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)
How much do you reckon Trump has done to attract additional undecideds and swing voters? (as distinct from making his rusted-on followers even more vocal in their support.) I would say he's done nothing to increase his base. He lost fair and square last time, and he's going to keep losing (even if he were on the ballot, which I doubt). I think whatever power Trump wields rests on the illusion that he's powerful. If people stop believing it, he'll have no power. It's a real emperor's new clothes scenario.
I hope you're right, but what I see (and I hope I'm wrong) is that the Trump phenomena isn't about putative power exactly. It's that Trump and Trumpism has precisely the right enemies in an era of burgeoning tribalism, surging right-wing nationalism and the burning nostalgia for 'golden eras'.
Trump's seductive because he is hated by disdainful elites, intellectuals, the bureaucracy, professional politicians, mainstream media, liberal lawyers, progressives, academics, apparatchiks of political correctness, educated professionals, cosmopolitan urbanites, pious Hollywood celebrities and virtue signalling rich folk.
He's become almost a perfect folk hero for these disgruntled and irrational times; an outlaw whose magnitude is endlessly renewed by the onslaught of continuing invective, scorn and legal 'persecution' faced by Trump and his people. Somehow he's managed to combine being underdog and overlord.
But that demographic is on the wane. The reason Republicans are frantically trying to gerrymander everything is because they know their electoral base is dying out and the electorate is becoming younger and more diverse. Plus everything they say is amplified through the Fox boom-box, without that they would be seen for the dwindling force they are.
‘Pretenders to the throne’. Speaks volumes, don’t it.
Roughly 60% of the country thinks this guy is a crook and should stand trial before the election.
My fellow Americans really aren’t as dumb as their reputation would suggest. Polling shows only that the Republican Party is out of touch. They’ll continue paying for it.
(Democrats are out of touch too…but not by the same distance.)
The Mug Shot Is a Warning
I’ve always stuck by the theory that we’re in a moral panic and Trump is a folk devil. Not much else explains what others have called TDS. This article only solidifies it for me, the way it weaves a little narrative that confirms the author’s own fears and anxieties, all divined from a mugshot and nowhere else. Like how the once host of The Apprentice is a criminal mastermind, a Russian spy, the fascist barbarian at the gates, will melt earth in nuclear war, and can incite insurrection and lawlessness with his magical tweets, eroding the foundations of Democracy™—each one rings as hollow as the last. But these conspiracy theories justify, or are used to disguise, the fascism they’ve adopted in order to combat both Trump’s rise and their own decline in credibility and power. The persecution of one’s political opponents, the criminalization of contesting an election and political speech, is justified because, well, look at his mugshot.
If anyone was really afraid of him, he'd be dead already.
That's Putinworthy!
Nowhere else?
It is not clear whether your blindness and ignorance is feigned, willful, or as with so many Trumpists, an inability to see below the facade.
The mugshot attests to the power of images. How much time did Trump spend before his gold-plated mirror working on this latest image? And his followers have bought into it, in some cases literally. I don't know what he imagined this image would convey, but that is part of the power of images.
What I see is the image of a petulant old man/child wearing the latest shade from his changing make-up pallet and dyed comb over hairstyle, trying to put the orange man image in the past.
Although this in not the image he wants to convey, it is still successful in so far as the focus is on the image and not what lies behind the mask.
As the author Megan Garber puts it in the article quoted:
It will be interesting to see to what extent he will attempt to make the trial another brand building opportunity.
quote="NOS4A2;833962"]The persecution of one’s political opponents[/quote]
In that case why is it that other political opponents are not being "persecuted"? Why is he the only "innocent victim"? The thing is, this is not a good look for him. It makes him appear to be weak. The martyr is a role he is only willing to take so far. It is, however, a role his followers embrace because Trump has told them that they are the victims, and they believe they need a powerful leader like him to right the wrongs they suffer. They see every threat against Trump as a threat against them.
Their concern, like Trump's, is not for the fate of democracy, but their own personal advantage.
Donald Trump’s ‘round of 67’ at Bedminster Club Championship has fans rolling on the floor laughing (Aug 27, 2023)
Leaving to the side (for a moment) the 'manufacture of consent' aspect of your defense of Trump, I am curious what you find attractive in his words and actions.
When he was campaigning for the 2016 election, I became very alarmed at the appeals to violence he expressed during his rallies. That is when the political divides that ran through my family sharpened into bitter conflict rather than us agreeing to disagree as we had before.
A review of a small sample of similar rhetoric shows what further widened this family divide during Trump's presidency.
Are these appeals to violence appealing for you?
You have often expressed distinctly libertarian views. Are you on board with the significant portion of MAGA that seeks to restrict civil rights and educational choices?
Are you a member of an armed and "well ordered" militia?
I was glad for the rhetoric because rally-goers were getting beaten and berated by protesters, rioters, and Clinton operatives paid to incite violence. I’m also glad that people started to fight back because the belligerent and menacing activity, much of which resulted in violence, is a direct violation of free speech.
I would argue that your alarm was a direct result of two tricks of propaganda. One, contextomy. Two, the one-sided story. You never mention mobs descending on these rallies or protesters evoking their heckler vetoes inside of them. You only mention a concern for the exact words chosen for you by a press who explicitly endorsed the opposing candidate.
But what percentage of these will vote?
I am somewhat reassured by what @Wayfarer and @180 Proof are saying. I have no connections to America and don't follow politics, nor do I understand the priorities of voters there or here in Australia. I was surprised that Trump's popular vote actually went up in 2020, despite the previous 4 years, so I'm prepared for anything.
I watched much more than a few soundbites.
The man can do no wrong in your eyes.
I can't tell what that vision means for you. You only present him through the lens of his opposition, real or imagined.
Once again Trump and the Trumpsters are the innocent victims who did nothing wrong.
Quoting NOS4A2
What evidence do you have of this?
Then why can you not bring up anything else but the few select words chosen for you by an opposition press?
It’s because you’re uninformed. There is nothing wrong with that because, really, who gives a straw about political speeches? But if you want to make informed judgements on the matter one has to avoid contextomy and the one-sided story and go straight to the source for a peek.
The examples are myriad. For instance, one of Jack Smith’s indictments abuses contextomy to an almost comical degree:
https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf
Smith never mentions that throughout the entire speech, the phrase “fight” was used figuratively. When Trump says that Guliani or Jim Jordan are fighters, or that when he fights with the press ("I'd fight. So I'd fight, they'd fight, I'd fight, they'd fight. Pop pop"), he doesn't actually mean fisticuffs and brawling matches.
And Smith never once mentions what Trump thought literally: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It's comical and embarrassing but also unjust that the Department of Justice itself is abusing this fallacy to dupe people, including grand juries, engaging in a fraud so blatant that only a useful idiot would be capable of believing in it.
Which rally did Trumpsters go to and start harassing and beating the rally-goers?
The Chicago rally in March 2016. The Costa Mesa rally in April 2016. The New Mexico rally in May. The San Diego rally.
I'm glad the hecklers were thrown out and mistreated as all censors need to be.
And Trump offering to pay their legal fees.
Chicago was instigated by Trumpsters. Costa Mesa where a few stones at motorists and police were thrown. New Mexico was some property damage but no attacks on people. San Diego reports also claim rally goers wanted to fight and went out of their way to accomplish that but I'll give you that one, that protesters actually attacked rally goers.
Meanwhile, violence was condemned by Clinton.
So, Trumpsters started it, did it more often and we're encouraged by the orangutan.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, we know you're no fan of civil rights unless it's guns.
This is a good example of you doing what you accuse others of. Context matters. In what other way could the Trumpsters heading to the Capital have fought like hell? How else would they have attempted to "stop the steal"? Were they going there to "primary"? At that point in time how would "peacefully and patriotically mak[ing] your voices heard" be fighting like hell? What are the "very different rules" he told his followers they are allowed to play by as they fought that day?
There is a significant difference between the rallies you cite and what Trump stood up on stage and encouraged his followers to do. You have not provided any evidence that those who protested against Trump were:
Quoting NOS4A2
The amphitheater capacity is 18k. Does he always double the crowd size? :roll:
Contextomy refers to the quoting out of context of speech, not to the context of the environment or the moment.
Trump uses the word “fight” numerous times in that speech. You can pick any one of them and we can try to discern whether he was being literal or figurative. Take your pick.
noun
Try again.
You celebrate the tough talk in some contexts and deny it means anything in others.
My cousins who celebrated the violence did not waffle as you do. Following the remarks after the Charlottesville march, they made Trump into their image. The Proud Boys did a similar thing with the "stand down but stand by" remark.
It seems that you, too, are a receiver of the "real" message and are sure Trump is speaking directly to you.
Whoever that is.
And then there are the hours spent letting events play out and calling the trespassers heroes when he finally did. And then there are the promises to pardon them all when he gets back in office.
What is at issue is what Trump meant by those words. The situation in which he said those words is part of the linguistic context. See linguistic context:
and this:
Quoting NOS4A2
In order to discern whether he was being literal or figurative he need to do the very thing you are attempting to avoid. When he says:
That means something different than telling an angry mob who had falsely been led to believe that the election was being stolen and they had to do something at that moment. And so, once again:
Quoting Fooloso4
I know nothing about your cousins but I suspect they fell victim to the same ploy and nonsense. Trump’s Charlottesville speech and comments is public record and nothing in them can back up your claims. Let’s examine them. There are entire paragraphs condemning violence and bigotry. Perhaps you fell for Biden’s lie that Trump had never once condemned racism or white supremacy. So I’m afraid you and your cousins have succumbed to the very same dirty tricks and now find yourself in the very same moral panic.
Surely you don’t think Jim Jordan was bodyslamming people on the house floor, or that when he says Guillianni is a fighter, Rudy is handing out uppercuts to other lawyers. I wan’t to know why you and Jack Smith would conclude his other use of the term “fight” to mean more than the way he was continually using it previously through this entire speech, not to mention that the riot was well underway before he used the words Smith had quoted in his indictment.
That entire year we were taught rioting and storming government buildings was good ethics, so much so that medical experts deemed it a public health necessity even during a pandemic lockdown. People scoffed when Trump had to be evacuated to a bunker under the whitehouse, and scorned him for taking a picture outside of the historic church that some rioters had burned down. So if some crazed Trumpers want to protest Congress, and the worthless schmucks filling that institution, I say go for it.
Exactly. Which anyone that isn’t in the cult can see— and could see even before it happened. There were warning signs that it could turn violent, based on the weeks of escalation Trump was sowing on social media alone.
I predicted violence — I didn’t expect them to breach the Capitol building, but violence was obvious. Fortunately, the entire thing was based on a delusion, so 4/5 the people there had no clue what exactly the objective was and were just going along, mostly wandering around.
Where did Trump specifically condemn white supremacy? My cousins felt energized by their views not being condemned as what they were (are).
https://time.com/4899813/donald-trump-charlottes-ville-remarks-transcript/?amp=true
So the question is: how do you explain how deeply corrupt and perverted this is to those who see nothing wrong with it? Can you explain it? Or has an electorate that is willing to applaud it become corrupted past the point of redemption? This is what makes the Trump candidacy (should it be realised) so utterly malignant - the fact that he can rely on the apathy and cynicism of his supporters to gain ground by wholly illegitimate means.
Those remarks were scripted by Trump’s advisors after widespread backlash against his earlier comments about the Charlottesville riots which said ‘there were fine people on both sides’. It was wholly and solely a damage control exercise by his political apparatchiks, although of course you’ll swallow it at face value.
That is the point. What it means for Jim Jordan and Rudy Giuliani to fight is not the same as what it means for an angry mob to fight to prevent the certification of an election on the day and place when that process was taking place.
I think you know this and that is why you have avoided addressing my questions.
I’m just asking why you and Jack Smith don’t think it is the same.
Just asking rather than answering my questions.
Jim Jordan and Rudy Giuliani did not storm the Capital. Neither did Trump.
My toothpaste fights cavities. In doing so it does not do what Jim Jordan, or Rudy Giuliani, or the insurrectionist mob did. Again, context matters.
The insinuation has always been that he incited an insurrection and encouraged lawless action at the capital. Of course, none of it passes the “immanent lawless action” test of real first-amendment jurisprudence. Nonetheless, he was impeached for it. And now Jack smith follows the same specious line of reasoning.
What reputation?
The reputation that someone who has risen to President of the United States is supposed to have.Trump has already brought disgrace to the office, and a criminal conviction, should it follow, will put an official seal on that. Not that he will ever feel anything but wronged, as he has no shame.
Taking that statement as a point of departure, how do you interpret the "good people on both sides remark"? Who are these two sides?
Do you count yourself as one amongst them?
You can ask Trump. He says who he was referring to. I wasn’t there, so no I do not consider myself amongst them. Do you?
He says different things that do not fit with each other. You have put yourself in the role of clarifying these messages. You suggest that a narrative has been put forward that completely misrepresents his intentions. And we are to accept that this misunderstanding led to events outside of his understanding.
It is a weird thought experiment where the principal cause for an action is completely divorced from the results.
Spellcheck fails him again. Kind of like “looser” when they mean “loser.” Since it’s an actual word, it doesn’t correct it, but who would think “rumor” is spelled that way in the first place? :lol:
Anyway, this is the buffoon we’re discussing here. One of the biggest political losers of all time, and yet he had a wide enough platform to work his con man magic on millions of people, who will apparently go to their graves defending him. It’s hilarious to watch, but also quite sad/pathetic.
I don't know where you got the basis for this opinion, but it is not correct. Trump has always put his own interest first, before party, people, the Constitution, or any other interest. When he was a businessman, it was well-known that he often would not pay bills to tradespeople that worked on his building projects. He is well-known for discarding any of his allies and connections for perceived slights to his ego. He is under indictment even now for putting his own interest over the Constitution in the January 6th conspiracy and riot. I think you're probably getting a very filtered view of Trump.
(In case you can't access that link, it says, in part: 'Donald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will "protect your job." But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them.
At least 60 lawsuits, along with hundreds of liens, judgments, and other government filings reviewed by the USA TODAY NETWORK, document people who have accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them for their work. Among them: a dishwasher in Florida. A glass company in New Jersey. A carpet company. A plumber. Painters. Forty-eight waiters. Dozens of bartenders and other hourly workers at his resorts and clubs, coast to coast. Real estate brokers who sold his properties. And, ironically, several law firms that once represented him in these suits and others.
Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according to U.S. Department of Labor data. That includes 21 citations against the defunct Trump Plaza in Atlantic City and three against the also out-of-business Trump Mortgage LLC in New York. Both cases were resolved by the companies agreeing to pay back wages.' USA Today June 16 2016 updated 2018.)
Reasonable questions but is it apathy and cynicism from supporters? Or do you think many of them accept the Trump narrative as true believers in a war against a corrupt 'business as usual' political process? If this phenomenon operates similarly to a cult, then it's a highly complex situation.
Apathy in respect of the facts - like, they don't care what he's been shown to have done, they won't watch or read the reports, and if they do, they will re-intepret them to suit their narrative - like, Trump is now saying that Jan6th was 'a beautiful day' and all the trouble was due to 'radical leftists' and 'government trolls'. And they'll lap it up. Not 'apathy' as in being emotionally inert.
I hear you but I suspect they are unable to do differently and are part of a faith-based value system, not unlike the Catholic Church in its prime.
It's also interesting to evaluate these two candidates based on the children they raised. Baiden's son showed not even a facade of goodness to me. So based on how he raised his son, I would assume Baiden is terrible to his core. As for trump's children, I thought they had acceptable human weaknesses. What's your view on this?
But regarding the 2024 election, I wonder how you would vote. Because Trump is terrible, yes, but isn't Baiden even more gross. Let alone his corruption, his actions when he was with kids seem really disturbing to me.
Thank you for enlightening me. And yes, this is exactly why I want to disccuss him here (for fear that i'm too biased and ignorant of his wrong doings). From what you mentioned, he seems terrible, utterly selfish and self-centric. In retrospect, the image I had for him mainly came from his interviews where he seemed competent, intelligent and caring for the Americans. Also, he is a remote, internet-figure to me, that i don't suffer from the first-hand consequences for his election. I also don't have to "live with" him like the Americans since I only have every limited exposure to him where it's even like entertainment to me. I guess these sum up why many Chinese have this filtered-image of him.
In 1989 I was living in Washington, DC when I'd found Peter Sloterdijk's ominous Critique of Cynical Reason (with an effing orange cover to boot, which I still have) in an used books store near the WH and read his trenchant diagnosis of the zeitgeist of the post-1918 Anglo-Euro sphere aka "populist cynicism" (i.e. postmodernity) – the return of the repressed "losers" (Nietzschean resentment). :mask:
A brief summary ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Cynical_Reason
re: @NOS4A2 et al MAGAts :point:
"Trumpistan! Trumpistan über alles!" :shade:
Totally get that. Where I am in the ‘Anglosphere’ (I’m not American but have immediate family in America) coverage of Trump has dominated the news for the last seven years, ever since it became evident that his Presidential run wasn’t just a publicity gimmick. It was very disappointing when he won the election, and I think overall his Presidency and presence have been very negative factors in public life. But thank you for your openness to other perspectives.
That looks exceptionally interesting and vast. I guess I hadn't factored in the idea of cynicism as the era's worldview, a kind of coping mechanism against a world of swirling change and uncertainty. I wonder if this is a different account of cynicism than @wayfarer had in mind? I generally think of cynics as passionless, passive and incredulous of human decency. Tump voters, such as I understand them, seem engaged, passionate and credulous. You understand this stuff well; thoughts?
Mine was more general. It's the sense in which Trump has jaded the entire political scene - the expecation that 'all politicians are liars anyway' (so what does it matter if Trump lies?), who's to say what is true, all the instutitions of government are basically malignant, the whole system is rotten so let's destroy it - those kinds of cynical tropes.
[quote=The Triumph of Cynicism; https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-triumph-of-cynicism-2020-04-16]Hannah Arendt worried that the true impact of ideological propaganda is not that leaders succeed in convincing their citizens of some truth. She understood that when factual truths are denied and substituted for by lies, the result is "an absolute refusal to believe in the truth of anything, no matter how well this truth may be established." Such cynicism, Arendt argues, is the true goal of totalitarians: "The aim of totalitarian education has never been to instill convictions but to destroy the capacity to form any."
