot. ;)
I know, right? Revolutions and insurrections and insurgencies.
"I don't believe Donald Trump was responsible for bringing us to where we are at, the divisiveness that exists in our country. He just exploited it for his personal gain."
Fanone had a lot of trouble to hide his disgust on how the police is drawn to partisan politics. He clearly understood he was on MSNBC and hence being an object to that (even if not so openly as he would be at Fox). Yet he couldn't restrain himself from bunching up those that either assaulted him and his fellow officers with or under a "Blue lives matter flag" and those that are against the police, until they personally need them.
And of course it isn't just the Metropolitan Police. The FBI got the first political pummeling with it's director trying unsuccessfully to do his job and first ended up being the villain first to the Democrats and then immediately afterwards to the Republicans. Funny how instantly the accusations changed and nobody remembered what had been said just couple months ago. Then came absolute mess that happened in the Justice Department in general during the Trump administration. And in the last occasion, it was the armed forces and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that was hurled into the limelight of partisan politics with having to answer a phone call of Nancy Pelosi (and, of course, the phone call went public).
Yes, I personally think the Trump Presidency was a disaster. But this disaster is continuing and spreading and as Fanone remarked, not just because of Trump. The divisiveness isn't going away, it's the new thing in town. Alex Jones, even if barred from mainstream media, has become mainstream in US politics as conservative politicians have surrendered to the conspiracy crowd. Yet if the voters were alienated from the political leadership, likely now the discontent is spreading to crucial parts of the government itself. At least officer Fanone didn't hide his distaste of American politics in the following interview.
A good summary, as far as I'm concerned (and worried about):
You can do it by yourself. Just start walking northward
It's so infuriating.. nothing left to do then but take control, let's storm the Capitol Building... oh... oops...
Which country doesn't suck?
I've left before and I might leave again. But I'm not going anywhere for ever. This is my land.
Saudi Arabia.
I've never been there. But I will say, fuck a monarchy.
Doesn't seem like the smartest idea...
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with monarchs. A little backwards, yes. So is the US.
At least we have the myth we tell ourselves that no one is above the law. I know, I know, that's a lie. But having the myth lets us run around talking shit. And our women aren't our women. And they can show more skin.
Yeah, it sucks for women. :confused:
Saudi Arabia is definitely patriarchal.
Why is that? As a European I always wondered. In fact there is a two party system here too though. It takes centuries sometimes before a coalition is formed. The old situation is clung to until the formation is complete, but when installed there is the usual division between left and right. Why has the green party never got hold in the US? Are there mechanisms to prevent this, or the people just don't want them. How does Trump think about that green party? As he thinks about a tea party? What (hypothetically), if there would be more voters for Nader than Trump? Could Trump stop his March to the Capitol? I dreamt that Trump won the American elections and got scared in my dream. What influence that man has! Like I dream like exploding atom bombs sometimes. Luckily there are (still) dreams only!
I don't see why. It's not appropriate to feel shame for things you didn't cause or create.
To what end?
Can you sketch out your idea of how a person under capitalism can feel shame?
Do... do you need someone to teach you how to emote?
When did you land on Earth and can you tell me about your galaxy and what it's like over there?
Excellent. Now go read about how everything you love about your country is probably the fruit of genocide or colonialism or continuing exploitation which remains unaddressed.
Have you ever been to Gobekli Tepe?
Cool.
Oh God no American celebrities are beyond the pale.
Actually probably most Americans in general tbh.
Just wondering. It's the oldest known case of monument building. It might be the oldest temple. You should go.
NYT - Authorities Arrest Analyst Who Contributed to Steele Dossier
I'd rather not see the guy arrested, but it's at least a good thrust to the legacy media and their devotees, who it turns out were the useful idiots of grifters and party propagandists. This scandal was spread worldwide, and though its dismantling will sound as a whimper in comparison to the fevered reporting of the big lie, the truth is nonetheless prevailing in the end.
Another not charged with insurrection? That must sting a bit, given the narrative.
Doesn't sting a bit. I'm all about the rule of law. As a former prosecutor, I know it's not all about what you can prove. Sometimes it's about picking your battles.
Say, NOS, when the DOJ does something you don't like, are you going to pat them on the back like you did with the analyst? :rofl:
A former prosecutor, a former marine, a former cop… wow, you’ve done it all.
Nah, the US Justice system is utterly corrupt. Anyone who lies to the DOJ gets a pat on the back, in my book.
That's only 3 out of 34. :rofl:
Quoting NOS4A2
You do know that is a felony, right? Where were you on January 6th? :razz: Just kidding, I know you don't have it in you. But yeah, with dummies like Trump stacking the judicial deck, I see your point.
https://www.justice.gov/sco/press-release/file/1433511/download
People worldwide had to bear 4 years of these lies and propaganda. The damage is already done.
Like Benghazi? :rofl: Where were you in Trump's Nigeria? :roll: See, whataboutism goes on forever. Face it, you are a political tool for Trump. He's your leader.
Did you fall for all this stuff?
No. Honestly I didn't even read whatever it was you put up. Like Covid: For me, it's not about the science; it's become all about the politics. Likewise the rule of law: I find your concern about "fact" to be disingenuous. You don't care about this or that law or science or fact. It's all about "owning the libs." LOL!
Problem is, you can't stand it when the cons get owned. So I will take being painted with a Biden/liberal/Democrat/socialist/inclusive American brush. I know that I am on the side of good, relative to the evil of white supremacy, fascism, nationalism and the lie of "individualism" that is really just more Republican conservative BS. :roll:
In short, I am on the side of good. You are on the side of evil.
(I really don't believe in either, but sometimes you play the hand you've been dealt, and you play by the rules that your opposition likes to play by.)
I know it wasn't directed at me, but it's an interesting question. If you want to make someone feel shame, you need to remove them from whatever context gives them validation and tether obtaining validation to some external source (system, person) which has tangible power over them. If they (believe they) can satisfy their needs outside of the system, they can't be educated into shame. Make them feel like they aren't who they think they are, or make them feel like they aren't who they believe they should be.
To amplify it, you also need to make it so that they can't 'walk away' from the experience or contextualise the experience in a manner which is egosyntonic - it has to be inescapable and destructive to their current sense of self. No tears on camera for money. Teach them that those tears are theirs and it's dangerous if people even see them. Shame is something that must be hidden.