Only those who fully embrace cynicism are free to give their undying loyalty to a leader who promises to grant importance to the purposelessness of human life.
What Arendt shows in Origins of Totalitarianism is that movements are so dangerous and can be central elements of totalitarianism because they provide the psychological conditions for “total loyalty,” the kind of unquestioned loyalty Trump rightly understands himself to possess among his most faithful supporters, like Mitch McConnell. “Such loyalty,” she writes, “can be expected only from the completely isolated human being who, without any other social ties to family, friends, comrades, or even mere acquaintances, derives his sense of having a place in the world only from his belonging to a movement.”[/quote]
I got ya. Fair call.
Trumpsters would like for this to be a case about free speech but it is not.
I definitely think it is a cult mentality as a form of hero worship where they have accepted the narrative that Trump is the outsider/renegade/avenger standing up against the corrupt forces of establishment power. If you look at a lot of the QAnon stuff, there is this theme of "a storm is coming" with Trump returning to destroy the forces of evil in a sort of political apocalypse. It's all couched in very mythic language with Trump being seen as a savior which ties right in with evangelicals' belief that Trump is appointed by God. The other side of the coin is the apathy, disinterest or sheer mental laziness in not fact-checking anything. If it's anti-Trump they reject it, and if it's pro-Trump or against his enemies, they accept it. I just saw on Facebook a Trump supporter post that meme about Bill Barr being paid by Dominion implying that is why he never found any widespread election fraud... With only a few seconds of research on the internet, one can find that the Dominion Barr was associated with was Dominion Energy, Inc. and had nothing to do with Dominion Voting Systems.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-barr-dominion/fact-check-william-barr-had-ties-to-dominion-energy-inc-not-electronic-voting-machines-company-dominion-voting-systems-idUSL1N2YG1WJ
If I could ask for one thing from Trump supporters, it would be to think more critically. If you want to be critical of the left, that's fine, but be critical about Trump and his supporters as well.
Unlike others I do not claim to know his intentions. The narrative does, yet has clarified nothing, for years using fallacious methods to funnel readers to their failing rags.
You yourself had no clue about his Charlottesville statements and for some reason asked me to inform you. That’s half a decade of being misinformed on information that is public record. It explains why you tried to probe weirdly whether I too was like your cousins, who apparently are equally misinformed. Multiply that misinformation and compound it with The Narrative held by millions of others and there you have the moral panic. Those trapped within it are ruining the world.
Can the majority of Republican support for Trump at this point be considered a cult? The case is strong.
Let me say though, not nearly to the extent of the US Republican Party, but all parties seem to have blind spots for their party. The problem in general is party-ism when it comes to corruption and abuse. However, nothing seems to be as clearly this as the Trumpism of a majority of Republicans. People may have a blindspot for their particular corrupt candidate (Clinton, Biden, whatever), but nowhere near the blind following down the rabbit-hole as Trumpers and adjacent fans.
The problem becomes equivocation of levels of corruption. Trumpers have learned to be gaslighters. There is nothing that Trump is doing worse than any other politician they say. If Obama flouted the kind of norms that Trump did (even wearing a non-traditional suit color) he was or would be tarred and feathered. Trump can get away with all of it.
It’s hard not to be tribal, I think. Especially when tribalism has been encouraged for 40 years.
In the specific case of US politics, the best approach is simply not to identify with either party. There is no labor or socialist party, like in any other comparable country, so it’s not that difficult to extricate oneself from the duopoly. The biggest political group in the US (besides non-voters) is independents, I think largely for the reason that many are turned off by the blind, cult-like following of party politics.
The Republicans have taken it to the next level of insanity. It’s a sign that their values simply no longer align with majorities, or reality. So the lies and gaslighting and demonization of the other side has to reach extremes to make up for it.
Trump says the election was stolen? We’ll find some way to believe it. Trump tries to overturn the election? Fine. Incites an insurrection? Fine. Major donors like the fossil fuel industry is causing environmental harm? There is no environmental harm — or China needs to lead the way.
And on and on.
Funny that you get the filtered image of Trump as a saint and the image of Biden as a demon.
Yep. No question. Here too (Murdoch's Sky News).
Quoting 180 Proof
I hear you.
Yes, a fair depiction. I noticed that academic and theologian David Bentley Hart, in a conversation with Peter O'Leary, calls this a modern reworking/revival of Gnostic mythos.
Do you remember any of the parallels he drew?
I think of him as:
Quoting Fooloso4
For years decline in media trust has trended downward, especially among registered republicans. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/30/partisan-divides-in-media-trust-widen-driven-by-a-decline-among-republicans/.
I think it’s fine to dismiss people because the enjoy a Murdoch production more so than a Microsoft and General Electric one, and sometimes rightfully so, but I think these numbers indicate that some are more beholden to corporate or state press than the others.
For Trump voters in particular, they were witness to one of the greatest feats of yellow journalism in the country’s history. Here’s a good analysis per the folks at Columbia Journalism Review.
Given this one can understand how one can fall prey to conspiracy theories. People trust who they trust, and more often than not they’ll trust Uncle Buck before they trust some state-run or state-influenced mouthpiece. The institutions that have tasked themselves with informing the public have failed in that regard.
The discussion comes around halfway through this. Both men also see movies like The Matrix, Dark City, Blade Runner as belonging to a tradition dealing in gnostic themes. Our reality being the fraught product of a demiurge and that there is 'special knowledge' available to those who want to know the truth.
I know hating the media is a popular sport amongst people, right or left-wing. No one ever seems satisfied that the media properly represents their interests and the media is always too right, or too left, or too partisan, too phony, or too corporate... Which is why people seem to pick the media outlet (in the old days, the newspaper/magazine) which best reflects their values and intellectual capacity. I'm not in a position to analyze the media landscape and I consume very little journalism. It mostly bores me, for one thing.
The Time's magazine piece did provide what I asked for. That message is notably absent from other messages.
What is missing from your representation is the marketing aspect of politics. Trump has a talent at playing to the groups who are hoping he will provide what others did not.
What were you hoping for with his ascendence?
But leaving this particular Constitutional mechanism aside, the question that nobody seems to be asking is: how can someone who flouts the rules of a contest be allowed to participate in it? Even without a conviction (as yet!) there is an enormous compendium of evidence indicating that Trump sought to overturn the last election by improper means, and it's beyond dispute that he's never acknowledged loosing the last ballot, even despite he and his associates bringing more than 60 lawsuits. He persists in lying about it whenever he speaks about it (which he does on a daily basis).
You couldn't even get into a chess tournament or a tennis match with that kind of attitude. So if he won't play by the rules, why should be allowed to participate? It doesn't seem a very difficult question to me.
That was the question asked at the beginning of the American Civil War.
I don't think we even have to go as far as QAnon and all that. Rather, it might be your average Republican who basically sees the Dems as just libs. If given the alternative of "Coke Classic" Republicans (I don't know.. there's really not many but someone who isn't Trump in the Republican primary we'll say", they'll take the bombastic cult of personality. You don't have to look to the loons for lunacy. It's the otherwise well-tempered folks that would vote for him that is the riddle to be solved.
That is to say, party-ism truly "trumps" ideas of fairness. Democracies must be set up with respect for the game above all else. But here's the even more intriguing part of this mess. It's not just that Trump is flouting the rules of the game. It is the willingness of those who support the cult of personality to the point where, they don' even recognize it as flouting the rules. They will say, "he didn't really do anything wrong", or even worse, equivocate and say, "he is doing no worse than X, Y, Z politician". And thus, this political gaslighting is the new narrative.
Even in Watergate, both parties could see Nixon was wrong once the tapes were revealed. Not everyone, but a large portion could see the emperor had no clothes.
I honestly do think there's an element of propaganda in it. Even though Trump was hostile to China, his foreign policy was inept (for instance, he believes to this day that if he imposes a tarriff on Chinese goods, that China has to pay it). But I think the Party will put up with that hostility in exchange for the fact that Trump will overall greatly weaken America, through a combination of ineptitude and isolationism and creating havoc in the American political scene, which is the only thing he has demonstrated any real aptitude for. And the Chinese Government fears Biden - the CHIPS act is inflicting real pain on their tech sector. They understand that he is a much more fearsome opponent on the world stage, as he actually knows what he's doing.
It's the same reason the Russian Government wants to see Trump elected, and constantly commiserate with his trials in their media. They think if Trump wins that he would immediately drop support for Ukraine and basically support Russia, which, given his long record of adulating Vladimir Putin, is not an unreasonable expectation.
Quoting Paine
And the stakes are almost that high, except for the Proud Boys and their associated crews are nowhere near as big nor as well-supported as the Confederate Army. But if you watch Rachel Maddow this week, she draws some pretty chilling connections between what Trump is doing, and the upsurge of reactionary right-wing violence. Where it's a lot, or a little, blood will be shed over this conflict.
:100:
I think this is right.
Quoting schopenhauer1
This is a more hair-raising idea and I agree, that's some riddle.
Hint: He made an attempt to stop illegal immigration along the southern border. He made an attempt to influence NATO members to pay more their share. He met with tyrants to try to reduce tensions. . . .. feel free to ridicule.
But I hope he's stopped from running for president this time around.
And failed. You can't tackle that one without the other side...Mexico.
Quoting jgill
So did Neville Chamberlain. Flirting with tyrants and appealing to their narcissism, is the opposite of leading from principle and is anti-American, unless America is supposed to like fascist and authoritarian tendencies as official policy.
OK. Are you saying that there is a positive and effective side to Trump's Presidency, or just that these items listed are also part of the popular perception - at the less wacky end of things?
I certainlly agree with all what you said there. However it's a bit strange, because I didn't read those news from any official sites. In China, we didn't quite feel that our govenment explicitly or officially advocate any of them. Yet on an entertaining platform in China, called Bilibili, Trump indeed appears more likable. So i don't know if the govenment is behind this, because if so, they surely have done a very good job.
Early on my daughter, a Brooklynite, told me he was thought a criminal by many if not most of his fellow New Yorkers, but I reserved my opinion - and I liked that he promised to do something about the border situation.
But I was simply relating what I thought might be an answer to the question by
Fair enough.
That's interesting, I can't imagine Trump ever appearing more sensible or competent than Biden. I'm not an American, so the matter is largely academic. Trump feels more like a stand up comedian than a politician and I can see how some people might be drawn to the spectacle.
I'm sure they do! :wink:
This is interesting. I certainly agree that deep down Biden is a more formidable foe to oppsing countries to the US. However, as for the comedian part, don't we agree that it is a facade that Trump pulled up intentionally to relate to and gain popularity from the majority of the non-elite voters and the unsatisfied middle-class? I thought the real appeal of Trump for Americans is a promise to address the economical problems right at hand and to alleviate some of the economical struggles for the people.
I don't see that. I am referring to his work as a politician, doing the work of a politician - infrastructure, clean energy, mental health, healthcare - being able to talk about policy and implementation of programs, not just lame point scoring. But this is getting dull, I'm not an American, so it's not my world. :wink:
Quoting jgill
Surely not...
The same question is being asked in New Hampshire. It seems the recently-published opinion piece by Luttig and Tribe might be starting to ripple through the landscape.
Did he deliver on that promise, in your filtered view?
Given the times and the stakes, it strikes me this is a legitimate concern. Perhaps these individuals, and maybe other state AGs and Secretaries of State, are or will be inviting litigation or pursuing it (e.g. seeking a declaratory judgment) to settle the issue as much as possible prior to the election.
A case can be made that American elections have always been, as H.L. Mencken said, "a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." But our politics have become particularly depraved lately.
State-run or corporate-run mouthpiece. But I repeat myself.
:100: :up:
Also, he didn't balance the federal budget in four years but instead increased the federal debt by over $6 trillion dollars;
he didn't bring back jobs from China but indtead engaged in a pointless trade war that has only hurt US farmers and drove up retail consumer prices (e.g. Walmarrt);
plus he encouraged voter suppression efforts targetting minorities throughout GOP-controlled states while losing the US House in 2018 and losing both the WH & US Senate in 2020.
TR45H is an utter failure, complete loser & now criminal defendant in multiple federal and state jurisdictions for the rest of his miserably narcissistic, pathetic life. :mask:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/816567
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/367844
@jgill @NOS4A2
A very simple point which I often make, is to ask how can someone who denies the electoral process and claims not to have lost the last election in the face of all evidence, be allowed to participate in the next one? Surely a pledge to abide by the rules of the contest ought to be a basic minimum entry requirement. Plain common sense, I would have thought.
//Imagine if DJT were challenged that in order to continue with his bid for the Presidency, all he need do is sign a publlc document acknowledging that he lost to Biden in 2020, and that his previous denials of this were falsehoods, and that he promised to abide by the rules in the next round. If he couldn't bring himself to do it, it would be over.//
Hungary’s Orbán urges US to ‘call back Trump’ to end Ukraine war in Tucker Carlson interview
[sup]— Bela Szandelszky · AP · Aug 30, 2023[/sup]
Quoting Viktor Orbán
So there. :wink:
Yes. But we're dealing with a person who won't honor a pledge in any case, and won't be expected to by those who support him.
I hope we will be hearing a lot more such statements from the bench.
Which brings into focus what is a matter of law versus an appeal to public opinion.
Hilarious, I didn’t know Chinese biophysicists were so funny. :lol:
I'll take it as a well-intentioned compliment. BTW, I myself is not a biophysicst. It's just the name of a broad field.
Of course.
Of couse I'm aware of this. Chinese are also entertained by him in many occasions. Yes, he made fun of himself. But let's remember that neither of Trump and Biden is good. But besides the many stupid things Trump said and did, I think his views on American economy and foreign policy would benefit America and the rest of the world. The best thing about him is that he is anti-war. For Americans, I don't think Biden will do much for Americans who are not wealthy because he himself belongs to the elite group. For Trump, he at least cares for the numbers and statistics such as inflation and unemployment rate and want them to look good. Isn't this the reason why Trump has so many supporters?
Quoting Benkei
I don't think my views are representative of average Chinese. In China, some people don't care about politics at all, some know very little about them both, others want Trump get elected so that the US will get more divided and American policies become more discontinued. Also, people enjoy the fun Trump brought.
Quoting Benkei
You should know that in many countries politics is not a big part of people's lives.
I think that is just an illusion. He demonstrated bullying tactics throughout his life, and with every country that he dealt with as president. You can say that the bully just likes to pick on people, and does not want to start a fight. But people tend to have a limited tolerance for abuse, and when push comes to shove, the fight is actually started by the bullying.
No, I think most of us know this is wrong. Trump doesn't appear to give a shit about anything but getting elected and he knows his base is comprised of many working people, so he needs to say things that seem pro worker. But can you name substantive initiatives that he delivered?
Biden, may have failed in many respects, but has actually been seen by many as pro-worker, despite being an elderly, privileged white guy.
I noticed this from a well known American Labor newspaper.
https://labortribune.com/30-things-biden-has-done-to-help-workers/
You're probably right. Perhaps I should not comment so much on Trump since I have only very limited knowledge of him, unlike most of you.
No, you were right. I would trust your own thoughts long before any acolyte of Western intelligentsia.
The anti-Trump propaganda in the West puts any historical propaganda to blame. People still believe he colluded with Russia, for example, and will never take any accountability for lying about it for so long.
Just out of curiosity, how does the Chinese government selectively block internet access to information that puts Trump in a bad light? And any thoughts on why they do that?
This is the interesting part. I suspect that they do. Since we don't have much direct infomation about your present or previous president, I'm thinking that maybe the algrithms are to blame. Once I clicked a video that pictured Trump in a good light, the platform began to feed me with similar stuff. One thing I must point out is that though both of them looked stupid from time to time (or most of the time), Trump at least appeared to be able to talk logically and at length. Biden, on the other hand, seems too old to even speak, let alone to walk. Plus he looks extra gross when he was with kidds. So another possibility of why Chinese prefer Trump is that given they are both awful, whereas you can find evidence that suggest Trump still functions as a person, you can't find evidence that Biden is still capable of thinking on his own. Sorry to put it this way but I'm being honest, from my perspective here in China.
The BBC is widely considered an unbiased news source. Here is a BBC article that doesn't show Trump in the best light: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66505804
What happens when you click on the link? Is it blocked somehow?
Another thing you should notice is that most Chinese are not good at English. So we heavily rely on domestc news, which can be biased. Also, knowledge presented in Chinese often suck. Plus the most famous search engine in China is a piece of ... I'm sure that most Chinese agree with me on this. It is even difficult for AI language models to generate good output in Chinese because the input materials are very lacking. Sad story. Is there anything else you'd like to know..
You didn't answer my question about why the Chinese government would favor Trump. If anything it seems like they would favor Biden because Biden is supposed to be more socialist. In fact, Trump is constantly claiming that Biden is a communist, and that communism is a VERY VERY bad thing.
Chinese government never officially express their preference, so there is no way of knowing.
Why is this? No one in China thinks this way.
No one in China thinks that socialism or communism is good?
Do you not remember when Iran launched missiles at an American air base and soldiers were sent to the hospital with TBI's? What do you think would have happened had any of those missiles killed an American?
Many Chinese think socialism is good. But no Chinese would think Biden is a communist. There were people once called Trump a communist. Surprise, surprise. The discrepancy between our views are interesting and thought-provoking.
Then they must recognize what a blatant lier Trump is. That’s good. Trump has his supporters here convinced that Biden is a communist. That’s millions of people or at least 30% of the population. Granted we Americans aren’t the brightest bunch.
Again though, it’s odd that your government favors such anti-socialist rhetoric.
The only thing I can see clearly is that Trump has surely stepped into many people's ways. No wonder they want him removed and indicted him for so many times. It's just that he himself is far from a perfect victim. I also believe that news and media had their impact on people, at least subconsciously. Though people may get certain things right, but are they right about the big picture? As someone from China, I'm fully aware of the possibility that I may be misinformed and brainwashed into what I belief, but do westerners realize that they may be as well? More importantly, what is the likelihood that we're using emotions and feelings to rule our head that we continue to find evidence to support our feelings but ignore the opposing evidence that may suggest otherwise. I guess we all fall for this.
Neither we. But it is important that you also point out that Chinese society doesn't see Biden that way because some media and Trump supporters consider Biden a communist as well as Pol Pot.
It seemed odd to me because why would he be? Is there evidence or is that most things people spread nowadays misinformation?
Sadly, it is the latter.