You also need to tie it to a validation loop, so that the only way that they get any validation is doing something contrary to who they are comfortable being. Shame is something that drives you to mutilate your sense of self further, you'll contort yourself away from it.
If they can't imagine what it's like to be in that position - they have deeper problems than an inability to feel shame. They'd need to be taught to empathise again first. And for that, nothing beats having a loved one suffer + caretaking responsibility for them in a manner that conflicts with your life priorities!
Make them suffer until they're capable of imagining what it's like. Then make them acknowledge their part in it. I would be surprised if shame lead inexorably to consumption or other escapisms - can lead to action or wallowing too. Or stasis, it need not be acted upon relevantly if it's deflected or otherwise neutralised (sublimated into lifestyle choices or whatever).
(PS: If any would be dictator is reading this, please consider me for the position of reeducation camp systems architect.)
Will do. :smile:
The Cult of Fools – “Trump Empire in Financial Trouble” – Oct 31, 2021
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/09/trump-executive-privilege-court-ruling-kings-520512
Uh, that actually could be seen that the Mueller Report didn't find similar things...
However, the Mueller report did not clear Trump totally, as we know.
Anyway, I watched Trump meet Putin here. Strange that the US President was a total toadie for the Russian President. It simply is bizarre.
End of story.
It's evidence that there is someone who can outsmarten Trump. It's a consolation.
I didn't think it was strange. Putin is precisely the kind of charismatic, unconstrained 'strong man' Trump would see himself as aspiring to be. Since Trump scorned most conventional Western democratic politics, where else would he go for models?
I also wondered about that guy from Brazil. Was he emulating Trump, Putin, or was he just his own version of them? I think there were some others. We had our own little Adolf/Benito/Tojo thing starting up.
That asshole, Bolsonaro, is a monster. When he cast his vote against the illegal coup ousting Dilma Rousseff (the previous president) he said he did so in honor of her rapist during the Brazilian military dictatorship.
And much, much more. He's considerably worse than Trump as a person.
So you are saying the bar can indeed go lower? Don't tempt Trump. It may be a pissing contest and he might feel he has to up his game. Of course they are both bitches compared to Putin.
He tempts himself.
Quoting James Riley
You should add Erdogan and Netanyahu to that list. Though this latter one is gone for now.
They're all disgusting. Putin may be worse, but beyond a point, it's just degeneracy.
:100: :up:
The most logical reason I can think of is simply appeasing to the populist crowd, but it simply doesn't make sense. To be tough on the allies and then to "make an openings" to those that see the US as a threat. Not actually a great way to go. You will have estranged allies and rivals that take advantage of you. But what else can such an inept politician do?
It simply wasn't normal. Yet what is noteworthy is the speed that the pro-Russia people were whisked away from the Trump administration.
Wonder what it's going to be like in the second Trump administration. That really would be the thing...
It would be much like the current adminstration, except it will make liberals uncomfortable enough to say something because it will be honest about its depravity.
Perhaps you are over-thinking this. I don't think Trump's fascination for Putin is anything more than one inflated roid-ridden bodybuilder admiring an even more inflated roid-ridden bodybuilder standing nearby in the gym. What Trump's people themselves thought is a separate matter as is whatever populist considerations there might be in this. Remember too the saying 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' - that fits Putin in relation to the liberal elites who also disparaged Trump.
Comes to mind the best reasoning given by Trump supporter why Trump should be elected in 2016. He said the following: "If Trump is elected, the media will do it's job and watch every move Trump makes. With Hillary they will be her lapdogs."
Some truth to that.
Americans don't need Putin as a scapegoat to blame for their utterly shit domestic politics. They can and are and ruining their country perfectly fine by themselves.
No. Putin cares about ruling a country. Very few high politicians nowadays care about ruling. Most are just intoxicated with holding a position of power, or with getting the benefits that being so high up gets them and their cronies. In some countries, to begin with, the political system is set up in such a way that prevents the accumulating of much power in the hands of one person or one party, so politicians in those countries can't focus on ruling even if they wanted to.
But Putin is an old-school ruler. As a personality, he thus simply can't be very pleasing. But he rules.
(I suspect part of the problem with Putin are his face and his demeanor -- Slavic-Mongolian. Westerners generally aren't used to those races and can't read those faces properly.)
About bloody time. Deserves jail.
I'll believe it when I see it. And if it's a country club, forget that. I'd like to see the distinction lost to the history books. He needs a big (if you know what I mean) cell mate. All of them do.
:chin:
I don't think so; but nonetheless an excellent analysis of the current "radicalized" State of the Ruin.
Yet the problem is this. In 2016 Trump was already totally ready and in fact expecting to play the "stolen election" card. Now in 2020 that became the reality. Now with 2024, both sides seem to think that the election will be stolen. The article is sure about that and is a good example of this.
Perhaps this part shows this most clearly:
For all I know, to do a self-coup with the powers of the US president is far more easier than not being the President. So really to argue that the threat is bigger in 2024 than it was in 2020, nah. There's no strategic surprise anymore, Trump isn't getting the political establishment caught like deer in the headlights.
Where does that lead the US? Both sides already making the charge that the other one is up to no good. It's like both sides are saying: "Let's not even wait for the actual election years from now, it will be stolen." Seems like elections will get to be only bigger dumpster fires than the last one.
Although I think this is a view that still can change:
There still are the midterms before this, and things have changed in US politics quite quickly.
And one thing, I don't think that a guy like Patterson in the article represents all the 74 million that voted Trump. I'm sure that you can find the most woke, most stereotypical liberal that perfectly annoys everything in Republicans, just as the racist Patterson does.
Let's not forget that the vast majority of American voters don't believe the steal.
Will the Dems-controlled Congress, WH & DOJ play any one or more of these cards? TBD. :mask:
Also: The rightwing SCOTUS will overturn Roe vs Wade in 2Q 2022 which will set-off a center-left firestorm through the summer and fall that will help the Dems (barely) hold on to control of both houses of the US Congress in next year's midterm elections.
There will be bloodshed in 2022-2024 ( ... ) just as the Atlantic Magazine article suggests. I suspect the massive George Floyd protests of 2020 will seem like carnival parades in hindsight compared to what's coming. And I expect Xi & Putin to take advantage of this pandemic-propelled US civil crisis / explosion by invading (occupying) Taiwan and Ukraine, respectively, by 1/2Q 2022 (or 1/2Q 2023).
I can always remember how nice the US was actually in 2019, the last time I was there.
Well, things can always get even worse. Just look at Mexico. It's surprisingly like the US, but just worse. Worse corruption, worse police, worse crime. Of course, what is lacking is the hyper-partisan political tribalism as Mexicans know all their politicians are thieves. (You might think the election of Lopez Obrador would cause a divide and an Mexican "culture war", but actually...no.)
Believe me, other people besides you can also fuck up things too in a spectacular fashion. Many times even without you.
[quote=CNN] Refusing to believe in the results of a free and fair election have to be disqualifying for any party leader. It's non-negotiable. If we can't agree that the election was fair -- even if our preferred candidate lost -- then we have sacrificed the thing that makes America great. That Hewitt -- and his fellow conservatives who continue to bend over backward to placate Trump -- can't (or won't) see that suggests just how lost the conservative movement is at the moment.[/quote]
It’s unbelievable that Trump could even be considered a candidate unless he admits Biden won - which of course he'll never do. I don’t understand why this is not being said more often.
I've been very surprised by the Atlantic the last couple of years. They seem to be one of the few major organizations running the relevant stories.
I don't see anyone in these texts desiring the events that unfolded that day. It appears no one desired it, and in fact actively worked to stop it. It's no strange wonder that the president called in the national guard, mobilized federal law enforcement, and worked swiftly to end it. Far from "attacking our democracy", they protected it.
Is that the extent of your argument, Tim? blind and baffled rage?
The irresponsible fear of President Trump using the military to "steal the election" was regnant in the press leading up to Jan. 6th, so much so that acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller testified that the hysterics lead him to refuse to send National Guard troops to the capitol building (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lht8T3VDUPE). This same hysteria differed little from the QAnon conspiracy theories, and probably fuelled it, even though Trump declared such reporting as "fake news".
Ex-head of Capitol Police Steven Sund asked for national guard help from security officials in both the house and senate, but was refused due to "optics", just he was when he had a joint call with the Pentagon. It wasn't until around 3pm that Defense Secretary Christopher Miller finally deployed the National Guard, who finally arrived after 5pm.
Within that time Trump made a series of tweets and videos asking the rioters for peace, to stop the violence, to respect law and order, and to go home. The press secretary also said the National Guard and federal law enforcement were deployed at Trump's request. Out of all the powers involved—the mayor of DC, house and senate security officials, the pentagon—Trump was the only one to mobilize forces.
Further investigation reveals FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated, so any notion of coup or insurrection are derived from the same hysteria that hindered the military, security officials and law enforcement in the first place.
So what is your version of events?
But after extensive journalistic investigation and analysis, NOS4A2 has singlehandedly demolished the theory that Sean Hannity and Brian Kilmeade were conspiring to violently overthrow the US government and install themselves as Trump's dictator princes. What now have we left??
55 Savushkina Street, St Petersburg, said to be the headquarters of Russia’s ‘troll army’.
Love Billy Kristol. "You look... mahvelous!" Haha! :heart:
….is doing the Republicans an historic service.
...by participating in a show trial with a kangaroo court. It's the kind of "investigation" that has its own twitter account and youtube channel, and the members are all chosen by Nancy Pelosi. Now insurrection conspiracy theorists get to watch her try to embarrass her critics by releasing their texts to the public, all on their favorite social media platforms. Meanwhile, real investigations have turned up nothing.
No, Chaney is proving to be nothing more than an arrogant megalomaniacal neocon like her father.
January 6 was practice. Donald Trump’s GOP is much better positioned to subvert the next election.
By Barton Gellman
DECEMBER 6, 2021
.........
An unpunished plot is practice for the next.
Donald trump came closer than anyone thought he could to toppling a free election a year ago. He is preparing in plain view to do it again, and his position is growing stronger. Republican acolytes have identified the weak points in our electoral apparatus and are methodically exploiting them. They have set loose and now are driven by the animus of tens of millions of aggrieved Trump supporters who are prone to conspiracy thinking, embrace violence, and reject democratic defeat. Those supporters, Robert Pape’s “committed insurrectionists,” are armed and single-minded and will know what to do the next time Trump calls upon them to act.
Democracy will be on trial in 2024. .........
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/01/january-6-insurrection-trump-coup-2024-election/620843/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/04/politics/trump-lawsuits-metro-capitol-police/index.html
That's silly.
Swiftly indeed...
I mean you have to be a literal moron to think Jan 6 is the election play. Like dropped on your head and then beat by mallets kinda moron.
Jan 6 is the democrat's Hunter Biden.
Indeed.
So no one would care if there wasn’t an upcoming election? The presidential election is three years from now and Americans have a very short attention span, in case you hadn’t noticed.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/msnbc/status/1047935416182235136?s=21[/tweet]
Considering the democrats have failed at delivering literally anything save a modest bit of funding to prop up the US's crumbling infrastructure to keep it running at below-baseline, I'd say that yeah, their current single pitch to the electorate has been to 'get the Jan 6 perpetrators'. Never mind that Covid is now probably worse under Biden than it was under Trump, or that they have exactly zero positive vision other than to keep their corporate donors happy. I'd say yeah, this is literally the only play they have for political relevance, which is why they are leaning so heavily into it. And liberal American morons are eating it right up.
Praxis was explaining that nobody will remember any of this in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election. They're trying to block Trump from running again.
Quoting frank
Quoting frank
There's a difference between campaigning and blocking someone's path to running for president. It's a pretty big difference.
:sad: Having a rational conversation with you is iffy even on a good day. If it weren't for your awesome book recommendations, you'd be a total loss.
I don't take myself seriously. :razz:
See the difference?
Of course you don't. Faith is blind.
"At around 3:30 p.m., 293 people were arrested in the atrium of the Hart Senate Office Building and charged with crowding, obstructing or incommoding under the D.C. code., according to USCP."
https://dcist.com/story/18/10/04/huge-crowds-march-from-kavanaugh-co/
"Prosecutors have charged more than 187 people — roughly a quarter of all defendants — with committing violence, such as assaults on law enforcement officers or members of the media present that day."
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/05/1070199411/5-takeaways-from-the-capitol-riot-criminal-cases-one-year-later
Quoting frank
Retarded certainly. Possibly even reretarded.
Yeah, one wasn’t a pity party for celebrities and had a little more balls to it.