There are a few reasons Biden might be considered a communist or neomarxist. He supports queer theory, which was heavily developed in the ideas of Judith Butler, who was herself, heavily influenced by marxist philosophers such as Foucault, Lacan, and Gramsci. He also advocates and pushes for critical pedagogy in k-12, which was an educational program invented by Paulo Freire, an avowed communist.
The real question is, given his position on many issues, how can it be shown that Biden isn't highly sympathic towards communism/neomarxism.
Should you also analyze aspects of him that is anti-communism, then compare both the pro- and anti-communism part of Biden before drawing the conclusion that he is a communist? Don't we all believe in things that belong to different ideologies?
Speaking of your examples, what is wrong for critical pedagogy? In China, the education in critical thinking is sorely lacking and we admire that in American education. Chinese consider critiacl thinking as part of the explaination of the prosperity of America, expecially its advancement in science and technology.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Is it possible that this stems from the similarities between communism and democracy? I myself have such speculations because I see some of the goals overlap here. So I ask an AI bot and here is its answer:
Yes, there is some common ground between communism and democracy.
Both systems are based on the idea of equality. In communism, this is achieved through the abolition of private property and the means of production being owned by the state. In democracy, this is achieved through the principle of one person, one vote.
Both systems emphasize the importance of the collective. In communism, this is seen in the emphasis on the common good and the importance of working together for the benefit of society. In democracy, this is seen in the importance of civic participation and the idea that the government should be accountable to the people.
Both systems can be used to promote social justice. In communism, this is seen in the emphasis on equality and the redistribution of wealth. In democracy, this is seen in the protection of human rights and the rule of law.
However, there are also some important differences between communism and democracy.
Communism is a centrally planned economy, while democracy is a market economy. This means that in communism, the government controls the production and distribution of goods and services, while in democracy, the economy is largely controlled by private individuals and businesses.
Communism is a one-party state, while democracy is a multi-party state. This means that in communism, there is only one political party that is allowed to exist, while in democracy, there are multiple political parties that can compete for power.
Communism is often associated with totalitarianism, while democracy is often associated with freedom and individual rights. This is because communism has often been implemented in authoritarian regimes that restrict individual freedoms.
However, it is important to note that not all communist regimes are totalitarian, and there are also democratic communist movements.
Ultimately, whether communism and democracy are compatible depends on how they are implemented. In theory, they could be combined to create a system that is both egalitarian and democratic. However, in practice, this has proven to be difficult to achieve.
I then asked about ideologies of the Republican and Democratic party, and it says:
Here are some of the key differences between the ideologies of the Democratic and Republican parties:
Economic policy: The Democratic Party generally supports a more interventionist role for the government in the economy, while the Republican Party generally supports a more limited role for the government. Democrats tend to favor policies that redistribute wealth, such as social welfare programs and progressive taxation. Republicans tend to favor policies that promote economic growth, such as tax cuts and deregulation.
Social policy: The Democratic Party generally supports social programs that promote equality and opportunity, such as affirmative action and same-sex marriage. Republicans tend to favor social programs that promote traditional values, such as school choice and opposition to abortion.
Foreign policy: The Democratic Party generally supports a more interventionist foreign policy, while the Republican Party generally supports a more isolationist foreign policy. Democrats tend to favor policies that promote democracy and human rights around the world. Republicans tend to favor policies that protect American interests, such as military intervention and trade protectionism.
Environmental policy: The Democratic Party generally supports environmental protection policies, such as regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and renewable energy initiatives. Republicans tend to favor policies that promote economic development, such as deregulation of the energy industry.
These are just some of the key differences between the ideologies of the Democratic and Republican parties. There are many other issues on which the two parties disagree, and the specific policies that they support can vary depending on the specific issue and the political climate.
Don't you agree that ideologies of the Democratic party resemble some of the views of socialism? Maybe those bullets can help you think through whether Biden is more pro- or anti-communism or is just demoncratic.
Too many of his positions are touched by neomarxist philosophy for it to be a coincidence.
It is hard to think the president of the United States would be ignorant of noemarxist philosophies that directly underly the very positions he supports. Perhaps I am wrong. However, I would think ignorance of that sort would make a person incaple of adequately fulfilling the role of potus.
There is also the possibility that he is being manipulated, unwittingly, which case, it would make a person incaple of adequately fulfilling the role of potus.
If he is aware of the philosophies underlying his political positions and decisions, then there is no harm in admitting it . US is a democracy after all, the people will ultimately decide what they want.
Perhaps we all believe in things that belong to different ideologies, but we all are not potus either, and I hold that person to a higher standard than you and I, for good reason.
Quoting Hailey
Maybe missing something, no offense meant.
Nothing is wrong with critical pedagogy as a pure philosophy. But when Biden appoints Miguel Cardona to secretary of education, it insinuates that Biden most likely supports critical pedagogy. And since critical pedagogy is based in Marxist philosophy, what else can we assume. If accidental, it is unacceptable. If purposeful, no harm, let the people decide.
Critical thinking in the classic academic sense is one thing. Critical theory is another thing, and that is what critical pedagogy belongs to. Critical theory was originated by max Horkheimer, a founding neomarxist. Friere was directly influenced by his ideas.
I see what you're getting at here. It is a fair point. Biden is supposed to be aware of the philosophies beneath his views and actions. Maybe be agrees with some of the maxism philosophies.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Thank you for pointing it out. I appreciate it.
That's a lot of stuff. You posted there.
To be clear, I am not arguing about communism and its various applications, I am arguing that Biden supports neomarxism/communism in many ways which could make him appear communist.
There is a Lenninist theory on democracy that elaborates on what you are speaking about here.
I also am compelled to point out that lennenist democracy is very different than the American version. The former is direct democracy, the latter is constitutional republic.
I think perhaps Biden is more pro-communist than some of you but is still far from being a communist for real communists.
You're right. In this sense, the US and China share something in common. We also choose representives to goven.
I totally agree.
What about political families? Even with finace reform, the family network and polotical heritage are still there.
I think it is all about perspective. Here in Europe we consider Biden as a conservative, but more moderate than the average Republican candidate. Honestly, I think that socialism or "Neo-Marxism" don't exist in the U.S. at all, either ever existed. Your governments have always been the main image of the free market and capitalism, so it is your country. Sometimes the state as a public guarantee cares more than others, but in overall, the American state is only reliable on defence and military matters. The rest of the issues which every state has, are delegated to the free will of enterprises.
Is Biden against NATO? No.
Is Biden against free market? No.
Is Baden in favour of more State intervention? No.
That's how a real communist should act, and we have plenty of those in the European Parliaments. For instance, in Spain our politicians are having a crucial debate on expropriation of Oil and Gas companies to have a public management in the future. I think this is impossible to be in Biden's mind.
This is a very confusing sequence of words
How do you choose your representative in China?
It's hard to agree with that when we can clearly see neomarxist philosophy underlying many of the positions Biden holds or has shown support for (eg crt in systemic racism, queer theory in lgbtq activism, critical pedagogy in the department of Education). These philosophies all have neomarxist roots and are the driving ideas behind their respective movements/institutions. How are we not to think Biden is greatly sympatico with communism?
Quoting javi2541997
Communism is looked at very suspiciously by Americans, given the experience of the cold war, and it general historical track record of producing overwhelming death amongst its own citizens. It would probably be ill advised for Biden to come out as a real communist.
So you don't choose representatives to govern you.
That is true. Most of all he said things people didn’t like, single-handedly smashing the illusion of statesmanship, which for Americans is sacrosanct. One can spend days looking through indictments, criticisms, and books for any wrongdoing that isn’t verbal and come up empty-handed. Meanwhile, if you say the correct words and repeat the proper platitudes (or with Joe Biden’s method, plagiarize them or fabricate them), you can get away with pretty much anything.
A jury found Trump liable for rape. You know that sexual assault isn't verbal, right?
@Hailey
It's true what NOS says about America, that if you say the correct words and repeat the proper platitudes and don't rape women, try to overturn an election, and break other laws, you won't be prosecuted. No other president in American history sexually assaulted women (that we know of) or tried to overturn an election like Trump did so no other president was prosecuted.
Only because Trump didn’t show for the trial, not that he actually assaulted anyone. Liability isn’t guilt.
What do you mean?
A jury found him liable or responsible for sexual assault.
Figure it out.
https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/donald-j-trump-pays-court-ordered-2-million-illegally-using-trump-foundation
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174975870/trump-carroll-verdict
ETA: Oops, Praxis beat me to it on the rape case.
Being found responsible for sexual assault isn't being guilty of sexual assault? Okay, whatever.
The point is that Jean Carroll didn't come up "empty-handed". She was awarded five million bucks because a jury was convinced that Trump sexually assaulted her.
Note that Trump could afford the best lawyers, not that he ever had the good judgement to pick the best people.
@Hailey Do your countrymen find rapists offputting at all?
You really should attempt to know the facts before making such claims. It was a civil trial not a criminal trial. Whether or not he showed up for the trial is immaterial to the determination that he assaulted her.
Civil law
It was a sham trial with a sham judge, long past the statutes of limitation, lacking any hard evidence, and in a hostile jurisdiction.
Sexual assault is a crime. No one has been found guilty of it. End of story.
The jury found in her favor. He sexually assaulted her. He was not found guilty because it was not a criminal case, not because no crime had been committed.
That’s right. He was not found guilty of the crime of sexual assault.
Again, the point is that Jean Carroll didn't come up "empty-handed". She was awarded five million bucks because a jury was convinced that Trump sexually assaulted her.
In any case, if Trump had the poor judgment to choose lawyers that bungled jury selection and the rest, it doesn't inspire confidence.
NY state democrats literally introduced legislation, in collusion with Carrol’s lawyers, to get Trump. They have to make up legislation in order to penalize Trump for it. Complete show trial.
In a prior post you claimed:
Quoting NOS4A2
He was found liable for sexual assault. That is wrongdoing.
Being found guilty of a crime is not the same thing.
A Trump supporter would characterize any trial that involved Trump as a show.
If this was a show trial why did Trump make 19 admissions? An innocent man doesn't admit guilt. His abuses were not merely verbal.
A wrongdoing is to believe a decades-old assault occurred when time renders evidence and memory obsolete and unreliable. They have statutes of limitations for those reasons. A wrong doing is to dismiss the statute of limitations, and further, to do it for one-year only, for political reasons, as the New York State politicians made abundantly clear. It’s a wrong-doing to hold a show trial.
Are you claiming that sexual assault is not wrongdoing?
Whatever else you think counts as wrongdoing does not erase the wrongdoing he did.
Typical childish Trump defense. Trying to put the blame elsewhere, trying to steer the issue away from what Trump did, and pretending that any accusations against him are for political reasons.
I’m claiming there is no evidence for any sexual assault, not to mention a very reasonable doubt.
Why don’t you tell me what Trump did? You must know.
And yet based on the evidence presented the court concluded there was sexual assault.
Many people did not find this at all surprising since he bragged about sexually assaulting women.
And they did use that irrelevant “evidence”, a conversation a decade after the alleged event, at that very trial, proving to me how specious it all was. Saying “you can do anything” is not any brag about what Trump himself did, no matter how hard you spin it.
Your clumsy rhetorical tactics may appeal to your fellow Trumpsters, but have no persuasive power.
Accuse the other guy of doing what you are doing. Even with the spin you put on it, it is a clear, straight forward brag about him sexual molesting women.
In that same conversation he did brag about hitting on Nancy O'Dell, referring to himself as “I” and recalling his actions, according to his own word. Nancy O’Dell did not say she was assaulted. In the quote you cite, there is no reference to himself nor an actual event nor actual people. So no, it is not clear.
If there is evidence, it’s not evidence enough for a jury.
If it is enough for a jury, the jury is biased.
And so on. The Trump cult’s legal philosophy in a nutshell. :yawn:
This is your argument? It has so many holes in it I'll just allow it to collapse under its own weight.
We've seen a lot about proving things to you. No one can prove anything to you, which you do not want proven. But anything which you want proven, you readily prove it to yourself.
:fire: :clap:
Also know as: fair and balanced.
Can you imagine what the conservative reaction is going to be when Trump is convicted by a black jury in Atlanta?
You’re displaying bullying tactics, dear. I thought you were opposed to such antics.
Puts quotes around something no one said. Lies called out.
I don't know whether he is a rapist or not. But surely your past and present presidents were capable of other terrible things if not worse than rape.
That was an unsound conclusion you made, as you are prone.
I choose my actions according to the situation, so I can be mean when meanness appears necessary. Go on now, hit me if you will. I'll suffer the pain but admit to having started the fight, rather than suing you for damages.
Assuming that past presidents were rapists or worse in order to justify Trump’s crimes is what we call rationalizing in the US. Below is Julia Galif with some helpful tips on spotting and dealing with rationalizing. Hopefully your government will allow you to learn about it.
It’s called misquoting, a common tactic of propaganda. You’ve never heard of it?
:up:
The paraphrase was totally clear in its form and its intention.
Perhaps you should use it instead of misquoting people. Then you'd see that when I using the phrase "bullying tactics" I was using the same exact phrase as my interlocutor, who used the phrase to explain why Trump ought to be condescended to. So not only did you misquote me, but you could not even paraphrase me properly. Like him, you just like to talk about me at the expense of the subject, apparently.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The subject being that you're totally partisan on anything to deal with US politics, which was an entirely accurate assessment by MU and which you then whine about as bullying tactics. And like any Trumpster, instead of reflecting on your own behaviour you double-down, by insisting a clear paraphrase is a misquote.
So I was on message and you're just trying to deflect.
Any man is capable of terrible things. Woman are too, but not nearly to the extent men are. Let's put women in charge for awhile, shall we, and see how they do? What do you say?
True, that. But the terms of defending a crime are not equal to whether one has kept faith with a sworn promise.
For instance, I take the vow of matrimony very seriously and view those who are adulterous as less trustworthy after finding out about it. This, of course, does not mean that such behavior is equal to betraying the promises to fulfill and protect the Constitution. The matter of public promises and personal trust do become entangled when self-interest is measured against serving a commonwealth.
The question of corruption is usually framed in terms of how much self-interest overtakes the purpose of serving as a public official or the interests of an enterprise. The Tyrant, in the Platonic Dialogues, is the one who uses the appearance of providing justice as a glove to hide their true end to further themselves above all others.
McConnel did not have the courage to face this problem as provided by the Constitution for this very purpose. I remember my grandfather complaining about the judicial system being blamed for the results of other institutions failing to do their jobs.
A misquote, a mischaracterization, a laughing emoji, and of course it is aimed only at those with whom you disagree, namely me. On message, for sure, because if you had any clear standards and lacked your own partisanship none of this would be occurring. But as usual you like to insert yourself and aim your contempt in only one direction and at one person.
I'm not defending anyone's behavior or possible crime. I'm just pointing out that you got limited choices and that few of your most powerful political figures, such as your presidents, are innocent and morally unimpeachable. Can you say that Biden has done nothing worse than rape? You're just stuck with them. That's your dilemma.
Quoting praxis
Thank you for your education on rationalization. But does it occur to you that I'm justfying a crime he might have carried. I'm merely saying that when given two awaful candidates, where one might be a rapist and has said a whole lot of stupid things, whereas the other may be corrupt and is definitely pro-war, you got to decide what is your red line to exclude one for your vote.
You were trying to rationalize rape, and doing so very poorly. Do you dislike women?
Top reason is, I'm not ready for Americas first dictator, and him trying to wrest the election out of the hands of the voters clearly indicates that that's exactly what he wants to be. He's an existential threat to American democracy. I don't think about his rape allegations at all, it doesn't even register to me as something to consider when much more important things are on the line.
(I also don't trust him to do what's right for Ukraine. He's a lackey for Putin, it seems.)
How come? Nothing can rationalize rape. Rape is rape. Do you think seeing murder or war crime or other terrible stuff as awful as or even worse than rape is an action of rationalization?
Quoting praxis
No.
Is rape, or we shall say, possible rape, the only thing you consider when choosing a president? Trump, suspected rapist, Pass. Biden, possibly not a rapist, Yes! Is this how your system work? Do you agree that it makes sense for people who are not sure whether Trump is a rapist and have other considerations when choosing president to support Trump over Biden?
I agree. It sounds politically incorrect; rape is by no means trivial, but it's true that more is at stake here.
Quoting flannel jesus
That might be valid. I just can't take sides here for I'm unable to relate to it. It never occured to me that you could see it from this angle, given my lack of cultural exposure. I don't know how Americans, living in the US with Trump, might feel on this. For me, living and raised in China, I think it takes a lot more to become a dictator. Do you think he can really be a dictator? Is dictatorship even possible in America under your political system?
That’s the biggest farce because in a republic one is allowed to believe an election was stolen and take steps to challenge it, especially after traditional elections were dismantled and jiggered so as to suit a particular party in that election.
Actually, we’ve got the dictator right now. For the first time since Lincoln was sworn in we had a massive military presence at an inauguration, quelling any and all viewers and protest. His justice department and state lackeys goes after people who challenged the legitimacy of his leadership and authority, especially his main political rival. His regime stifles any attempt to look into his increasingly corrupt dealings.
Are you allowed to call governors and ask them to find you some votes? Would you defend Bidens right to do that?
Yes. It’s not like he’s asking him to find illegal ballots.
There was not and is not evidence that they exist. Where were they supposed to "find" them?
Trump was determined to be liable of sexual assault by a jury of his peers. Trump had the best lawyers that money could buy, it should be noted. His lawyers would not have allowed biased jurors. Those jurors were convinced that he was responsible.
Is rape not considered immoral in China?
Actually, after a quick read of the transcript, I’m pretty sure that Trump was speaking of the illegal ballots of his opponents, that if he found them and discarded them as fraudulent it would put him in the lead.
The power of the Executive has been steadily increased, and a president may, upon declaring a national emergency (which the president may do unilaterally) exercise extraordinary powers, dictatorial in scope, such as deploying troops or limiting telecommunications. Trump has been claiming, in effect, a "national emergency" for quite some time, and we may be reasonably certain he will do so given the opportunity, if it serves his purpose.
It makes no difference whether he meant find votes that can be discarded as illegal. There was not and is not evidence they exist. He was repeatedly told by the Justice Department and Georgia officials that they did not exist.
It is one thing to question results, but quite another to reject the evidence.