Yeah, just an ex-National Security Advisor (and former US general) of Trump insisting that Trump should use the military to confiscate the voting machines.
Yeah. Didn't happen.
But really, an irresponsible fear?
One might argue that it was an exaggerated fear as Trump fucks up everything he touches. Trump was just watching events happen staring the television with his children urging to stop the mess, so the plan wasn't something like we've seen in many other places. Even Janajev's putch to save the Soviet Union was more astute in 1991 than this clueless and leaderless attempt (as Trump doesn't have leadership skills, but is a very fine talent in demagoguery and showmanship). Still, nobody cannot deny what he tried to do (as we already knew this from what Trump was saying in the last elections, which to his amazement he won).
Had it been the other way around, the other party in charge and someone urging similar actions, you would have a totally different view of it. And that's why your argument is rather meaningless.
But hey, I look forward after a decade or two the movie that is made of this flawed President and Jan 6th. The style that would be most pertinent depicting the historical reality would be political satire, a black comedy, a farce. Like the style of the Death of Stalin:
(which is banned in Russia, I guess)
Here you express admiration for purveyors of violence.
Yea, an irresponsible fear.
No, Michael Flynn insisted Trump should appoint a special counsel to investigate the voting machines and exactly what happened in swing states. The rest was purely theoretical.
“These people out there talking about martial law like it’s something we’ve never done,'' Flynn told Kelly. ''Martial law has been instituted 64 times. I’m not calling for that. We have a constitutional process. … That has to be followed.”
https://www.newsmax.com/amp/politics/trump-election-flynn-martiallaw/2020/12/17/id/1002139/
But you might had known that if propaganda didn’t sway your thinking, like it did with everything else.
Trump is an untouchable so any effort to put him down will ultimately be fruitless and only for show. But there are situations in politics where we have to do things simply because it's the right thing to do, even if we know it's only for appearances because to do otherwise is to abandon hope and allow the spirit of democracy in the good hearts of Americans to fall. We cannot let that happen! Appearances matter!
Quoting NOS4A2
That's warm. Newsmax as source-cited site by side a Cassandraing about propaganda.
Beats me how anyone who doesn't recognise the rules of the game can be allowed to play. Could such a person be allowed into a chess tournament? A tennis tournament? Apart from his obvious malfeasance and mendacity, that fact alone ought to disbar him - a pre-condition of being considered for the candidacy must be that he acknowledges that he lost in 2020. Which he will never do.
I get the feeling you're being sarcastic.
I don't think that's in the constitution. Does Australia have a constitution? My mind was blown to smithereens when I found out the UK doesn't have one.
I was shooting for profound.
Profoundly sarcastic?
I can settle for that, being the reasonable person that I'm known to be.
Immaterial. If you want to play any game, you have to agree to the rules. If Trump wants to smash the system, then by definition he's outside it, he's not a player as such.
I'm just hoping on bended knee the Republicans tank in the mid-terms. If they prevail, then America really is going down. As Biden just said, it is really a battle for democracy and the constitution, it's not 'Democrat vs Republican'.
I was linking to the interview.
I think this may be inevitable. People despise the system (for good and bad reasons) and Trump the Wrecker is a case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', this and people don't seem to know how to determine what is significant anymore. I know I struggle. :death:
The reason the GOP are engaging in voter suppression is because they know their constituency is a shrinking minority. Desparate times call for desparate tactics, but I think in the end they'll still be a minority.
You linked to a propaganda network airing a scripted interview with a political quack and below it you said beware of propaganda. That's what's warm.
that poster behaves like either an agent for Trump, or an agent for a foreign power that seeks to undermine political discourse in America. Not saying they are that, just how that's they've always come across the last four years. Best not to engage.
Cynicism plays into their hands, it's the meat they feed on.
I know what he's up to and I don't think he's an agent for Trump or a foreign state just a lonely alt-righter. I'm at a bit of arm-chair Nazi-punching is all.
That’s rich. I neither brought up the interview nor shared it. I only used it to show what was said, and only because I couldn’t find it anywhere else. You might have to use other fallacies to refute it.
Where there are no facts there are no refutations.
The fact is exactly how I stated it, and you’ve done nothing to refute it.
Sorry, you don't merit refutation.
This is the way.
In full:
This is how you know January 6 could not be considered a seriously attempted coup
Of course the Dems are gonna soak it up. They're desperate, as always. They see the power of the Big Lie. Everyone sees how media and technology are now well-positioned to buttress any big lie, the bigger the better. The Adolph Joneses have their big lie and the Dems have got to have one too.
''That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities..."'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
Quoting StreetlightX
Definitely not a serious attempt. But serious and an attempt in the minds of any number of (some self-streaming) Trumpsters. I don't doubt in Trump's mind too. It's been called a warm-up or a testing of waters. It failed to spark civil war and not a few participants were shocked and disenchanted by that.
Here's a cute quote:
"According to the authors of The Steal...the rioters of 6 January 2021 'had no more chance of overthrowing the US government than hippies in 1967 had trying to levitate the Pentagon'".
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/02/one-three-americans-violence-government-justified-poll
[quote=Stephen Douglas following loss in the 1860 presidential race to Abraham Lincoln]Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.[/quote]
After all, remember when liberals all kum-ba-yah'd after Trump's win and wished him well and gave him pats on the back for his win? They surely didn't start squealing like dying pigs before larping as Star Wars resistance characters while launching massively funded federal investigations that turned up next to nothing?
Hypocrite dogs.
Bloody Democrats. Trying to politicise a peaceful protest.
Even Mitch McConnell called it a "failed insurrection" (1:43).
Trying to frame this as just some Democrat hysteria or whatever is pretty ridiculous.
Lol, Trump is a consummate product of the American political and judicial system, perhaps its most paradigmatic and representative one, and the only idiots are those who have faith in that self-same system to undo its own pristine work.
Quoting Michael
Oh well if Mitch McConnell said it it must be true. The man is known for his integrity and honest commentary, a true liberal darling.
I'm not saying it's true because he said it. I'm pointing out that if even Republicans like Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz are using such language to describe it then it's a stretch to characterise the investigation as just some Democrat propaganda or whatever.
What choice do they have? It's why the democrats are going so hard into this. It's an easy win for them. It's possibly the only win they might ever get that isn't just placating their corporate overloads. Even though it is entirely irrelevant to anything that matters to anyone and made for people who think politics is a Michael Bay movie.
Every person in that building deserves a hundred times over the wrath and hysteria directed at those outside of it. Instead they will find white knights who cannot wait to suck up to power and come to its swift defense. What better indication that you are being taken for a complete idiot when you agree with both democrats and republicans?
Imagine getting this panty-twisted over a carnival gone rowdy.
Most of the carnivals I've been to haven't involved heavy weaponry and people getting shot. That's a bit beyond "rowdy" isn't it? You can be as cynical as you like and still admit the obvious.
Exactly what is obvious? Exactly when did getting shot in America become something exceptional?
It's not quite Mad Max yet, dude.
So, the more physical attacks we have on government buildings, the further away from anarchy we get? And vice versa?
No, what's pathetic is you completely mischaracterizing it to make a political point. You need to dial back the bullshit a bit.
Quoting StreetlightX
As if this is the whole story; go watch some videos of what actually happened. You totally discredit yourself sometimes. It's maddening that on pretty much every other topic besides politics you're one of the smartest people here.
More people died at a fucking Travis Scott concert than this cosplay convention.
What's obvious is that some powerful people were made to feel uncomfortable for a bit, and now, having directed everyone to feel sorry for them, they've had their wishes granted. The class element of unwashed rednecks dirtying the marbled halls of power is too good an image to pass up I guess.
This:
Quoting StreetlightX
is a mischaracterization.
The video @Michael posted (along with thousands of others) is proof that it's a mischaracterization, and a fairly egregious one. Simple fact.
You think Pelosi's insider trading matters but that a violent attempt to prevent the certification of the Presidential election doesn't?
By contrast, Pelosi's insider trading is a real thing.
The attack was a real thing as well. People were hurt. It might not have had a chance of succeeding, but it did far more harm than Pelosi buying or selling stocks with knowledge that few other people had.
Your priorities here really are bizarre.
Really? You think a conflict of interest that directly plays into how a nation's laws are made - which itself is nothing but one case among others - is a minor trifle compared to a slightly outsized bar-room brawl? Nah, don't talk to me about priorities.
This is what I mean about people being really dumb and being sucked in to spectacle. Pelosi's insider trading is infinitely more harmful, with far broader and far more damaging systematic effects, than anything that happened on Jan 6. That people can't see this is completely wild.
Do you know why GoFundMe is your country's healthcare insurer? Hint: it isn't because of Jan 6.
There's a lot to unpack re the riot; how much of a threat it was, who or what exactly was it a threat to, how it's been used by various elements in both parties for political means, to what extent such use stratifies existing undesirable power structures, to what extent it's justified investigating publically and for how long etc etc. There's a huge number of forces at play and they're not all going in the same direction so much that they can be summed up in a simple idea like, the riot didn't matter and the dems are stupid.
I think that the stock market is just a game that rich people play with each other and I don't care if a few hundred of them have advance knowledge to guide their buys and sells.
And I don't understand the connection between insider trading and legislation. I agree that the fact that they can trade at all will influence how they will legislate on certain issues, e.g. if they own stocks in a pharmaceutical company then they might be inclined to vote against anything that would lower the share price, but that's a separate issue to insider trading. I'd be in favour of banning them from trading for that reason.
And, as Baden mentioned, it's a mischaracterisation to describe the attack as a "slightly outsized bar-room brawl". The video above shows that.
Quoting StreetlightX
Not my country, but not because of insider trading either. I suspect it's because the majority of the politicians and/or their donors either don't want to see their taxes increased or because they own shares in health services. Or they just like the idea of poor people suffering.
It's really not this big complex thing. Jan 6 was never a threat to anything resembling the American political system. Not even a little bit. It doesn't take a genius to know this. The discourse around this has been histrionic because it does nothing but obscure systemic issues in order to shunt them into some one-time event where the Goodies can fight the Baddies and the Goodies can come out on top. You're right that summing it up like this is stupid, but that's exactly its role, and that's exactly the problem.
It's apolitical politics with exactly zero stakes, which is precisely why the dems and repubs can stand hand-in-hand solemnly finger-wagging at a bunch of dressed-up morons while the populace nod slowly along with weighty earnestness. Jan 6 is an excuse for the ruling class to array everyone against a convenient scapegoat, nothing more, and the faster it is treated that way, the better. It was a bit shit and sure they should probably all rot for a bit. Gotcha. Move on. Maybe to, I dunno, actual threats to the American political system. Economy-wide wage strike by employers, anyone? Kind of a big deal right now.
Quoting Michael
It's a game rich people play, yes - but the stakes are the lives of ordinary people. Unlike some inconsequential fracas by the Potomac.
Quoting Michael
Ah right, well, you'll be there soon then, right after the Tories are done with your NHS.
They had a remembrance ceremony in Congress, of course, because a show must be made of it. Crypt-keeper Nancy Pelosi brought in musical guests during her remembrance of January 6th. The cringe makes it hard to watch.
It's a mistake to characterize it in this way. The conflicts of interest should be hammered over and over again, and they aren't. I've heard more about the death of Betty White.
The events of January 6th is interesting in that it shows just how desperate, angry, and misinformed people have become in the US. What Democrats don't care to ask in any serious way is why these conditions exist. Why, for example, are so many working people now loyal followers of a New York billionaire? It is certainly connected to the stock market.
Quoting StreetlightX
During the anniversary, Jan 6 has been represented as no less important than 9/11 or Pearl Harbour. It was not simply a stupid exaggeration or a misleading deception. On the contrary, it was an impressive demonstration and expression of an overwhelming mobilizing power achieved through spectacle. The prevailing narrative does not need ‘real facts’; the displayed effects entirely enact it. Further, the system would direct the accumulated force against Trump as its current real threat. Similar campaigns were organized before the appointment of Mueller as a special counsel, the two impeachments, and before the 2020 elections. Will Trump be indicted? Or, at least, will he be prevented from running in 2024? If Trump can launch his new social media platform, the struggle against him again will become the focus of US politics.
That's what's nuts. There are plenty of reasons that Trump should hang from his neck until dead: his treatment of migrants, his persecution of Assange, his loosening of environmental controls, his enabling of white nationalism, his being a tool of corporate power, literally a hundred other things. But what does he get pinged on? "Russia", some stupid riot, saying dumb things. The truth is that if they actually went after anything substantial, they'd all have to hang too because the democrats fundamentally share the same policy positions as Trump with minor rhetorical changes. The kids are still in cages, the oil platforms are still being drilled, the genocidal state of Israel is still being showered with money, and the capitulation to corporate power has not changed one iota.