Trump already has done so given the opportunity. There are currently 8 ongoing national emergencies stemming from Trump's administration. But there are still ongoing national emergencies from the 90's, under Clinton. There is still one from the Carter administration. Obama currently has 9 ongoing national emergencies. Biden has 8.
Why would someone trust the DOJ and Georgia officials?
It does make a difference because everyone who has criticized that particular remark never stipulate that he was requesting they look for illegal votes, which is evidence criminal activity, a far cry from some nefarious abuse of power or election fraud.
Right. Anyone or anything that does not support Trump and his claims cannot be trusted.
Quoting NOS4A2
That had already been done. He knew that but did not like that none of the multiple investigations supported his allegations.
Oh yes. Emergency Powers were granted to the President by Congress some time ago, and Presidents delight it making use of them. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I think those powers should be restricted more than they are.
Anyone who facilitates the worst conspiracy theory in the history of the United States in an attempt to subvert the duly elected president should not be trusted. These are the same crooks now trying to indict him. Given their history, they should not be trusted on principle alone.
Requesting that a governor look for election fraud in his state is nothing compared to spreading a conspiracy theory that Russia stole an election, instigating multiple investigations and fishing expeditions, spying, capturing the minds of the gullible, influencing elections, and eventually leading to a hot war. This is an actual attempt to defraud the United States. Given that you and others cry foul at one but not the other is enough reason to doubt any finger-wagging on the topic.
I am in complete agreement. This is exactly what Trump and his henchmen did.
That's... fucking exactly what it's like. Thank you. What a beautiful analogy. It would be a shame if something happened to it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/05/enrique-tarrio-proud-boys-sentenced-jan-6-attack
Jack Smith's coming for you, Seditionist-1. 4March24 – "Be there. Will be wild!". :lol:
It sounds like you are treating John Durham's last efforts as Special Counsel as conclusive proof of a plot to smear the Trump campaign. Years of investigation did point to some unprofessional behavior but not prove or strongly suggest the sort of organized plot as advertised at its inception.
Your language of:
Quoting NOS4A2
does not fit with the conspiracies you promote because Russia did try to influence the election result. This was acknowledged by the Republicans at the time. The question of the Mueller probe was whether the Trump team was coordinating their efforts with Russia to that end.
Mueller concluded he could not prove that happened but could not rule it out because of the obstructions his investigation encountered. At his last congressional hearing, Durham admitted ignorance of many aspects of that case. It was not a good look for your team. Whoever that is.
The problem of proving organized behavior Is one of the interesting aspects of the Georgia charges. Having the indictment be a RICO offense puts all of these questions of 'organized' behavior as the matter needed to be proved.
If the RICO angle is a fabrication, presented in a court of law, your desire to defend Trump should have its best chance here, where the coordination of agents is the case, as such.
I think the interference with State processes and officials by agents outside of the State helps establish intent since other possible reasons are difficult to imagine. Like Meadows happening to be in town to visit the recount efforts. Or local election officials being defamed by Powell and Giuliani.
The situation would be very different in a system not shaped so profoundly by federalism.
Quoting NOS4A2
At the time of these events the DOJ was being run by Trump's own people. At the time of these events the "Georgia officials" were all Republicans and Trump supporters.
Are you saying that people who are life long Republicans and Trump supporters could not be trusted to help Trump?
Anyone who does not show complete and blind "loyalty" is no longer his own people. Their "disloyalty" is evidence that they cannot be trusted.
No, I’m asking “Why would someone trust the DOJ and Georgia officials?”
Not everyone is so enamoured with party as you guys. Trump especially. He’s been thrown under the bus by republicans and Trump supporters at every single turn.
The only reason we still have our constitutional republic is because of Republicans and former Trump supporters who stood up to him when he pressured them to overturn the election results. They're patriots and heroes.
Quoting Fooloso4
This is too funny. NOS gave that exact reply.
Quoting NOS4A2
Trumpsters have a lot of practice inventing "alternative facts". Trump feeds off their resentment and has convinced them that when he complains that he is not being treated fairly that they too are the victims.
Far more often then not when he accuses others of something it is something that he himself is guilty of. In his wake the roads are paved with both friends and enemies that he has thrown under the bus.
Your comment about "Trump supporters" prompts me to ask you again why you support the man.
What has he done or will do for you and what do you care about?
Trump and his lawyers were pressuring them to look at the fraud and to share their reports and data. The Big Lie™ is the criminalization of these efforts and the propaganda surrounding it. No thinking person can look at the phone call and come away with the exact same outlook as the deep-state dinner theater shoved in your face for years. So no, they’re not heroes, but propaganda-driven knaves.
For not looking at the fraud and sharing their reports and data with the concerned party? Yes.
The problem is, multiple investigations had already been carried out and did not find what Trump and Trumpsters wanted. The only finding they would accept is that the election was stolen. And so, Trump pressured them to "find" votes that he could not accept were not there.
If they shared the data and reports maybe none of this would have happened. But they didn’t.
The votes he’s speaking about are the votes people were going to make but couldn’t because someone already voted for them. It’s why he pressured them to examine the signatures.
The office of the Secretary of State in Georgia.
Once again: multiple investigations had already been carried out and did not find what Trump and Trumpsters wanted. His allegations of fraud have not been substantiated.
But Trump and Trumpsters simply cannot accept that. It is as simple as that. Piling unsubstantiated allegations on top of unsubstantiated allegations does not change the fact that he lost. The hope that he could create enough doubt to postpone or curtail the transfer of power did not pan out either. But Trump would rather burn it all to the ground than concede the election. That goes far beyond looking for nonexistent fraud.
How many of them checked the signatures as per the Trump team's request? Or shared the data? It's ok, you don't know the answer to that. Neither does Trump's team. Neither do I. Just take it from high and repeat what you've been told, I guess.
That's besides the point. The point is Trump is being indicted for lawful activity, and based on a lie even you repeat. Did Trump pressure the secretary of states to "find" votes? Or did he say "I have to find 12,000 votes", and "I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state". "I" doesn't mean "you". "I" doesn't mean "The secretary of State for Georgia". "I" doesn't mean "Brad Raffensperger". What does the word "I" refer to when it comes out of Trump's mouth, and why is this word suspiciously missing from your account every time you repeat it?
Yes, that is correct. It is Trump who "had" to and "wanted" to and "needed" to find these votes. Election officials must remain neutral.
Trump switches between "I", "we", "you", and "they".
And:
Who is this we? It is clear:
He sensibly and impartially suggests that if they can't agree the court can make a determination. But Trump rejects that and brow beats him:
Yeah, “and we’ll find hundreds of thousands of signatures, if you let us do it”. Who is this we? It’s us, the Trump team
The notion that Trump is pressuring Reffensperger to “find” votes is just another hoax.
Do you believe you're not doing this?
Raffensperger said he felt threatened by Trump.
Quoting Phone Call
Trump literally said "So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.” Perhaps I'm not following you. Are you using the word "find" (which you put in quotes) differently than when Trump used the same word.
But even beyond that. Raffensperger is a life long Republican and was (at the time) a Trump supporter. Are you seriously suggesting that there was some legal way that Raffensperger could have somehow changed the results of the GA election and that he didn't - because?
Oh no, his feelings. Poor guy.
Is it possible he felt threatened because Trump threatened him?
Only if there was a threat.
This is Trump talking to Raffensperger
"And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal — it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know, what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen."
and here:
"But I mean all of this stuff is very dangerous stuff. When you talk about no criminality, I think it’s very dangerous for you to say that."
Maybe you have different criteria for a threat, but to my ears it sounds like one. Trump is saying that if Raffensperger does not do his bidding then he would be committing a criminal offense.
But even beyond that I'll repeat my previous question again. Raffensperger was/is a life long republican and at the time this happened he was a Trump supporter. If there was a legal way that he could have flipped GA to go for Trump - for what possible reason would he have NOT done that?
Because ignoring someone is a very disrespectful act. I read all the posts from NOS and I find them interesting, whether I end up answering them or not, but it is true that he is one of the main TPF members I interact with the most.
I agree.
I am also interested in how the agents in play in these scenarios are connected or not to politics as the means of creating law and policy as means to ends. The persecution of Trump as a self-sufficient universe unrelated to the issues confronting us.
I’m curious to hear what definition of “threat” you are using to assure yourself that those are threats. It certainly doesn’t fall under any legal definition of threat, which is a felony. He never expressed any intent to harm anyone in anyway. He never said anything about doing his bidding, contrary to what you say.
Public and political pressure, maybe. One minute you’re conversing with lawyers on contesting a close election, the next you’re indicted on sham RICO charges. No one is safe in Georgia, apparently. I suspect it’s no coincidence he supported Georgia’s Election Integrity act the month Trump left office, and now the experts are warning him about problems with his Dominion voting machines. All conspiracy theorists, I guess.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/23/brad-raffensperger-georgia-dominion-voting-00103298
Maybe because the truth matters.
Changing his mind doesn't.
I think it's important in a democratic environment to keep the discussion going, to hear out the other side, and respond to them. It seems to me that when people start shooting each other rather than talking is when they have have simply given up discussion and now define the other side as evil. I don't think Trump supporters are evil, but I do think they are wrong to continue to support him. I have to try to be intellectually honest and be open to the possibility that I am wrong, as well. I think this whole discussion about whether Trump committed crimes or was simply exercising his rights of free speech and legally contesting an election he disagreed with is a very important debate. It's going on across the country and indeed the world. If people are going to defend Trump I want to hear what the reasoning is.
But all of you are just making the same arguments over and over again and he is not being responsive. He doesn't engage with the argument, just blows it off. After a few respectful responses, anything more is just giving him an audience. He knows his opinions are not popular and he comes looking for a fight.
Hey, you can't agree with both @Benkei and me, can you? We are disagreeing with each other.
I have no problem with responding, especially if you have been specifically addressed. It's just that for most, it's just the same arguments over and over again. They'll give their argument. Nos4a2 will say "nunh unh."
Giving an audience to someone who does not engage in good faith with the argument is not defending the truth.
I've looked at some of your posts. They are thoughtful and well written. My problem is that responding to Nos4a2's posts just gives him an audience even when he refuses to argue in good faith.
Yes... well...
Quoting NOS4A2
Hey! That's some damn good poetry.
Do you think I do not believe what I am writing? The point of exposing my beliefs here, rather than some echo chamber, is to have them exposed to criticism.
It's clear you believe what you're writing.
Quoting NOS4A2
But you don't respond to that criticism honestly. You just deny the value of the evidence and cynically reject all sources that don't agree with you.
If I believe what I am writing I am not operating on bad faith.
I try my best to explain my reasoning. I don’t try to deny the value of evidence. I try to include all of it—not just accusations, not just the evidence of the prosecution, not just what I read in the media, not just quotes out of context—but all of it, and it has served me quite well. If you can find where I went wrong, then please show me, but skirting around my back in an attempt to influence others to ignore and ostracize another member is cowardly.
The only thing I'm afraid of is putting more wood on the NOS4A2 fire.
The Hatch Act finally appears from the shadows.
My post wasn't intended as real criticism. I was just giving you crap.
TPF could be a resource for that sort of thing. Questioning what is 'politization' may impoverish the efforts.
Maybe? You're gonna need a lot more than that. Please provide evidence that in January 2021 Raffensperger was being pressured to NOT overturn the GA election results. Who was doing this pressuring?
In fact, Raffensperger has stated repeatedly that it was Trump who was pressuring him.
[edit]
Raffensperger has challenged Trump to a debate about the results of the election
Here are the moments I could find that Trump “pressured” Raffensperger to do anything.
Here he is pressuring Germany to say it if he finds it [criminal activity, big problem, mistakes]:
Here he is pressuring Germany to check on the ballots:
Here he is pressuring Raffensperger to go back and look at signatures:
Here is Trump pressuring Raffesnperger to say he is going reexamine the election.
Here he is pressuring Raffesnperger to meet with Ryan.
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/nation-world/full-text-transcript-of-president-trump-call-with-georgia-sec-of-state/507-776ec762-22fe-438f-948c-96a9d52257eb
I don’t see anything in here about pressuring Raffensperger to “overturn the GA election results”. Given this, perhaps you can provide evidence that Trump was pressuring the Secretary of State to “overturn the GA election results”. Also, if you wouldn’t mind sharing your definition of threat, since you’re so sure Trump threatened him, it would be helpful since am still unable to see it.
Who is Paine?
That general denunciation you linked to does not cancel all the times he avoided calling out specific people. The "good people on all sides" statement at Charlottsville did not mention the neo-Nazis , the "stand back but "stand by" message to the Proud Boys at the debate, the hours of silence on 1/6, etcetera.
You approved of the violent rhetoric at rallies as justified by the circumstances. I am sure you can justify anything you like.
And in the case of 1/6, he expressed his love for them once he got around to telling them to go home.
Then there are the regular predictions that violence will break out if the trials continue.
The message for peace and lawful behavior is having trouble breaking through.
Raffensperger himself has stated that Trump pressured him. I can't speak for Raffensperger so f you disagree you'll have to take it up with him.
Meanwhile, still you have not explained why Raffensperger - a lifelong Republican and a Trump supporter - would NOT have found those 11 thousand votes that Trump was asking for -assuming there was any legal way to do that.
Raffensperger has challenged Trump to publicly debate about the results of the GA election.
Clearly Trump pressured him, but it’s what act Trump pressured him to do that is the question. If you have no evidence or reasoning beyond proof by assertion then I guess we can both agree that the statement “Trump pressured Raffensperger to overturn the GA election results” is unfounded, and maybe we’ll quit repeating it and start calling it out when people do. If the idea didn’t come from Trump, and you and Raffensperger don’t just randomly share the same conclusion, we could even say that it came from propaganda and begin to guard ourselves against it.
And if you wouldn’t mind sharing your definition of threat it would be neat to see if there is anything that indicates any threats outside of Raffesnperger’s and your own feelings, and all the propaganda that makes such assertions. If not, then I suppose I can again chalk it up to propaganda and I’ll quit bothering you about it.
I already speculated on your question and went into why I made such a speculation.
Oh I see. It’s not that he didn’t do it, it’s that he didn’t at the times you wanted him to. It’s not that he called out violence and bigotry on all sides, but that it wasn’t specifically targeted at the one group and ideology you dislike. It’s utter hogwash but at least I can see what kind of sand these foundations of lies are built upon.
I'm glad we agree on that.
Quoting NOS4A2
You're really hung up on this - so for purposes of this particular discussion I'll go with your distinction. So Trump "pressured" him but did not "threaten" him.
Quoting NOS4A2
The exact details of the acts Trump pressured him to do are irrelevant. The relevant question is why Raffensperger - a lifelong Republican and a Trump supporter - did not do any of the things that Trump pressured him to do.
I hope you wouldn’t mind sharing your answer to this specific question. If not, then I suppose I can again chalk it up to propaganda and I’ll quit bothering you about it.
He didn't say it to particular people in real time but just a general statement as policy. I mentioned examples of the lack.
I can tell exactly what you’re dodging by what context you remove from my quotes.
At any rate, I’ve repeatedly said Trump was pressuring him to look at the fraud and to share the data with his team. I can refer to quotes. You said, just like the media, the J6 committee, the impeachment inquiry, that he was pressuring Raffensperger to overturn the GA election results, without any evidence. Upon what grounds are we coming to these conclusions that are not based on propaganda?
You said that, to your ears, a few statements sounded like threats, and even quoted these threats. Threatening a public official is a felony. I’m just curious how you came to this conclusion. If not some definition, then what? If not propaganda, then what?
I have already given my answer and shared why I made such a speculation. Do you want different answers?
...and should be prosecuted. Right?
I personally do not think so.
I'll try one more time. You feel that there is an important distinction between pressure vs threat so I'm conceding the point. So again - T was merely pressuring R, NOT threatening him.
Quoting NOS4A2
And once again, why would R NOT do these things?
Quoting NOS4A2
And here is what you said:
Quoting NOS4A2
Who was putting pressure on R at the time of these events to NOT do things that T was asking for? These things could have potentially given the GA electoral votes to Trump? If you want to convince me that you're right you will need far more then speculation.
R has challenged T to publicly debate this issue at a venue of T's choice. What's that all about?
I think it's better known as "rationalizing". When a person rationalizes it is quite likely that they do not actually believe what they are rationalizing. The rationalizing seems to be done as a way for the person to convince oneself that something which they want to believe, but they cannot quite apprehend as believable, actually is believable.
It certainly is, but part of the rhetorical strategy is to deny that the warnings are threats. "I'm not saying this is what I or we will do, but it is what will happen".
I don't think there will be civil war, but this is not to say there will not be violence and bullets. Two reasons I think things will not escalate to war is that the trumpster "patriots" are not significant enough in numbers or bullets.
One central feature of the Civil War was that the South understood it would have to immediately replace the functions of government after leaving the Union. When MAGA speaks of dissolving the Union, they sound like they will be able to somehow go on as before. National institutions, Federal Courts, Medicaid, National funding for education, health, social security, disaster relief, and the rest will somehow continue without a thought given to the matter.
The complacency is what frightens me.
And a Civil War is expensive and makes a country go into bankruptcy. Even the most far-right (or far-left) politician is aware of this.
I will add that this sort of mentality is what makes this such a difficult situation to resolve peacefully through reasonable discussion. If one side is basically saying "if we don't get our way, there's going to be violence" then there is no reasoning with them. They're signaling to you that there is no scenario where they lose that they're willing to accept because they've already defined their loss as evidence it wasn't fair and honest. "The only way we can lose this election is if the election is rigged."
Sometimes other means of "persuasion" are necessary.
The US can experience political mass shootings as uh, it's now experiencing mass shootings. Likely they will be downplayed, because nobody likes that the going is something like in a Third World country. And never underestimate what kind of a police state the US already is and can be.
The most stupid thing the Democrats likely will do is to portray them as people who start a civil war. That just is condescending nonsense and outright propaganda and won't do them any good.
Besides, the Trumpster won't lead his followers into a civil war, because he's not a leader, just a great populist, yet in the end just a whiner. He genuinely had a chance to make an autocoup and would have the crowd there to make seem like a revolution and what happened? The Secret Service simply drove him off to the White House, even if he demanded otherwise. Then he just stared at the TV at his followers invading Capitol Hill and did nothing. Finally he tweeted for them to calm down.
Yeah, that is NOT a leader in a civil war. Those kind of leaders have to have firm belief in their cause and the will to kill a lot of people.
But semiautomatic rifles in a crowded area can kill a lot of people.
I don’t take it that seriously. It’s awful, of course, that one party has turned fascist, but those of us who pay attention to politics or current affairs sometimes forget that a majority of people don’t care, don’t vote, and aren’t interested.
There will be no civil war. There will be swings of extremism—but the vast majority of people aren’t extremists and don’t like all the fighting. Even most Republicans.
Trump hired many lawyers. They told him the election wasn't rigged. He fired those lawyers, because he didn't respect them. Instead, he respected the lawyers he could find who were taking him the election WAS rigged.
He fired the lawyers because they weren't telling him what he had already decided must be true.
Damning.
If I were Donald Trump, I would have fired those lawyers as well. What is the point of paying an amount of dollars to lawyers who will not follow up your strategic defence plan? Whether Trump lies or not, it is obvious that he will not hire lawyers who would not represent him effectively.
But that's what's so damning about his quote - it shows that the whole "stolen election" argument was his *plan*, rather than something he believed because he was shown reliable evidence.
He fired the lawyers because they were telling the emperor he had no clothes.
He fired them because they were not willing to do their job.
Their job is to advise him on legal matters, and they were advising him that he had no legal basis to challenge the results of the election.
It is not the job of a criminal lawyer to aid and abet criminal activity. After the fact, the lawyer's job is to establish that there was no criminal activity.
I can't speak for other countries, but here in the USA that is most definitely NOT the job of a criminal lawyer. The job of a criminal lawyer in the US is to demonstrate to the jury (or judge if the defendant so chooses) that - based on the evidence presented in the trial by both sides -that the prosecution has not proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime. If the lawyer thinks the prosecution has not presented sufficient evidence, then the lawyer does not have to do a thing except convince the judge or jury (in summation) that there is insufficient evidence.
Perfectly explained, and that's what Donald J. Trump is asking for from their lawyers. A group of legal experts to help him to convince the jury that he is innocent. Why is this evil? If I were Trump's lawyer, I would give my best to represent him in court because that is why he hired me in the first place. Whether Trump is condemned or not, it is upon the jury/judge's final decision.
He was talking about lawyers he had on his team prior to Jan 6, not the lawyers he now relies on to defend him in court.
There is a movement to disbar and condemn the lawyers who work for Trump. Famed defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who defended Trump in his first impeachment, has illustrated how shadowy legal groups like The 65 project has sought his own disbarment. He often notes that he has been effectively alienated from his usual social groups because he had the gall to believe that one particular defendent deserved representation. He says of the most recent indictment that it is the worst example yet of criminalizing lawyers and strikes at the heart of democracy and the US constitution.
This wasn't trump firing lawyers from his criminal trials. This was trump firing lawyers long before any charges were brought against him, during his campaign to overturn the election results.
I'm going to spell out a few more things for you here as well because there was a lot of things you might have misunderstood.
Nobody is saying it was wrong, criminal, or anything like that for him to fire these lawyers. He can hire and fire whatever lawyers he wants - THAT'S not what's so interesting about what he's saying in the Twitter clip.
What's interesting about what he's saying is it proves that the legal experts he surrounded himself with were all telling him he didn't have enough evidence to maintain that the election was stolen. So he fired them and hired lawyers who were telling him what he wanted to hear. Which means he can no longer honestly say "I believed the election was stolen based on reliable expert analysis", because all the experts around him were telling him it wasn't stolen. It means the root concept in his brain that the election was stolen originated from within him.
It was his idea to argue the election was stolen, against the grain of evidence and expert opinion.
Which blows a hole in his own current defense
I clearly understand what you are complaining about, and I am aware of the context. Nonetheless, you are mixing up many things regarding lawyer's work, and that is seen in the phrase I quoted from you. It doesn't matter if Trump hired those lawyers before or after the rigged elections. Here the key is how effective the lawyers should be (that's why you pay a lot of money to them) when you need their help.
On the other hand, I doubt that Trump wasted thousands of dollars just to hear "what he wants to". He is not stupid, and maybe he is not the type of politician you like, but it is obvious that he will not waste his money on useless lawyers (before the election issue or afterwards). The aim of the lawyers is to try to get what Trump is looking for. Again, this is why you pay them. If the lawyers do not want to help Trump out, they are fired. Simple.
He has the idea that the elections were stolen. Now, he is searching lawyers to help him in court to go in that path or strategy. And again, whether Trump conspired or not, the final decision is on the judges.
If someone says he is lying, prove it with the defence of your lawyer. As well as Trump needs to prove that the elections were rigged.
I’m afraid the only expertise of “legal experts” is law. An election is a political venture, not a legal one. So I’m not sure why you’d think his lawyers were the kind of experts he was referring to.
As usual, short on facts and long on hyperbole and misrepresentation. The complaint against Dershowitz has nothing to do with him being a social outcast.
Why would you pretend I said the complaint against Dershowitz has something to do with him being a social outcast? Because you like men of straw.
Fun to watch his few sycophants here playing three card monty with the truth.
You say that he has illustrated how shadowy legal groups like The 65 Project have sought to disbar and condemn the lawyers who work for Trump. How has he illustrated this? In the next sentence you say he notes how he has been effectively alienated from his usual social group because he had the gall to believe that one particular defendent deserved representation.
One has nothing to do with the other, but you move from the one to the other as if it is all one and the same. Until you are called out on it. His defense of Trump in the first impeachment has nothing to do with the 65 Project's complaint against him. He, like Trump, wants to play the victim.
I was just listing the typical anti-Trumpism he faced, at least according to him, both the attempt to remove people from their careers and the ostracism people face should they oppose anti-Trump narratives. He has spoken about it many times.
And if it's true that he just invented that idea out of thin air, I hope he goes to prison for it. That's dictator behaviour.
Obviously, you did not read the complaint against Dershowitz. Your spurious allegation that the 65 Project is shadowy is without evidence. This is a typical Trumpian tactic, attempt to discredit anyone who attempts to bring to light to the actions of Trump and his minions.
Dershowitz and others whose lawsuit, Lake v Hobbs, against the Grand Canyon State’s election process, failed and Dershowitz and the others were sactioned. For details.
He loses fair and square.
Then — surprise — refuses to accept the outcome and tries to literally overturn the election. The justification is irrelevant — it could have been anything. Maybe aliens came down from the moon and rigged the numbers. Of course there’s no evidence for any of it. A child could understand this.
Of course these crazy ramblings and predictable excuses for being a loser had their time in court (laughably), and of course 60+ were thrown out by Republican and Democrat appointed judges.
That brings us to today, where Trump is being held accountable. Turns out you can’t overturn the results just because they hurt your ego.
Maybe one day we’ll get to the bottom of the Moon People stealing the election though. Who knows. :roll:
I don’t care about the complaint of anti-Trump forces, nor if you lap it all up.
https://www.axios.com/2022/03/07/trump-election-lawyers-disbar
At almost every step Ukraine appears to be a common theme. It is becoming more and more evident that Trump got in the way of their ongoing regime-change and proxy war in Ukraine.
Of course you don't. At least now that it is clear you can't spin it the way you want. You brought it up.
Some key points in the Axios article:
1.The group is working to expose and try to disbar lawyers who worked on Donald Trump’s post-election lawsuit.
None of those lawsuits were found to have merit and those who attempt to overturn an election should be exposed. Those who seek to bring it to light do not operate in the shadows.
2.The 65 Project hopes to deter right-wing legal talent from signing on to any future GOP efforts to overturn elections.
3 Advisory board members include Paul Rosenzweig, a conservative and member of the Federalist Society.
Meritless efforts to overturn an election should not be tolerated.
Your emphasis does nothing but distract from what you’re trying to hide.
More key points:
1. The project was devised by Melissa Moss, a Democratic consultant and former senior Clinton administration official.
2. Some of the attorney targets already have been hit with bar complaints. One going after Georgia attorney Brad Carver for his role as an alternate elector was dismissed for lack of evidence. Carver, in an email to Axios, reiterated his position that his involvement was legally appropriate.
3. "This is mostly important for the deterrent effect that it can bring so that you can kill the pool of available legal talent going forward," according to a person involved with the effort, who asked to remain anonymous.
4. Advisory board members include former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.); and Paul Rosenzweig, a conservative and member of the Federalist Society who was former senior counsel for Ken Starr's Clint0n-era Whitewater investigation and served in George W. Bush's Department of Homeland Security.
I am not trying to hide anything. Let's look at your key points:
1. As I said, this is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, as your point 4 supports. The reason why most are Democrats is because most Republicans lack to backbone to stand against Trump and his efforts to overturn the election.
2. Brad Carver's case was dismissed. So? He is one out of over 100 they are targeting. Do you really think that one case being dismissed means that over 100 lawyers did not attempt to overturn the election? Or do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?
3. Yes. They have made their intentions clear: deterring lawyers from attempts to overturn future legitimate elections. Again, do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?
4. Daschle, a Democrat is a member of the advisory board. Paul Rosenzweig, as I pointed out, is a conservative and member of the Federalist Society. A Democrat and a Republican working together to preserve election integrity. Sounds suspicious! I better hide that.
I never said it was a Democrat vs Republican issue, I’m afraid, so your argument means nothing. I strictly used the phrase “anti-Trump forces”. I was noting the “typical anti-Trumpism” Dershowitz (a Democrat) and other lawyers were facing. It’s no secret the neoconservative wing of the grand ol’ party are NeveverTrump. Besides that, Rosenzweig has voted for Democrats since 2018. Who cares about their party affiliation? More straw men.
“A dark money group with ties to Democratic Party heavyweights will spend millions this year to expose and try to disbar more than 100 lawyers who worked on Donald Trump’s post-election lawsuits”. This, according to Fooloso, is a bipartisan effort to “preserve election integrity”. No greater amount of hokum has foamed at the corners of someone’s mouth.
Inside the Next Republican Revolution
[sup]— Michael Hirsh · POLITICO · Sep 19, 2023[/sup]
Particularly the equivalence drawn between Bernie and Donald. I'm reminded of the French revolution as much as of the rise of Fascism in the 30's. A system that cannot adapt fast enough has to collapse, and that is what consensus politics is doing.
"Heads must roll" is the new consensus, but also "Not mine". The contradictions are obvious. The turmoil will not lead to what its instigators want though, but to a political system that will address the new imperatives - to Green Fascism. We will face reality eventually, when everything else has been tried and has failed. And by then the global power will be China, because they already have the autocratic system in place, and have already shown themselves capable of radical change of policy.
In the dispute between liberty and the laws of physics, liberty is bound to lose.
The argument for more participatory democracy in a nutshell but instead they prefer to vest all power in the President and defund all countervailing powers. The performative contradiction alone makes me giggle.
You accused me of hiding something and identified four key points. The first of your key points was that the project was started by a Democrat.
Quoting NOS4A2
He was a Democrat. He says he has been excluded. His resentment against the Democrats is evident. This is his membership card to the Party of Trump.
Quoting NOS4A2
Apparently you do, until you don't. But then again you do:
Quoting NOS4A2
In all this pointing to and then denying the importance of party affiliation, you overlook the main issue:
Election integrity. I'll ask you for the third time. Do you think that there is nothing wrong with an attempt to overturn the election?
There is nothing wrong with contesting an election. There is something wrong with McCarthyism and seeking to disbar and ostracize people who do contest elections.
Challenging the legality or validity of an election. What do you think it means?
If my company underpaid me I could challenge my paycheck. It's a bit beyond "challenging my paycheck" if I go to the office after work hours and ask the janitor to just let me into the company safe so I can take everything I think the company owes me.
Have you seen or read any quotes from Trump or others using the phrase “overturn the election”? Has he requested, demanded, or pressured anyone to do such a thing? In my searching I’ve found nothing, so naturally I’m curious how this phrase has dropped into the political lexicon and is now repeated as if it occurred.
Yes, quite obviously so. I know you know that
There's a Wikipedia page for it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
I don’t know that because I haven’t seen it. If it’s that obvious then such a quote should be easy to find.
If you want to know why the rest of the world thinks it's obvious he tried to overturn the election, there's an entire Wikipedia article for you to peruse, with sources cited.
"It's obvious" is not a good enough answer, I'm afraid. I suspect you repeat the phrase because others do, because of propaganda.
I can take one example from your Wikipedia page and illustrate my point.
"In the days after the election, Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, exchanged 29 text messages with Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, urging him to pursue efforts to overturn the election. "
Then when I read from the source texts, she urges no such thing. So where does this idea come from if not from propaganda?
https://archive.ph/7pIGc
There's a handful of definitions online, brittanica gives one:
to decide that (a ruling, decision, etc.) is wrong and change it
Is this not literally what he was trying to do? There's not even a negative connotation to this word, some legal rulings SHOULD be overturned.
He wasn't asking those people in Georgia to find 11,000 votes because he wanted the results of the election to stay the same, was he?
Do you have some other definition of overturn? Or do you really think he wasn't trying to have the results changed because they were rigged according to him? Don't play games, be honest.
To reverse, flip, or abolish a decision. Such a thing can only occur once the truth is established, only after an election is contested, perhaps even held again. For some reason or other you say that Trump and his team were doing one and not the other. Why not just say he was contesting the election?
You don't ask to find 11k votes to contest the election.
You do those things to change the election.
And, of course, you would only contest the results to change them anyway. You're not contesting them if you want them to stay the same ffs.
Contesting an election and attempting to overturn an election are two different things. As much as you attempt for it to be otherwise this is not a partisan issue.
After asking you three times you still have not said whether you think it is wrong to attempt to overturn an election.
Quoting NOS4A2
There is a telling connection between Trump and McCarthy - Trump's mentor, Roy Cohn.
Yes you do.
You’re subject to The Big Lie, which according to Goebbels, is “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”.
I’m willing to hear any argument that I have.
We have to be careful in not jumping at such affirmations too quickly. If someone is opposed to Woke culture, he is already a liar and doesn't live in the real world. Who is the liar and the truth seeker here? Please, we have to let the judges do their job and stay away from the media and journalists more often.
I am susceptible to lies and am fully aware of my biases. All I can do is listen to both sides of the story, any information that is available, and come to my own conclusions.
Yes, I think it is possible Trump lost the election and tried to take it back by potentially illegally means.
No. I actually expect him to be found guilty. I have zero faith in the US legal system. If he is acquitted I will be pleasantly surprised.
I hate judges and lawyers. I despise the whole profession and the system upon which it is maintained. I don’t even like the US constitution. The only thing that would affect my own beliefs would be the evidence.
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-elections-donald-trump-campaigns-presidential-4e7e68e2ff57aadd96d09c873a43a317
You're OK with that?
I understand your scepticism, but the evidence you are looking for needs to be proven in court. It is just my own belief, but a court room should be the only place where the evidence is the object of debate and contradiction. I mean, it is not a TV show or plot. If we allow people to interpret the evidence freely, we have the risk of never knowing the truth. In this case, we need an order and that's why people go to court. Whether the system could be flawed or not. Better this than nothing, don't you think?
Well, that is a step in the right direction, but you leave the back door open. To say that it is possible he lost is to say it is possible he did not lose. If he lost then attempts to "take it back", no matter by the means, is illegal. To act on the possibility he did not lose when the evidence points unquestionably to the fact that he did lose is to act irresponsibly and any lawyer who knowingly attempts to "take it back" demonstrates either a disregard for the law or in inability to deal with reality. In either case, they are unfit to practice law.
I can agree to that. The court is a good venue in which to argue the evidence. What I mean is I need to see the evidence and use my own judgement rather than trust the word of some judge or juror. That is why I hope these trials are broadcasted live.
May I ask, why?
Not permitting elections to be challenged is that which is anti-democratic. This is what neurotic pseudo democracies, tin-pot dictatorships do. Pursing legal action against Trump or anyone who challenges an election is the crime. This is Democracy in name only.
It does not matter how Trump said it. There are thousands of ways to interpret everything anyone might say. This type of argumentation belongs on the schoolyard - which is pretty much the standard of our collective public discourse. The partisanship is just f... insane.
Notice, how the actual detail and substance of Trump's claims are never discussed. The irregularities are too large to cover. They are dismissed because "the courts dismissed them" But the courts did not dismiss the claims - the courts refused to hear them.
It is clear that the Public is easily manipulated by its media. We are all it's victims. The truth is the collective media refused to take the myriad of real anomalies in the 2020 election seriously. On the other hand, following the 2016 result, the very same media decided to make the Russian election interference into an issue when it lacked any facts at all to support the claim. And although that Russian myth has been repeatedly substantiated as complete nonsense our collective brains remain addled with Russian hysteria.
At this point I'm convinced all of us, including myself, are not just confused but mentally deranged. We increasingly believe completely illogically nonsense about just about everything. Forget turtles its nonsense all the way down.
It all began when we discovered that buildings could collapse in defiance of physical laws, Mosques hid terrorists, Bombing countries became virtuous, GDP could be increased by printing money, Carbon is toxic, we all have repressed memories of sexual abuse and that all our white impoverished, illiterate, poor ancestors were really privileged racists.
Thank god for porn and butt toys.
Isn't that a good thing, after all, the media always tells the truth and is looking out for the best interests of the people?
It really doesn't matter much what the media did, Trump's team brought their evidence to MANY courts and they were laughed out of every court room for insufficient evidence.
Trump isn't on trial for questioning the results. Trump is on trial for what he did to get the results changed. It's very dishonest to say he's on trial for asking questions.
I hope you are talking ironically. It is a fact that Trump was already sentenced by the media, but now we have to see what will happen when he faces the trial.
Why not? I see double standards here. You are complaining about Trump's behaviour in the 2020 election, but you see OK how the media try to manipulate us... This is a contradiction, don't you think?
You have some assumptions here, as well, that are very premature. Do you know that you weren't manipulated by the media you've been consuming? You're assuming it's everyone else that's been manipulated and not you, but you've been consuming media too, presumably you are capable of conceiving of the possibility that it's you who's been manipulated by the media you're consuming, and the rest of the media has been reporting most of the stuff going on with Trump with more objectivity than the media you consume.
Can you imagine a world where that's the case?
The courts didn't give him standing, they didn't hear the substance of the claims.