Jan 6 is an effort to draw a pseudo-bright line in the sand because if anyone looks too closely, they'd recognize that there is little too distinguish these power hungry fucks whose existence is harmful no matter what stupid colors they wear. The reason for the disproportionate hysteria over a three-hour nothingburger is because without this shit there is nothing to distinguish them and Americans might be in danger of actually recognizing that fact.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mrctv/status/1479093472040828934?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/tweet]
His power over Congress stems from his popularity, obviously. Republican congressmen can't condemn him because he'll retaliate.
It's democracy.
The danger I see in your thinking is acceptance of the notion that politicians don't usually lie.
Or Tucker Carlson will. Poor Ted...
Yep.
Less a capitulation than an expansion of government into the corporatosphere. A fourth, checkless and balanceless - Constitutionless - branch of government.
Bannon, with Gaetz and Taylor Greene, called it, on Bannon's 1/6 podcast, the "uniparty."
Wrong, NOS, he specifically said to use the military.
You simply cannot deny that he asked for the military to be used do this, to confiscate the voting machines. Oh but you desperately think this is an counterargument:
Constitutional process where the military is involved in the election process...HAHAHA!!! :lol:
Those claims are still being made as a means to manufacture public consent for all sorts of things.
The power of belief has been known by myself for quite some time. The Trump years have put it on display for all to see. For a half century, America has slid away from the importance of truth and truth telling, while having simultaneously exonerated, rewarded, and even glorified blatant deception and the telling of falsehoods...
Trump was not and is not the problem. He is a symptom.
I agree.
One huge example of the kind of "I'll see you in court"-type of American.
And this is the difference between Trump and the kind of leaders that do a (successful) self coup and snatch the power with force: Trump assumed he could use lawyers to do this, just as he has wiggled away from personal bankruptcies. Or basically, the people around him sold him the fairy tale that without evidence election results could be changed. The most telling example of Trump is the famous phone call where he pressures (or begs, basically) a state official "to find" 11000+ votes. That's the Trumpian version of a self coup.
I think the positive outcome of this debacle is that Americans have been now subjected to the possibility of a self coup or simply a leader rejecting election outcomes. This means that they won't be taken off guard like a "deer in the headlights" anymore if it happens again.
More likely Americans now see how powerless they are against the force of a Big Lie when properly buttressed by the media and Facebook.
He lost the reins of power but inducted tens of millions into his ludicrous simulacrum.
ssu - “Yeah, just an ex-National Security Advisor (and former US general) of Trump insisting that Trump should use the military to confiscate the voting machines.”
NOS4A2 = “No, Michael Flynn insisted Trump should appoint a special counsel to investigate the voting machines and exactly what happened in swing states.”
ssu - “You simply cannot deny that he asked for the military to be used do this, to confiscate the voting machines.”
General Flynn - “The things he needs to do right now is he needs to appoint a special counsel immediately; he needs to seize all of these dominion and these other voting machines we have across the country; he needs to go ahead and prioritize by state and probably by county—Fulton county and Maricopa county for example—exactly what they did up in Antrim county, Michigan, and what they discovered; I think if he looks at probably a couple of random sampling of these counties he’s going to find exactly the same problem.”
https://www.newsmax.com/amp/politics/trump-election-flynn-martiallaw/2020/12/17/id/1002139/
Why won’t you state exactly what he did insist, instead of making it up?
Perhaps there will be less of a surprise.
The problem is that Trump and his supporters in the House and basically the entire right wing conservative media apparatus have convinced a very large portion of the American population that the election was stolen. That belief is false, yet it is no less a powerful one.
Generally speaking about one deeply embedded problem in American government...
Trump benefitted from the fact that America has the best system money can buy, and he did so from both sides of that corrupt reality. He bought politicians, and publicly bragged about it on national television in front of some of those who he had previously bought, in their presence no less. That happened during the public debate during the primary season of the election
The fact that were no objections to that was astonishing to me at the time.
Plutocracy is not the representative form of government set up by the Constitution. It is closer to what we have than one of officials who represent what's in the best interest of all Americans.
We no longer have a government that places the best interests of the overwhelming majority of Americans at the top of the priority list when making policy decisions. We legalized government bribery in the seventies by changing how it is described, in the guise of characterizing unlimited campaign contributions by very rich individuals as an exercise in an individual's first amendment rights to "free speech". Now there are all sorts of counterarguments that outright reject that argument and do so convincingly, but this is not he place or time. I digress, the SCOTUS set the precedent for legalized bribery to manifest with that decision. Then, president Nixon placed the attorney who argued that case on the court itself. A few years later the court then expanded the ability to bribe elected officials to include a corporation's ability, because corporations are people too. Then, of course, Citizen's United not that long ago...
The current American government is tremendously corrupt, and that is well known and out in the open. That common knowledge is part of what allowed Trump to rise in power amongst all those American citizens who've suffered the results of the aforementioned court cases.
Conflict of interest be damned...
The interests of very large corporations and wealthy donors took and are still currently taking precedent over the overwhelming majority even now. Look at the government response to the pandemic, or look at what has happened to legislation that would have tremendously improved American's lives and livelihoods in all sorts of ways that was completely funded by taxing the richest corporations and Americans(those making over half million per year.)
Which brings us back to Cheney. All those things Trump is rumored to be, Dick Cheney actually is. That’s why it’s so significant that he appeared on the floor of the House yesterday to be slobbered over by the Adam Schiffs and Nancy Pelosis of the world. Dick Cheney did more to destroy democracy in ten minutes of his Vice Presidency than Donald Trump did in four years.
...It was under Cheney’s watch that we turned into a country that snatched people off the streets all over the world, put them in indefinite detention in an archipelago of secret hell-holes, threatened to rape their family members, and resorted to techniques like “rectal feeding” so often that one Guantanamo Bay prisoner had to bring a special pillow to sit in court. The core principle of Cheney’s politics was protecting his new bureaucracies of murder and open-ended detention from legal challenge. That meant creating structures that were legally invisible. Are you on a watch list? Has the FBI sent out a National Security Letter to your telecom provider? Have you been approved for “lethal action” and put on the “distribution matrix,” a.k.a. the kill list?."
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/a-tale-of-two-authoritarians?r=5mz1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
---
I'll say it again: the only reason why anyone gives a shit about Jan 6 like they do is class snobbery over the fact that a bunch of dirty rednecks dared to set foot into some marble halls, and the fact that Democrats, who are otherwise indistinguishable from Republicans except for flying rainbow flags and being more effective at ruining things, need some kind of differentiating signal to pretend that they aren't - and it is apparently working.
On the contrary, there are substantial differences: in climate change and the energy sector (Trump’s withdrawal from Paris agreement), in foreign policies (termination of Iran Nuclear Deal, relations with allies), open vs. closed border policies (Trump’s construction of the wall, remain in Mexico programs), trade policies, and so on. Yet, likely, the discord between Trump and the elites is not entirely based on concrete policies. He has been met as a wholly alien and disastrous factor from the beginning. Thus, his presidency and popularity have been explained and displayed primarily through negative and affectively charged schemes. Trump’s populist strategies have been mirrored and used to accelerate the affective economy of resentment and rage, enacted with varying degrees of emotional and discursive brutality and violence. It has placed a bipolar ultimate distinction of superiority and inferiority, of true and false, good and evil, granting no space or legitimacy to the other side. In principle, both Trump and his enemies
operate the same dispositions of the contemporary political landscape.
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Jan 6 anniversary entirely enacts the dispositions of the current politics of affect. But to what extent your (supposedly critical) discourse here is different from the current dominant rhetoric? It also presupposes the existence of the ultimate truth behind the spectacle; it also aims at “the enemy” and appears as a decisive action.
There is no discord between Trump and the elites, and the policy divergences you mention are minor blemishes backed up more by rhetoric than by action. What discord there has been is nothing other than intra-elite power struggle over who gets to sit in the shiny chair. Biden has been objectively worse on both immigration and select aspects of climate policy, and American foreign policy is contemptible no matter which imperialist goon is in charge. As someone else said, if Trump supporters were actually ideologically consistent and not brain-dead morons, they would all be Biden supporters, insofar as the latter can and has been delivering on Trump promises.
Quoting Number2018
It presupposes that one is able to make judgements without being a sophist and a bore. If you have anything of interest to say, say it.
"Within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities, and he could place those in states and basically rerun an election in each of those states. "
Flynn
:100:
Jan 6th is, like Russia and Ukraine, a shiny object to distract Democrats and hopefully centrist/independents from the fact that the Democrats are continuing down Trump's ruinous path towards runaway climate change, white nationalism, militarization/colonialism, corporate welfare, and increasing wealth inequality and socioeconomic stratification. Without a useful enemy to prop up to rally the troops, people might start turning on the Dems.
Also a useful way to head off any burgeoning radicalism or revolutionary sentiment. By opposing the hated Trump (and Trump is scum, make no mistake) to things like the FBI and the national security apparatus, our absolute joke of a "democratic" electoral system, and so on, you've got liberals cheering for and supporting the sorts of things that, in a sane world, they'd be clamoring to tear down (like our batshit intelligence, law enforcement, and military programs).
Its just disappointing how easy Democrats and liberals have turned out to be to dupe and distract. Like, we all already knew conservatives were morons, but you would have liked to think at least some Dems were slightly less gullible.
Even the link you give has it in written form:
Here is the goddam newsmax piece where Flynn refers to the military. Those quotes come from that. But your link offers a longer take of that exchange. The End.
Yeah, you need the military to rerun the elections. :roll:
Enough of Flynn, the lock-her-up Q-anon many-times fired general.
I need my fair share of the virtual pie!
The ability to create imaginary wealth is the key to our extreme technological dynamism. In a world without abstract currency we'd stagnate (probably).
In a Trump-thread, good that you brought this up from the election between Hillary Clinton and Trump.
Trump was a great demagogue and a showman that knew what to say to certain crowd that felt disenfranchised. The vast majority of Americans really don't like the corrupt system that is made now legal and that gives power to the rich and corporations through lobbyists and the "revolving-door". Trump just told what they knew already: the whole thing is rigged for the rich. Americans both in the left and in the right simply hate this, but naturally the bi-partisan effort from the two ruling parties is to make Americans hate each other, hate the citizens supporting the other political side. That's the way I guess how to get people to vote for a system they don't like.
Quoting creativesoul
This is why I think you are headed for the American equivalent of "the Time of Troubles".
If 2022 goes without any major things happening, you might sigh in relief, becayse if you think that you have already seen how ugly it will get, you will be in for a surprise...
Indeed. The real question is how long it will last.
As long as the US and the Saudi Royal mafia remain best buds, I guess.
Pure contextomy. He’s not insistent on anything to do with the military, and you pretended that he insisted Trump should get the military to seize voting machines. You furtively left out what exactly it was he was insistent about (appointing a special counsel and investigating the machines and elections) in favor of pretending his hypotheticals were some form of advice to Trump. But the hosts questions clearly distinguish between what Flynn thinks Trump should do and what he could do. You took from the “could” pile and pretended it belonged on the “should” pile. Even now you can’t even post the whole interview!! Utter lies.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/02/15/can-we-exit-this-road-to-ruin
But the problem of who has a vote or does not has been a problem that keeps showing up with all the other problems.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Yeah.
Well, that relationship of yours has successfully passed through 9/11, so I guess it will last a long time...
Even if the US isn't so dependent on Saudi oil as before, I guess it will remain.
After all, even Trump was on loyal friend of the Saudi regime.
Oh the words don't mean what they mean?
Try to wiggle out of it, troll, try!
Your furtive attempts to further a conspiracy theory in a country that is not your own is the going rate, ssu. Get in line.
These are the first sedition-related charges in the capitol riot. Apparently one of the defendants is actually on Tucker Carlson right now, which is stupid if you care to beat the charges.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/trump-campaign-officials-rudy-giuliani-fake-electors/index.html
Man! The man of fake news!
Yeah, a man always pressing fake news is probably himself spreading it. I heard that he wants to go for president again. Will the people still buy that? Or are they truly blinded?
Of course, people have been saying that since he lost, and he keeps implying it, but he would only run if he absolutely knew he would win, and I'm sure he won't.
https://fortune.com/2022/01/19/democrats-party-preference-falls-gallup-poll-history-republicans/
So yeah.