Imagine you saw an election in another country where the people counting the votes are screening the view from official scrutineers using cardboard? Imagine, just the 6 states that will decide the vote all cease counting at exactly the same time - just as one candidate is about 10 minutes from winning if the trend continues - and then after the inexplicable pause - the trend miraculously reverts to the other candidate? In any other country, at almost any other time in history, there would have been an insurrection. But in our modern USA, in the land of the free and independent not the anomalies were memory holed. This is a farce of democracy.
What happened? Biden received the most votes in history. A man barely coheren,t who could not fill a town hall , is claimed to have received a record number of votes. And when the vote was challenged, not a single mainstream media outlet wanted the ratings bonanza of turning it into a scandal. No court would hear it. But the same courts were eager to elevate a guided tour of the Capitol building as something akin to the storming of the Bastille.
Whatever all this is, it is not a democracy.
I do not consume media. I just try to figure out what happens by myself, only if I am capable of doing so. But, one of my main purposes, is to get away from the media as much as I can. It is obvious that journalists are not the ones who are there to tell the truth, are they anyway? I am learning more on this forum than anywhere else.
Quoting flannel jesus
Absolutely. But I do not know any. Can you please tell me one press which acts objectively?
"[i]In his Nov. 21 order dismissing the case, Brann criticized the Trump campaign for seeking to prevent Pennsylvania from certifying its election results without presenting any evidence to support such a “drastic remedy.”
“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote. “Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state.”[/i]
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/06/rudy-giulianis-bogus-election-fraud-claims/
Did you believe in Sydney Powell's Kraken?
You can't do that without consuming media. You don't have access to the raw data, you only have access to information filtered through previous information sources - IE media. You cannot "figure out" what happens without consuming media.
Quoting javi2541997
I said more objectively, not objectively.
If one media outlet is saying he's done criminal things, and the other media outlet is saying he hasn't done criminal things, one of those is probably being more objective than the other.
As soon as that is clear, worrying about election rigging and democracy is redundant. The people who pull the strings of the public will pull them anyway. This is a claim that is made by *looks around at presidential history* Reagan and Trump, the media star presidents.
It’s been a scandal since day one, what are you talking about?
Well, I think that's sad and non democratic. Since each piece of information is filtered into the press and media, we (the "consumers") will receive a biased information and not the real facts. I wonder, would we know all the truth of Trump's case one day? We have the right to doubt on the information provided by the press and media, and we should not believe in them blindly.
Quoting flannel jesus
Oh, really? :roll: I only see biassed and bipartisan interests here...
Just ask yourself what would the right wing media, that's currently saying trump did nothing wrong, react like if Biden does the same thing in 2024? If Biden loses, starts calling states asking to find him votes, hires some fake electors to falsify electoral college votes, convinces a crowd of his followers to storm the capitol?
That is a problem that no one ever talks about. Even canpaign finance reform has been discussed. But I can understand your distress. Despite that, their is much valid argument contradicting your claim.
I always hope my facetiousness communicates in text.
That is nothing new. Plenty of people are demonized by the media apriori, which stirs public opinion prior to due process. What's wrong with that? :wink:
You agree with me in admitting that the press will manipulate us one side or the other. It is just my personal opinion, but if the press were not that biassed, maybe the capitol accident would not have happened. This scenario was completely out of Trump's hands and maybe he didn't even expect such action from his sympathisers. I think, thinking otherwise is twisted. Some people would be happy if Trump continued on this path, because he is in the middle of a hurricane. Maybe the press is manipulating us to speak and debate on the 2020 issue instead of the Afghanistan crisis. Maybe...
Good method! I like it. :up:
The purpose of the modern press is to propagandize us, not inform us. No?
How do you figure?
https://time.com/6199490/trump-jan-6-oath-dereliction-duty/
“There’s no ambiguity in what he said,” Kinzinger said. “Almost everybody wanted Trump to instruct the mob to disperse. Trump refused.”
You might argue that he didn't want what happened at January 6 to happen, but he certainly didn't even do the bare minimum to stop it. Not so much as a tweet.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/jan-6-panel-has-firsthand-testimony-ivanka-asked-trump-intervene-n1286831
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/22/1112323797/jan-6-hearing-recap-187-minutes
"President Trump sat in his dining room and watched the attack on television while his senior-most staff closest advisers and family members begged him to do what is expected of any American president."
This all puts me in a position where I have to wonder, did he in fact want what happened to happen?
It is just my own opinion.
Quoting flannel jesus
How can we stop a mob at all? We are already used to the flammable Trump's vocabulary, and how quickly it spreads amongst the people. His personality is high, and when he says any statement he will not go back. The sympathisers took his words or message so feverishly.
He had many options. He took none of them.
I cannot see otherwise. At least, I cannot find a real press where the news is told objectively. It is clear that they are aware of their power of information and how quickly it is shared around the world. All filtrated information tends to be biassed.
Does he have a legal obligation to do anything about it?
That is a fine term
We are, of course, speaking extemporaneously, so I will say that is a long story to implicate him for sedition. There are equal presidential crimes that have a much more direct line, like bush and iraq war, or obama and nsa spy program.
Except when you give a whatabout:
Quoting flannel jesus
Hypocrite cretin
This thread title indicates the conversation is about trump. It's not about whether starting the war in Vietnam was a crime. It's about trump.
It's not hypocritical of me to say I'm not interested in whataboutism about the crimes of random other unrelated people from long before trump was president.
Interesting comparison, minus: the Bastille is lame in comparison to tha Capitol Building
"I went around handing out shits on plates at all the tables and no one was eating it, then suddenly a professional chef starts handing out perfectly seared steak and suddenly everyone has an appetite!"
I don't think that's a particularly interesting scenario. Of course people react differently to different things.
Poor old Trump, the compulsive litigator and packer of the supreme court, never gets a fair break from the law.
Poor old Trump, not a dollar to his name, working hard for the people for no personal gain.
Just like Jesus really.
There was “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information”. This is according to their own admission.
“Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation [the censorship of Hunter Biden’s laptop] and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result.”
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Of course, it all favored one candidate.
That rings a bell! Oh yes, I debated it with @flannel jesus a few hours ago, but it seems that if the media manipulate us to not focusing on Baden's [s]shit[/s], it is acceptable.
They are not keeping it secret. My guess is they knew they couldn’t keep their election rigging secret, so they did what they already admitted to doing, control the flow of information. Since smooth-brains tend to believe everything these people write, all they had to do was say their efforts were to “save democracy”, and other glittering generalities. “They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. ” Riiiiiiiight.
If they are open about deliberately stealing the election via fake votes of some kind, please show me. Where's this confession?
There is no single entity "the media". Fox News is a member of the media. All those sources that are competing to be to the right of Fox are members of the media.
There was “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information”. This is according to their own admission.
“Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation [the censorship of Hunter Biden’s laptop] and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result.”
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Of course, it all favored one candidate.
Some sources are more reliable than others. Which is not to say that any source always gets everything right.
Also:
Of course, these efforts all favored one candidate.
I never said they were confessing to falsifying votes.
A glittering generality or two and praxis is persuaded.
I was reposting the argument to which you replied. Why would you ask about “falsifying votes”?
I’m arguing the election was rigged. Everything from changing election laws behind the backs of Americans, flooding the system with dark money, threatening riots should they lose, suppressing and controlling information…it’s all there
Persuaded to what? You’re the one pointing to the article as truth.
If you believe one can only rig an election by falsifying votes and/or throwing them away then I’m not going to satisfy you.
“The President [Trump] spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.” His henchmen at the state level sought to block their use, while his lawyers brought dozens of spurious suits to make it more difficult to vote–an intensification of the GOP’s legacy of suppressive tactics. Before the election, Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count. And he spent the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he’d lost–with lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol.”
Your argument seems to include that Trump attempted to rig the election from his position as president and, like so many other failures, he bungled it.
I pointed to the article to show that certain actors admitted to a conspiracy to alter election laws behind the backs of Americans, to use dark money to election infrastructure, to suppress and manipulate information, and so on. The whole article is a propaganda piece and an admission of guilt all in one. You’re simply repeating the propaganda, while avoiding their admission.
So you’re claiming that the portion of the article describing Trump’s efforts to rig the election is false?
I’m saying it’s propaganda, written by Nancy Pelosi’s biographer, no less.
According to your understanding of election rigging, the article describes both sides as guilty of it, so how could it be considered propaganda if it doesn’t favor one side or the other?
From his position as president Trump did spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.” We all witnessed that.
Without trying to check it’s easy to think that Trump’s henchmen at the state level sought to block mail-in ballots, while his lawyers brought dozens of spurious suits to make it more difficult to vote–an intensification of the GOP’s legacy of suppressive tactics.
I don’t know how true it is that Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count before the election, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Of course we all witnessed Trump spending the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he’d lost–with lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol.
Of course, it all favored one candidate, and that candidate was Trump himself.
This is what NOS considers rigging an election. I guess he counts this as another Trump failure.
Not a big fan of diversity, it seems
On election night, I had some money placed on the result. When the vote count paused, I jotted down the interim count numbers for the key states. Below are the numbers when the count stopped and then the final result.
Pennsylvannia Votes when the election count paused
Total counted 5,250,192 - 78% of count complete
Trump 2,964,097- 56.5%
Biden 2,286,095 - 43.5%
Counting Resumes
Total Counted 1,511,630 - 22.4% after Resumption
Trump 385,070 -25.5%
Biden 1,125,560 - 74.5%
FINAL RESULT
TOTAL ALL VOTES 6,761,630 - 100%
Trump - 3,349,167 - 49.55
Biden - 3,411,655 - 50.45
Something like the same occurred in Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia
Putting aside the inexplicable pause, the official argument is that the mail in ballots favoured Biden heavily and must have been counted last. The problem with this argument is that in all these states, the mail in vote was something close to or over 50% of the total vote. But at the time of the pause 78% of the total vote had been counted already in Pennsylvania, meaning over half the mail in ballots had already been counted and the counting up to the moment of the pause had revealed no sudden shifts either way.
The odds of this happening in one state is akin to winning the lottery - so it's possible.
For this to occur in 4 states is like winning the lottery four weeks in a row with the same numbers.
There is evidence a plenty, but you need to want to look
The mail in ballots were breaking for Biden the entire time. It was more pronounced at the end, since they were the only ones remaining. It was also required that they not be counted until Election Day, so were bound to be slower.
Quoting yebiga
Why are you making things up?
This was talked about and predicted months in advance: it would take longer to count the mail ballots. They would be overwhelmingly Democratic— but that’s Trump’s fault. He was telling his supporters to vote in person.
So the odds of WHAT happening, exactly? The most obvious thing in the world? That’s hardly like winning the lottery.
Quoting yebiga
Amazing! And thank you for showing your evidences and proofs.
I experienced the same issue in the elections of my country regarding mail voting. The country I live in is poorer and less democratic than yours, but it is interesting how the socialists used the same pattern.
As much as I could find out reliable data because this is controlled by the government, the count numbers go as follows:
The socialists asked the people in the July 2023 elections to put into practice the voting system. 2,622,808 mail-in ballots were accepted. Surprise! 53.6 % of those mail ballots favoured the leftists, who will set up the government in November.
Sadly, our political system doesn't allow the most voted list to rule on. The conservatives "won" the number of poll ballots (eight million) but due to the mail ballots, the socialists ended up receiving more seats than expected. Suspicious, opaque, cheating, etc. I know that there are many differences in the voting system between the U.S. and Spain, but I see that the mail system only favoured one party in both cases. :chin:
If making it easier for people to vote favours one candidate then that candidate just has more popular support.
The notion that we should allow voter suppression and disinformation so that the less favoured candidate has a better chance at winning is absurd.
But the democratic principle must be to let everybody vote as easily as possible, not to put barriers in the way of, say, people who have to use public transport during a pandemic.
So postal voting is only a 'steal' tactic if fraud is taking place, not if it favours one candidate. Rather, measures to limit the vote, even if disguised as 'security measures' are an attempt to steal, unless there is evidence of widespread fraud that needs to be curtailed.
Bingo. These guys see that when voting is made easier, a lot of people vote left. They see this as evidence of corruption on the left, they completely discount the possibility that it's evidence of corruption on the right.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/10/31/conservative-republicans-are-least-supportive-of-making-it-easy-for-everyone-to-vote/
Conservatives don't want it to be easy for people to vote.
It is literally the contrary. When people have more access to voting, the number of votes turns right because the citizens tend to be more conservative than leftists statistically.
It literally isn't, because citizens tend to be more leftist than conservatives statistically. But literally provide any evidence of what you say, because all the evidence I see is that the right wants to restrict the vote and the left wants to expand it in every case I know of, whether it is blacks, postal votes, women, young people, whatever.
If making it easier to vote were good for conservatives, why in the world did Donald trump talk so much smack on mail in voting? Shouldn't he be a big fan?
Did you know Donald trump himself does mail in voting?
Not really, at least not in the Mediterranean nations, or old East European countries, such as Poland, Serbia, Hungary, etc. Here is the evidence you are asking for:
Spain: https://www.socialeurope.eu/is-spain-on-the-right-track
Greece: https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/greece/
Italy: https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/italy/
Poland: https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/poland/ (67 % are conservatives! )
Hungary: Hungary Is the Most Right-Wing Nation in Europe
Serbia: Together, these right-leaning parties won more than 77 per cent of the popular vote (https://balkaninsight.com/2020/08/04/serbias-right-wing-shift-risks-fuelling-extremism/)
He was asking for a more regulated and guaranteed mail voting system, because he suspected why Biden was obsessed with using this method. Wouldn't you be worried if a candidate decides to "overreacting" on a voting system? Yet, there were errors in the counting, and the votes needed to be counted again. This makes less confidence.
Quoting flannel jesus
President's security service. Does this ring a bell to you?
He voted by mail before he was president.
Statistically speaking, the right wing has two good elements to win the elections but - for whatever reason - are not used sometimes:
1) an united block. The left tends to be divided in different sections, at least in Europe.
2) the "mob" (as flannel jesus says) tend to be more active in the right, because, believe it or not, these voters tend to have more confidence in the state. Meanwhile, leftists just do not go to vote because it is an act "against the system".
So, if we let the people go to vote with confidence, they probably would end up voting for the right wing. But, if the environment is twisted and the people are not sure of what is going on, they vote for the left. I mean, people vote left because they are fearful. Just check the results. When the percentage of voters is small, people go and vote for socialism. Paradoxically, they think that voting left provides a secured position to their rights, which it is the opposite.
Exactly. Before everything went twisted, you have answered to yourself.
What major event occurred during the 2020 election that increased the number of mail in votes?
What was the response on the right and left to that event?
Socialists are usually accused of having too much confidence in the state and left to their own devices they’d walk wide-eyed into an Orwellian dystopia. On the other hand, American conservatives tend to believe that the state is inherently incompetent and corrupt and that’s the justification for wanting it to be as small as possible.
Quoting javi2541997
In America right-wing politicians tend to use fear tactics. Just look at Trump for example.
Where did you get this from?
Here's a paper that says the opposite:
"The article employs nonparametric meta-analytic methods to synthesize a large number of empirical studies and demonstrates that low structural turnout does indeed favor the right in theoretically predictable ways."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21565503.2015.1124789
Are you just throwing things out there that you feel or want to be correct? Because the general form of "reasoning" employed seems to be "My team is better so if my team loses there must be some cheating going on". This is what I mean by sillliness.
Interesting. Here the opposite happens. Most of the leftists are divided and do not take part in the elections. But, paradoxically, when the participation is low, they win. Because the right wing didn’t have a good plan to move the voters or people in general (when they are larger in numbers statistically)
From what I know of Spanish history I would expect socialism to be less popular there than in the States. Actually I have that backwards, Franco was conservative.
For this, we should surely:
1) Establish, using evidence, the premise that mail-in ballots "always benefit the left". (A contrary view: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-is-no-evidence-that-voting-by-mail-gives-one-party-an-advantage/ Why is this wrong?)
2) Provide some reasoning as to why this is "curious" rather than something we simply can't be bothered expending mental energy on understanding or something with many possible explanations that are not curious.
3) Demonstrate, using evidence, that this "curious" phenomenon necessitates in any way fraud or deception on the part of the party benefiting.
Anything short of this is just wasting space.
Lol.
It’s amazing people can be such complete dupes.
Well Spain is a very different place to the US, or the UK where I am. That might account for our different intuitions. Living with Franco after the civil war, I can see that 'the left' would look disorganised by comparison. And certainly an apathetic to hostile working class can also be a major problem for the left.. I'll just say that Trump is no Franco, and America is not in a state of economic collapse. But nor is it immune from fascist takeover.
There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. It’s so minuscule it’s barely worth mentioning.
All that’s left is the feelings of those who actually listen to Trump’s insane ramblings. “Oh look, more mail in votes went for Biden— isn’t THAT fishy?”
It’d be even funnier if it weren’t so damn pathetic.
There is a Reuters report citing Boris Johnson claiming that the Ukraine won the Second World War and some Japanese diplomat is hinting that it was the Russians who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. Aside from sports results and most weather reports, it is only be exception that anyone could trust the veracity of mainstream media reports.
"Just Two weeks to flatten the curve?'
You are allowed to insult me because you are a moderator. If I were the one who disrespects you, I would be banned instantly. Ah, the hypocrisy man. As a good socialist.
Those are good points, Baden, and I partially agree. Your arguments can only be applied to democracies which work well or at least better than other countries. I have no doubt that it can work in the UK or Ireland, because I guess there is a bit of corruption in public administration if we compare it amongst other nations.
On the other hand, it is true that I am not providing enough evidence that the mail voting system could be a fraud, and I understand the criticism in my argumentation. Nonetheless, this is not correlated to the fact that I have to believe in such a system blindly. That's what I am complaining about. Some users see this system as purely perfect. Well, we are in a philosophical forum, and we have the right to debate and doubt.
My intention is not to support Trump or just to "flex" and act as an internet troll. I just wanted to make counterarguments and doubt everything. Why do I have to believe in the mail voting system? Why do I have to condemn Trump when an American court hasn't condemned him yet? Etc. Who am I to do so?
Quoting praxis
It is less popular, no doubts. But they win because they are covered by separatists and nationalists from Catalonia and the Basque Country. At the end of the day, it has more value for a few voters of Barcelona or Bilbao than the rest of the nation. I am not living under a democracy and I have already accepted it...
Why would someone not believe in mail-in voting? Hopefully because there is evidence that shows it’s unreliable and not because a politician says it’s unreliable.
Btw, if voting systems are prone to fraud, how do we know that only democrats abuse it? Maybe the cheaters are republicans.
Ah, ok, I guess I understand you a bit better. There are some here who are genuinely uninterested in doing anything but repeating Trump's nonsense though. I don't see this as exactly symmetrical as I don't think I've ever met a Biden supporter here so enthralled with the man that they are willing to say anything to disguise his shortcomings.
I believe them over the ramblings of an internet dude. Especially when the “evidence” is so easily reduced to the crap it is.
But it’s fun to watch you pick and choose when it’s convenient. Kinda like Trump and polls: when they show him ahead, they’re accurate. If not, rigged.
Quoting javi2541997
Hey you’re the one calling yourself a troll. I just happen to think you’re correct.
If someone forcing you to believe that? By what means are they forcing you to believe that?
The system is trusted by post officers. I don't have anything against them, and they have all my respect. But you know, people can make mistakes too. If you are not the one who deposit the ballot in the box, you are acting blindly, and you have to believe in the system a lot. It could happen that those post officers are forced to switch the numbers of ballots or fake them.
Evidence: https://www.msn.com/es-es/noticias/espana/un-juzgado-abre-una-investigaci%C3%B3n-ante-los-indicios-de-compra-de-votos-por-correo-en-melilla/ar-AA1bnnbm
Rejected for arriving late or other human errors which complicate the counting. Hundreds of thousands of ballots go uncounted each year because people make mistakes, such as forgetting to sign the form or sending it in too late. Evidence: Source, NPR survey of individual Secretary of State and state election offices Credit: Ruth Talbot and Elena Moore/NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/13/889751095/signed-sealed-undelivered-thousands-of-mail-in-ballots-rejected-for-tardiness
:up:
And breathe.
In particular, you are one of the obsessed supporters of mail voting systems. Whenever I made a counter-argument, you quickly answered: How can you not believe in this system? It is perfect ans they do not rig results!!!1!1!1!1!.
Making it easier for people to vote isn't a bad thing.
Quoting NOS4A2
Removing disinformation isn't a bad thing.
Quoting NOS4A2
Ensuring that legitimate votes are counted and preventing an unlawful attempt to overturn the legitimate results of the election isn't a bad thing.
Unless you're going to argue, with evidence, that there was widespread voter fraud in favour of Biden, or that legitimate votes for Trump weren't counted, then you have no leg to stand on. You're just engaging in sophistry.
Biden was the legitimate winner of the election.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/theatlantic/status/1704834556585767252?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
I heard it becomes more true the more you repeat their spin.
You heard wrong.
Don’t bother. I only wished to note the glittering generalities at work here.
I don't know about Spain (and I can't read Spanish) but the US postal service is quite reliable.
Regarding rejected votes due to human errors in mail-in voting, as well as mail-in votes lost in the mail, both would seems to favor Republicans.
They went by, or still go by, the likes of (ordered by timestamp) ...
Despite election results showing Biden win, Pompeo said he expects 'transition to a second Trump administration' (Deirdre Shesgreen · USA TODAY · Nov 10, 2020) — expectations
Press Conference: Election Whistleblowers Come Forward (Amistad Project via PRNewswire · Dec 1, 2020)
Peter Navarro releases 36-page report alleging election fraud 'more than sufficient' to swing victory to Trump (Andrew Mark Miller · Washington Examiner · Dec 17, 2020)
What’s the real evidence for 2020 Election Fraud? (John Berea · winteryknight.com · Jan 18, 2021)
Tucker Carlson Addresses 2020 Election Issues In Fulton County, Georgia (DEEP STATE [2] · Jul 14, 2021 · 6m:59s)
'I Personally Witnessed It': Witness Describes Seeing Voter Fraud To Alex Padilla (Forbes · Jun 9, 2023 · 4m:59s)
Georgia poll workers accused in Trump-backed conspiracy theories cleared of election fraud allegations (Lucien Bruggeman · ABC · Jun 20, 2023) — exonerated
Fish Tank Paradox; a simple explanation of how our elections are rigged using arithmetic. (Edward Solomon · Aug 14, 2023 · 1h:37m:56s)
Some of this stuff is lengthy, tedious, confusing, ambiguous, ... Venture down Alice's proverbial rabbit hole at your own risk.
There has been responses to much of this of course [sup](e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)[/sup], but conspiracy theorists dismiss fact-checkers and whatever else, yet express certainty that the Clown won.
EDIT: my underworld informants slipped me another few sources :)
New "hybrid" voting system can change paper ballot after it's been cast (Salon · Mar 28, 2019)
An Election Security Disaster - Hybrid Voting Machines (Part 1: Dominion vs. The Experts) (Shugah Works · Apr 27, 2019 · 5m:21s)
An Election Security Disaster - Hybrid Voting Machines (Part 2: What's Behind This Deal?) (Shugah Works · Jun 2, 2019 · 6m:55s)
Exclusive: Philadelphia's new voting machines under scrutiny in Tuesday's elections (Reuters · Jun 1, 2020)
Georgia Havoc Raises New Doubts on Pricey Voting Machines (New York Times · Jun 11, 2020)
Laptop, USB drives stolen from Philly election-staging site (AP · Oct 1, 2020)
The sorts of things they went by or still go by
One of the main interesting things about this amazing debate we are having, is that you folks are given for granted that I root for Republicans when I am not even American. Speaking frankly, yes, I am right wing (if my attitude has not already proved it). On the other hand, that statistic proves it all. 58 % is a big percentage of mail-in votes. Why did they have such confidence in this system when it is clear that it is flawed? A lot of unknowns remain. I appreciate your effort in showing the evidence, but the system is still opaque to me. It is not only about who is benefited by this, I am talking about a guaranteed system. Maybe I look like a stubborn in my opposition to mail-in votes, but at least you would agree with me that it is not a perfect system which we should believe in blindly.
Conspiracy theories? Just because we show a system which lacks guarantees? I never thought that being sceptic would be a big deal.
I didn't feel threatened, I just wanted to discuss your obsession with the mail-in vote system. I think you would be very happy working in a post office, and counting votes.
I know you're not American. This is a discussion about American politics, or rather, a discussion about an American politician, so of course it will default to that. I know practically nothing about the current politics in Spain although I know there is a general distinction between socialism and conservatism. I would be surprised, actually, if you were a Trump supporter, even though Trump is very anti-socialist.
Quoting javi2541997
It's not at all clear that American mail-in voting is significantly flawed. Have you in any way shown that it is?
These candidates lost badly, but now are claiming fraud
[sup]— Stephen Fowler · NPR · Jul 2, 2022[/sup]
Quoting Couy Griffin
It is comprehensible because we are not that interesting, and better for you because you will feel disappointed if you dive in our matters. Although this is an American political thread, it has an impact worldwide and the President of the United States is the leader of the Western world and NATO (where Spain is part of). I think that when Republicans are in power, Spain has a better position in the American radar. Bush and Aznar were good mates, but this story remains in the past. It is true that Obama's family have visited Spain a few times too, and we were also on your radar in our worst time (2008 - 2012). I understand that maybe some of you do not understand why we care if we are not Americans. Well, I want to highlight my words again: The USA has a big impact on the world and this is why we are interested. My participation in this thread is not with bad faith nor silliness. And, if you do not mind, I will keep in touch on this topic, and see how this matter ends up. Respecting your nation, of course!
Quoting praxis
OK, I see. Then, we can assume that the American postal service is reliable, but this doesn't mean that it works worldwide (it doesn't matter if you care about other nations or not).
Time to leave it there... I think you are starting to troll me.
Interesting data, indeed. Well, your post just proves that I am - more or less - right.
I did not mean to suggest in any way your participation in this topic is inappropriate or whatever. Honestly, I value the perspective of people from other countries, and there is certainly no need to show respect for America on my account.
I often feel a little embarrassed by how little I follow the politics of other countries when the world seems to pay so much attention to American politics.
Don't be such a snowflake. People are going to disagree with you here, that's acceptable and it's not force.
snowflake!?
You are the one who quickly felt intimidated when I disagreed with you regarding the counting mail-in votes. I have provided some arguments for why I consider it a flawed system. Maybe I lacked rigid evidence, but the point was not believing in such a system blindly. I hope you got the message at least.
On the other hand, You were "forcing" me to believe in mail-in votes, you even looked devastated. You found someone like me who doesn't follow up your argument plainly. Oh, here are the proofs, which are very popular in this thread: There's no casual connection for some reason in their minds., Fighting bad guys can feel terribly biased when the guy I want to win happens to be the bad guy., Did you know Donald trump himself does mail in voting? The latter is my favourite one. It is clear that you are a mail lover.
If you feel like you're being forced to believe something because someone says something you disagree with, yes I think you need to toughen up a little bit
"That's very very bad folks! I will get you all back on topic, which is my greatness, or lock you all up and build a wall round you, that you will pay for.'
:lol:
Donald Trump has not been convicted yet, so he can purchase a weapon if we interpret the Federal Law plainly.
Under the main federal gun law, 18 U.S.C. 922, does not appear to prohibit people under indictment from simply buying or possessing weapons... ATF Identify Prohibited Persons.
[i]The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:
convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
who is a fugitive from justice;
who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
who is an illegal alien;
who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;
who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or
who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.[/i]
From the next section of the article you linked to:
As the news article says:
Trump would have had to lie on the form (much like Hunter Biden lied on his) to buy a gun.
Of course, perhaps this is all moot and Trump never bought a gun. Perhaps his spokesman was lying. This was probably just propaganda to appease the gun nuts.
But, according to some district courts, such a section is unconstitutional:
“[a]lthough not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922(n) — which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm — aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922(n) is unconstitutional. The Court said that the “Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right. In addition, the decision casts substantial doubt on whether 18 USC § 922(g) – which prohibits people convicted of felonies from possessing guns or ammo – is still constitutional in light of Bruen.
Bruen held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government… must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms….” https://lisa-legalinfo.com/2022/09/26/district-court-decision-questions-everything-in-18-usc-922-update-for-september-26-2022/
So, let's see what the judges decide regarding this issue, and not some vacuous journalists. :smile:
Bet he'd love to be a dictator.
Claims that Milley made ‘secret’ calls to Chinese leaders exaggerated, sources say
Quoting NOS4A2
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
I really hope you're not suggesting that making a phone call warrants the death penality.
Thanks, unnamed official.
He gave aid and comfort to the enemy behind the back of the president. He admitted to it in his book.
Quoting NOS4A2
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0026.f.cas/0026.f.cas.0018.2.pdf
Clearly I was speaking about the unnamed official, not the named one.
We heard it here first. Lawyers get to determine what an “enemy” is.
You were being facetious, implying that we shouldn't trust the reporting because the official was unnamed. I'm pointing out that the Defense Secretary corroborated the anonymous official's claims.
Quoting NOS4A2
Judges get to.
You’re just quoting disparate paragraphs from all over the internet. You’re not pointing out much. None of it gets into what Milley said to the Chinese.
Sorry, but judges aren’t the commander in chief of the armed forces.
They are the ones who interpret the meaning of the words in the constitution.
Quoting NOS4A2
I'm pointing out that there's every reason to believe that he followed standard procedure. He's not guilty of treason and certainly not deserving of the death penalty.
It isn’t standard procedure to tell a general in a foreign army that he would warn them should the US attack.
As I wrote last year (click on my handle for context), another jackboot has dropped today:
https://youtu.be/dOhxBCOMtWU?si=We7y3-pvOADosoh1 :clap: :grin:
@Benkei @NOS4A2 ...
What a shocker.
This lawsuit should have happened decades ago. He’s been a degenerate fraud since at least the 80s, after all.
Quoting NOS4A2
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-could-letitia-james-civil-lawsuit-against-trump-turn-criminal-1745479
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-sued-by-new-york-attorney-general-fraud-2022-09-21/
So she has authority to bring a civil case but not a criminal case but referred the case to those who do have the authority.
Quoting NOS4A2
The term "liable" was used because it's a civil case, not a criminal case.
Quoting NOS4A2
I don't think SCOTUS has jurisdiction over this. I believe the New York Court of Appeals would be the last resort.
I know what a civil and criminal case is and the difference between liable and guilty. No need to scurry around and gather disparate quotes and authors, which I never read in any case.
When dealing with NOS this should be kept in mind! He has no interest facts or in discussing issues. He is a shill for Trump.
He claims to know the difference a civil and criminal case but also claims that:
Quoting NOS4A2
This is like saying a baseball team refuses to play basketball.
When dealing with Fooloso be prepared nonsensical analogies and other sophistries.
You can't think of any reason why criminal prosecutors would refuse to pursue a case?
Yeah, I've known for a while that you don't discuss these matters in good faith. My replies to you are never really replies to you. I'm providing a public service as a fact-checker for others who read your posts.
One-sided stories, churnalism, contextomy, card-stacking. Propaganda as a public service.
But you trying to suggest that she does but chose not to because she lacks sufficient evidence certainly is propaganda.
I didn't say she chose not to bring a criminal case. I said "prosecutors refused to pursue the case". You even quoted it. Is this your idea of good faith?
I didn’t say you said it. I said you suggested it. Much like with Trump there’s much implicit in what you say.
How is that possible when the sentence you quoted refer to other people? It’s clear to me where the distortion lies. At any rate, that’s my public service for the day.
“Fraud is a crime but prosecutors refused to pursue the case. I wonder why? “Liable” is becoming the common theme because guilt escapes you. New York is a banana republic. See what SCOTUS says. ¯\_(?)_/¯“
Any reasonable person can infer from this that you are suggesting that James lacks the evidence to prove guilt and so didn’t pursue a criminal case, resorting only to a civil case where the standard of proof is lower.
However, if your “I wonder why?” wasn’t rhetorical and if the subsequent sentence was not you answering your own question then I answered your question for you: she doesn’t have authority to pursue a criminal case, only a civil case, which is why she didn’t pursue a criminal case, only a civil case, instead referring allegations of criminal wrongdoing to the relevant authorities.
Let me try to explain this to you. Just as there are things that a baseball team can and cannot do, there are things the NY Attorney General can and cannot do. Just as the claim that a baseball team refuses to play basketball demonstrates ignorance of the game of baseball, claiming that the NY Attorney General refused to bring criminal charges demonstrates ignorance of the office.
Now, when called out, you attempt to hide behind the vagueness of your claims. Despite the fact that it is this case that is in the news, and despite the fact that it was in this case that it was found that he committed fraud, you say you were not referring to the prosecutor in this case, but to some unidentified other prosecutors. So who are these other prosecutors who refused to pursue the case?
I was writing about the prosecutors in the district attorney's office (note: "the prosecutors", "the criminal prosecutors", not "the attorney general") investigating Trump for the exact same thing. If you do not recall two of them quit earlier this year. This was because, to their chagrin, "There was nothing to indict", ie, no crime, no evidence of any crime. They had nothing and were angry the DA refused go along with it. Obviously, you know nothing of this, nor should I be required to fill in the holes of your knowledge, but hopefully this clears it up for you.
Who are you quoting?
What evidence do you have that the district attorney's office is no longer pursuing criminal charges? The so called "Hush Money" case is ongoing and includes criminal charges. Or do you have reliable evidence to the contrary?
I was quoting one of Ankush Khardori's sources from his article in New York Magazine.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/mark-pomerantzs-revealing-fight-with-alvin-bragg-over-trump.html
This seems to be another article you did not read. Pomerantz was a prosecutor, he thought he had a strong case against Trump and wanted to bring criminal charges against him. He was a prosecutor and did not refuse to bring charges. Quite the opposite. This is why he resigned.
The author of the article makes it clear that there was still more work to do. This does not mean the district attorney's office refused to bring criminal charges. Again, quite the opposite. Bragg did not think the case was ready at that point. Subsequently, based on the further work that was done he conclude that their case against Trump was now strong enough and he brought criminal charges against him.
I already said that Pomerantz and another prosecutor resigned. As you have clearly read from the article, there are more prosecutors involved, including Bragg himself.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/26/nyregion/trump-james-fraud-trial.html
What happened to the baseball team analogies?
Here you go:
Team A plays baseball. A discussion arises when team A scores a home run. NOS, that tireless defender of all things Trump, joins in and says that the players, who he calls "prosecutors", refuse to score a basket. When it is pointed out that the rules of baseball do not include scoring baskets, NOS then says that he is not talking about these players/prosecutors
but some as yet unidentified players/prosecutors who, when their identity is disclosed, it turns out play a different game by different rules.
Perhaps he is confused because both teams play in New York. Or perhaps in his attempt to make a molehill out of a mountain, he intentionally conflates these different games.
More obfuscation. You said:
Quoting NOS4A2
There is a difference between not pursuing one case and refusing to prosecute Trump for fraud. Bragg is prosecuting him for fraud. [added: in a criminal trial to establish guilt]
You struck out!
Overvalues his properties when seeking loans and undervalues the same properties when he is seeking to defraud the IRS.
Unless his ever increasing rotating army of lawyers are able to exploit loopholes he is going to find that this defense will be worthless.
Gotta say, though, Jamie Raskin and others are just knocking it out of the park at the sham hearings. It's beyond ridiculous.
As a civil case, where the purported fraud points to getting an unfair advantage within a set of legislated conditions designed to deny that to business owners, an appeal reversal based upon a faulty declaration of facts would be much different than the limits of standard practices. The Trump defense, so far, seems to be angling for the latter. For James to lose on that basis is more of a reflection of New York City and State law than upon the prosecutors. Shysters ride free.
The criminal cases are more substantial. Personal liberty is never something you want to lose. Losing all your money is pretty big too.
I hope mostly that our institutions persist. Trump will be on the wrong side of the sod soon enough. I worry more about the virgins, treasure, and electoral maps that will be buried with him.
What do you say, Dr Freud? Possible signs of anxiety poking through the facade, eh?
Trump's attitude on full display here. "What's in it for them?" is the top question on his mind when he thinks of a soldier that died for his country. That should make it unambiguously clear to everyone: Trump would never imagine doing what's good for other people if he doesn't personally get something out of it.
He never even in his own mind intended to serve America. He is only capable of serving himself.
Disgrace of a human being.
At least neocon Goldberg can now admit who Trump called losers: John McCain and George Bush. Goldberg is one of their cheerleaders, famous for his propaganda regarding the Iraq war.