They are not blind. And yes, as you said, a person always calling everyone else a liar is the usually the biggest liar. You see, these persons usually genuinely believe all people to be liars so the person thinks that lying is just the way the World works. For Trump lying is totally normal. It's the way he works and how he thinks the world works. After all, he has gotten to be President, he has been able to create this picture of being a billionaire when nearly bankrupt, so everything he has done reinforces his own twisted worldview. Objective truth is for idiots and losers.
With Trump supporters it's just like with the case of conspiracy theorists. Naively you would assume that a conspiracy theorist would want truth, honesty and objectivity upholded. Bullshit. Nothing is farther from them. You see, they promote willingly the most obvious propaganda as ever, because they assume everything they hear on the evil mainstream media to be propaganda. Everything. It's not a world where a journalist might get something right and something wrong and may have some bias. It's all and everything. So to counter this evil propaganda, you have your own propaganda. Everything is just propaganda. You counter the other sides propaganda with your own and with propaganda truth doesn't matter, but that you win the argument and support your side.
Hence it doesn't matter what crimes Trump is accused of, it's all simply propaganda. No need to hear it, no need to take it into consideration as only the people who are against you promote it.
Put that horror show under "reveal"! :monkey:
Sometimes prayer is effective though. It focuses the will.
The will to effectively dismantle democracy?
Sure.
Took a while. Some of the Trumpists stick to the conspiracy theory, though.
Opportunity for some righteous schandenfreude, if such exists.
Devin Nunes, who possibly aced the field as the most obnoxious of Trump's congressional boosters, abandoned his political career to leap aboard this sinking ship.
'We control them all': Donald Trump Jr. texted Meadows ideas for overturning 2020 election before it was called
Gretchen Whitmer: Michigan governor kidnap plot case collapses
What’s next?
I don't know. Maybe for once [you] actually reading what you link to?
Newsweek has to be fake news.
Or then Trump is losing it.
Or then finally, finally this thread will come to it's end (I guess after reaching 600 pages). :pray:
(of commenting on it is a bit illogical then and counterproductive, I admit)
:up:
Draining the swamp, as Trump said.
I think a bit more than the Hunter Biden thing, but anyway...business as usual in Washington. Perhaps this time only a bit more excessive.
Well, it's MSNBC, the liberal version of Fox News.
Applying the same techniques like Fox, Russia Today etc. You just have to use your internal "cut bias" fader.
Who did Ray Epps work for? (Oct 25, 2021)
The trouble is, with the loss of political probity, no one is believable, which means that anything is believable. In the UK we have the scandal of police officers under cover getting married and having children to infiltrate animal rights groups and acting as agents provocateur - there's reason for suspicion whenever there is a term which does not exist in English, because we would never stoop so low, would we?. So you cannot trust even your spouse and parent of your children.
We have replaced the biggest dick competition with the biggest pile of horseshit competition - Trump wins there, and Boris the parody Churchill wins here. Alas, there can be no democracy without truth.
[quote=Salon]What is fascism, on its most fundamental level? An assault on reality, time, facts and truth. [/quote]
All amply illustrated by Trump and his coterie.
I believe that a descent into fascism, the suspension of the Constitution and the democratic process by the lunatic right of the Trump party is a possibility. It's not a certainty, but the fact that it has so many supporters, and the enthusiastic support of the Murdoch press, certainly make it a threat.
Until the all the parties guilty of seditious conspiracy against The United States of America are charged and punished to the fullest extent of the law, that threat has no reason to diminish.
Not to mention committing fraud against the American people. This is unprecedented. Nearly two hundred active elected officials in congress have partaken in conspiring to commit fraud against the American people. The big lie.
I agree with you. I can't understand why all of the many legal proceedings against Trump, and the findings of the January 6 Commission, haven't yet lead to serious charges against him and his cronies. I can't accept that this is because he has not committed crimes, only that he has mobilised the power of the mass media as an effective weapon against due process.
But of all the crimes Trump has committed, his continued refusal to acknowledge the falsehood of his claims about the last election has to be the greatest. In fact, I can't see how anyone who does that, could be allowed to run for an elected office. It would be like letting a player compete in a chess or tennis tournament, when they repeatedly insist that the rules don't apply to them and the umpire has no authority. Accepting his loss in the last election ought to be an ironclad requirement for any possibility of participation in the next (not that I think he'll actually run in 2024).
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/the-liberal-obsession-with-disinformation-is-not-helping.html
Holding an irrational belief is not a crime itself, but could encourage a crime.
Sure they have. Nobody in the current American political establishment is blameless - well, nobody who makes any news - but some are surely more culpable than others.
:snicker:
of which, I agree, Smith, DJT (MAGA, QAnon, alt-right, etc) is merely another metastasizing symptom.
You wouldn't say that if you were victim of a terminal cancer. The symptoms would be debilitating illness and a painful death. Trump is more like the cancer than a symptom.
In any case, where I came back into this thread was the actual threat of fascism emerging in the US, through the agency of one of the two major political parties, namely, a debased and corrupted Republican Party and it's various media and business boosters. And I made that comment, because of the role of the likes of Tucker Carslon, who is obviously fascist, in boosting the kind of hatred-filled conspiracy-theory garbage that led to the slaughter of ten innocent people in Buffalo, NY, last week. No doubt the next Replacement-Theory, White Supremacist terrorist is already prepping for the next engagement, and Carslon and his ilk will be egging them on.
Well, I understand your views. Sometimes symptomss can be severely discomfiting if you catch my drift, especially if it's pain. Isn't the history of humanity a struggle against Algos and Thanatos (Algos is more terrible of the two. Vide suicide and euthanasia).
However, my worry is this: Nazism hasn't died with Hitler. If he were the disease, we should've been cured of the illness, oui? I'm not a fortune teller but it seems possible that another Hitler is just around the corner in Europe or America.
Michael Sussmann: Clinton lawyer 'lied to manipulate FBI over Trump'
Unfortunately the useful idiots that fell for it and promulgated it every chance they could will never learn from their stupidity. Tales like this and others reminds me that Anti-Trumpism and it’s supporters have shaped the world to what it is today—war, inflation, division on a mass scale.
Trump is a fascist.
He's still not in prison.
Attempted violent coup.
FOX talking point. 200 cops seriously injured. Is this funny to you?
If CNN reported that Trump insurrectionists seriously injured 200 cops, then yes.
Stay on topic.
The COVID pandemic proved who the fascists were, and it wasn’t Trump. Now they have all the power they need.
ok