Before they spun it in the usual way, by removing context and inserting their own. “Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’”, and people still believe it. Dupes passed it around in this very thread even after it was refuted.
Disgraceful propaganda.
Those who were there and who went on record saying none of it happened.
I mean, it all fits the kind of way he talks about veterans. I don't find it unbelievable.
He’s talking about John McCain, a warmonger, not “veterans”.
Yesterday John Kelly, the longest-serving White House chief of staff for Trump confirmed that it's true.
Just out of curiosity, in what context is calling Americans who died in war "Losers" and "Suckers" okay?
No he didn’t. He went on butt-hurt tirade, stringing a loose gathering of words Trump reportedly used in media reports without any reference to anything else.
Well, uh... he in fact did...
And again, just out of curiosity, in what context is calling Americans who died in war "Losers" and "Suckers" okey dokey?
When those veterans are G. Bush and J. McCain.
This written by Bush and mcCain’s chief propagandist.
By the way, they didn’t die in war.
Did Trump ever visit wounded soldiers at Walter Reid?
How does one make the leap from John McCain to all veterans? He’s taking the piss out of one man in particular.
You seem to be confusing the reports.
You seem to be concerned about a few out-of-context words as reported by a disgruntled employee while dismissing everything else Trump has said about the military and veterans over his lifetime.
Trump hired him, and he was Trump's longest-serving chief of staff, so I assume that John Kelly is a slime-ball too. It's characteristic of a slime-ball to turn on their master when it's safe to do so.
That's not a statement about only John McCain. It's not a leap. It's his words.
If I was being critical of some guy who happens to be white, and I said "I prefer people who aren't white," it would be pretty obvious that I'm not talking about JUST the guy who happens to be white. I'm disparaging all white people to insult one white person.
In so doing he exposes his moral panic. The way he strings disparate words together in order to form this weird little narrative, which is apparently newsworthy, is indicative of his psychology or susceptibility to propaganda, one or the other.
One only has to look at the X accounts of the war-machine’s neo-con propagandists, like Frum and Goldberg and Kristol, to see how gleeful they are of Kelly’s tirade, which concerns petty nonsense we all were foaming about years ago.
It’s just a jab at McCain which you construed as a jab at those who were captured. Why should anyone care?
Textbook example of doublethink on part of the Trumpistas.
But doublethink isn't hypocrisy, though.
There is no society, right, there are only individuals doing their jobs, trying to survive.
Trump’s words and cadence and grammar (and spelling) lends itself to ridicule, and rightfully so. But giving speeches is the easy part. In fact I’m glad Trump is bad at it. The whole politics of “optics” and speech-giving can do nothing but bait the public. There is a reason soldiers are captured, and that is because the politics of optics and speech-giving allowed politicians and bureaucrats to send them into other countries with a clean conscience.
McCain and Bush sent people to their death, and they lost. They are losers, and that is not a swipe at losers in general.
It’s a big blob moving as one, isn’t it?
Trump's criticisms of a Gold-Star Muslim family on national television is news to me and it is utterly disgusting.
Obama being presidential at that time:
He certainly had the qualities of a president, one who polishes the image of American interventionism and the military industrial complex. “Thanks for giving us your children”, is all I hear. Does the deaths of Muslim families disgust you any?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/09/america-dropped-26171-bombs-2016-obama-legacy
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/09/donald-trump-is-dropping-bombs-at-unprecedented-levels/
Lol!
Then don’t laugh.
I find it hilarious.
I hope everyone here is capable of asking themselves that question seriously from time to time whether they support Donald trump or not, about any of their beliefs, political or otherwise.
The fact that ir's even slightly more than a mere possibility ... sh*ts the bed.
:yikes:
Welcome to Absurdistan, folks!
Don't worry, Republicans Already Barred Trump From Being Speaker of the House:
Here, here! I try to do that. I often try to think of what the world would have to be like if my Trump supporting friends are right and I am wrong. For example, if the 2020 election was truly stolen then that means Biden is a mastermind. It also means the Democrats and the "deep state" are far more ingenious and have a stronger hold on power than I ever imagined. For the Trump supporter, this isn't a good thing. Either Trump lost to Biden fairly -- which is is humiliating -- or Trump had his victory stolen from him -- which is also humiliating, since evidently he saw it coming and was unable to stop Biden, the deep state, and the other conspirators. If it was so skillfully stolen from him in 2020, what hope is there for Trump to win in 2024?
Believe me, they were absolutely incredible bone spurs. They were by far the best bone spurs that anyone has ever had. Only Trump could ever have had bone spurs that were this amazing.
Here's a CNN list of 24 former Trump aides and allies all of whom now see him as a threat to democracy.
This must be historically unprecedented in the United States, maybe with the exception of Nixon, right? To have so many turn on you?
What frustrates me is that this is clear evidence that he really is as shit of a human being as us libtards think he is, but MAGAts will convince themselves this is evidence that everyone who turned on him is a RINO or they were captured by the deep state or some other shit. They couldn't possibly grapple with the possibility that his allies started calling him an evil fuck after a while because they found out he is, in fact, an evil fuck.
Doesn't really have that many parallels with Nixon. After all, he exhibited a sense of shame, and acknowledged a duty to the country. But then, compared to Trump, Richard Nixon was a gentleman.
Read this exposé in Politico. Truly scary. He's succeeded by innoculating millions of people against reality. He's managed to capitalize and monetize mass delusion. Couldn't have done it without TV of course. That's what's made him.
There's an old saying in the Catholic Church: the Devil is the father of lies.
Well, move over, Devil.
As my (preacher's wife) mom said after the 2020 election, "Republicans need to get better at election fraud themselves." I suppose that is a sort of hope.
They tried quite a lot in 2020. I expect their 2024 efforts will be even further ramped up.
They're convinced leftists are cheating because they know conservatives are cheating. And Bidens 2020 win has definitely convinced them of that even more, and they're going to try harder.
https://apnews.com/article/border-wall-biden-immigration-texas-rio-grande-147d7ab497e6991e9ea929242f21ceb2
Cue the anger and protests? No; The outrage of the past was as selective as the anti-Trump attention span. It doesn’t suit any political need or signal their hypocritical virtue. The problem is, they virtue-signalled the country closer to disaster with a problem that could have been alleviated years ago. It wasn’t until illegals started showing up on their doorstep demanding the sanctuary of sanctuary cities that these fakes started acting.
The problem is that the Trumpsters do not want to preserve democracy. Democracy is part of the problem. They want an autocratic leader who has the vision and power to do the right thing. They do not want to give the enemy an equal say in how things should be.
Biden criticized for waiving 26 laws in Texas to allow border wall construction
Also, Biden argues his hands were tied with border wall funds
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/rapid-proliferation-number-border-walls
https://www.cato.org/blog/border-wall-didnt-work
"Enemy" being the operative term here.
How so? Were they previously good, decent human beings who could easily tell reality from fantasy?
By saying Trump innoculated millions of people against reality, you're basically calling all those millions of people sheeple.
The truly scary thing is the idea that human goodness is weak and easily corruptible.
Yes. The enemy is anyone who questions or is critical of Trump.
That's very insightful. This trial gets at Trump for what he fundamentally is, a fraud, who inflates property values to get loans and deflates then when paying taxes. If he has to finally pay the consequences of doing this, it hits at his wealth and the value of his brand. If he has to sell all of these Trump-based properties to pay the fines, then what is he anymore? It strikes down the Trump mythology of being this successful businessman -- what his identity is built upon. I saw Michael Cohen comment that if you want to hurt Donald Trump, hurt him in the pocket book, because that's all he cares about. And if you think about it, he's always trying to avoid spending his own money. Trump raises money, but doesn't like to spend his own money, even on his legal fees. This could be huge.
I'm not so sure it does. Those who know him already know that he is much more successful as a con artist than a businessman. This goes back long before he entered politics. The Trumpsters see all this as they are told to see it - not only is he the victim but they too are or will be the victims of a corrupt political system if not for him.
What about those who fall into neither camp? I think most see the trappings of great wealth and success and will look no further.
But I would very much like to be wrong about this.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/726831
My guess is that the verdict will drop before the 2023 holiday season begins (mid-Nov) and the NYS AG will win a judgment, including "clawing back" $500m - $1b USD of ill-gotten profits, which will trigger a fire sale of business assets to begin by the summer / fall of 2024 while Loser-1 will be appealing his convictions in the federal J6 Conspiracy trial and beginning (after more than half of his co-conspirators have "flipped") of the slam-dunk state RICO trial in Fulton Co, GA. 'Self-financing' will be impossible by the end of 2023 (if it isn't already – IIRC, according to his tax returns, Loser-1 has a $300m debt that comes due in 2024 and his 90%-owned, failed media platform "Truth Social" has lost $600m in value since 2022 knocking him again off the Forbes 400); also, there are just not enough small donor MAGA-morons (especially since GOP mega donors abandoned him a couple of years ago) to subsidize Loser-1's legal bills AND campaign grift or, for that matter, for him to overcome his electoral losing streak and win the popular vote in 2024 (especially if and when the Secretaries-of-State movement to remove Loser-1 from state ballots pursuant to the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, Section 3 "Insurrection Clause" spreads like wildfire to a number of "purple" / "reddish" states).
Loser 1's Money Dominos Are Falling! :clap: :mask:
It would be hilarious if the Biden admin built 53 miles of new wall, one more mile than Trump.
I think you're right. As I said, it just had never struck me before.
Yes. It has come as a surprise to me to recognize the significance.
What I mean is that millions choose to believe Trump's lies over reality. Like Jan 6 was 'an evil plot by leftists' or even 'a beautiful day'. That the 2020 election really was stolen, even if every one of 60 lawsuits brought to make that case were tossed out of court. So you have a significant proportion of the electorate who cannot be convinced of matters of fact, regardless of the evidence. That's what I meant by 'innoculated against reality'.
In order to choose better, one must first know of better. For reasons that are far too numerous for me to get into here, I'm not at all certain that many of those supporters are even able to comprehend all the relevant facts that may influence their worldview... particularly about Trump and US government.
Isn't that asking a bit much for anyone?
I’m complaining about it because there was a chance to build it years and years ago, long before the crisis got to the point we see today, but Biden ended any progress in his first day of office. Now it’s too late and everyone is floundering, dying, losing vast sums of taxpayer dollars, and generally paying in one way or another for Biden’s mistakes.
The problem is that all the developed nations have as a matter of course a basic framework of human rights. It is one of the factors that makes them 'developed nations'. So if anyone arrives from a failed state with no human rights and no working economy - think the Central American republics, many African and Middle-Eastern territories - then it's a breach of human rights to return them. You can't, in practice, send someone from a country that holds to human rights, to a country that does not, as it's a breach of human rights. It's analogous to a process of osmosis.
Add to that the inevitable machinery of visa and asylum applications and rights-to-work, with bureaucrats required to establish the identity and bona fides of millions of displaced persons often with no passports or proof of identity. Hence backlogs of many years in the processing queues, meanwhile the subjects are all categorised as unemployable and must be given subsistence rations by the welfare state.
A sorry state of affairs, but one the Republicans are always eager to exploit for whatever partisan advantage can be found by exploiting fear and resentment, their favoured tools of choice.
What else has he talked about and to who?
Fair enough. I should've said some... not all.
:yikes:
@alan1000
Well, what you forgot is his brilliant achievements on the foreign policy aside.
- The surrender of Afghanistan to the Taliban in the Doha Agreement (Yes, the Taliban promised not to attack the US!)
- The Abraham accords (YES, Bahrain, the UAE, Morocco, Sudan normalized their relations with Israel and promised not to attack it!)
Oh, and as for "inoculated against reality". Talk about patronizing. It's no wonder the Trumpistas are digging their heels in even more.
I think we've all known people like that. Unfortunately that group seems to have swollen to significant proportions. I recently saw a podcast wherein Rosanne Barr (yeah, I know) argued that the UN runs a project to kill as many civilians around the world as it can in order to make the planet more habitable for a chosen minority. Covid vax and all manner of nasties are a conspiracy to reduce the population.
Beats even the Disinfectant Injection stand-up routine at the COVID briefings.
I will acknowledge the rise of an extreme, or alt right-wing in recent years. I would like to hear people’s thoughts for the cause of this rise. Personally, I think the political correctness and the left-lean in most educational and corporate institutions is causing the reaction from young men who do not wish to comply with their ideology. Does anyone else have thoughts on this?
Starting with a straw man is not good form.
Quoting ButyDude
Sure, but the problem is they're living in different and increasingly fenced worlds. They no longer have a shared reality.
Quoting ButyDude
But only one sided is rapidly changing the rules of the political game. The US political establishment isn't challenged from the left right now.
Quoting ButyDude
A backlash against the new orthodoxy is certainly part of it. But that in itself is not new and doesn't explain why the shift is so extreme.
I think a major factor are new habits of media consumption, via the internet and especially social media. Several effects combine to make messages ever more extreme, thus positions that used to be on the extreme fringe now seem much more normal.
There's also the long term economic factors. Increasing anxiety and alienation from "the elite".
And finally there's the long term strategy of the GOP to focus on a narrow but highly mobilised group of voters which, in conjunction with the internet and especially social media, has resulted in extreme partisanship and estrangement.
It is also intriguing that the political divide is now rural/urban. You are right, urban voters, suburban voters, and rural voters all have extremely different experiences of life. No matter what my political beliefs are, I can’t see myself living in the city and not voting Democrat, because they support these public policies and social programs that are simply necessary to run a city, but nor for a suburb or a rural area.
Thank you for calling me out on the straw man. I should have worded my thoughts more carefully: “Attacking all Trump voters on the basis of a small minority of his voter base is a shallow attack. There are extreme groups of people in each party, which the majority of party voters do not share political beliefs with.”
Mainly that the so-called 'right-wing' or 'extreme conservative' reaction is a massive overreaction. I too get pissed off with political correctness in the media, with things you're supposed to believe about various social and political issues, but I don't think that accounts for the extemism that you see in so-called conservative politics (and I say so-called because a lot of it is quite unlike traditional conservatism).
The world is changing at a faster pace than ever before (this is not hyperbole). And we're reading about and dealing with multiple crises - environmental, political and social. Part of that is that the makeup of US society is becoming more diverse and traditions are breaking down all the time. All this is creating huge anxiety, and one of the consequences is something like panic. Trump knows instinctively how to exploit the politics of grievance - he appeals to the feeling of having been wronged, the dread that Government itself is part of the problem. (That's why every indictment feeds the myth!) But the reality is, almost every single thing Trump says is a lie, and that's not a matter of opinion or 'according to whom?' or 'depends on what you mean'. He's a veritable Yellowstone geyser of mendacity, and his lies pollute the public discourse, lead many people astray, and generally create and promote disorder, division, and distrust within and between people. Sooner he's out of the picture, better for everyone.
Interesting.
"For general intent crimes juries will be instructed to infer intent from the proof of the act. The federal documents case mostly has general intent crimes I think, as they do not aim at a specific result that mens rea should be aimed at."
So I think it more likely this will be general intent proofs.
And the indictment in several places says:
... with that "official proceeding" being the grand jury. So it may be that this new court filing is referring to Trump's intent to obstruct and not his intent in taking and keeping the documents in the first place.
So how long before he defies it?
According to the time stamp, I read this 4 minutes after you posted it. It should not come as a surprise that he has not already done so.
You can't disparage a prosecutor in the United States of America, I guess. The mistake is to think that Trump's words, and not their own actions, "implicitly encourage violence against public servants". If they're worried about their own security maybe they should quit being petty tyrants.
A party to the case can’t if such a gag order has been issued.
It’s not surprising that you’d blame Trump for someone else’s crime, but that’s only because it’s obvious your sense of justice has been perverted a long time ago.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/16/judge-imposes-gag-order-on-donald-trump-in-d-c-trial-00121743
Who's your daddy now, bitch?! :lol:
The "Kraken Lady" has just flipped on your cult leader, Criminal Defendant-1, down in Fulton Co., Georgia. :lol: :up:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/19/sidney-powell-guilty-plea-trump-georgia-elections
That makes 2 out of 18 dominoes to fall so far. :clap:
update:
Short life... this 'reality' referenced above. Sometimes to some people. Never every time concerning all people. Reality includes all people during all applicable timeframes.
Gross overgeneralization.
Echo chambers exist. Not all are powered by algorithmic forces. Pick any applicable time period... some people during the timeframe will not be challenging their own thought/belief about the world due to constant reaffirmation. Algorithmic echo chambers feed the confirmation bias of those who personally and totally identify with their worldview. To some people, any questioning of anything they say or do is taken as an assault, attack, or some other affront. This is witnessed by how any and all attempts to be helpful are met with hostility. Cognitive dissonance is more jarring the first time it happens. When reality doesn't match expectations, the ground is fertile for such circumstances to happen. How we accept our mistakes matters most, on my view anyway.
Private small social groups/communities sometimes produce the same results. Most importantly, the algorithms under consideration have not been in the world long enough to have affectively influenced everyone in the manner described in the above quote. That's one strike against.
There are plenty who seek legitimate arguments against their worldview/belief system. I'm one.
No one has been affected by every algorithm. No one is following an algorithm's path all the time. No one is always being influenced by algorithmic forces. Of all the people who've been influenced by the platforms in question, some became aware. Some of those knew the importance of the matter. Some deliberately minimize usage. I do as a proactive corrective measure taken.
Echo chambers are a problem... I grant that much without pause.
Self inspection takes others. None of us can see the flaws in our own worldview. If the only people we allow ourselves to be influenced, effected, and/or affected by are those with whom we already largely agree with, we're already in an echo chamber. If we never seriously consider another's worldview simply because it contradicts our own; if we never sit and seriously consider another explanation of the same set of events, we'll never become aware of any of the possible mistaken belief we hold regarding the world and/or ourselves
Watch Trump take away the free speech of others...
Very effective move. Just show Trump contradicting himself all the time. One looooong track.
How do you square that sentiment with Trump's history of punishing others without honoring their right to redress?
Well... not all, but definitely, demonstrably, provably...
Some... many... but not all.
Not only that, but Biden's campaign on Truth Social has more followers than Trump's campaign! (Can't you just see the ketchup hit the wall when the Orange Emperor reads that.) :lol:
Another one bites the dust.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67174576
Ya love to see it. :rofl:
Obviously, Sidney Powell, like Barr, Tillerson, McCain, Romney, McConnel, Mattis, Espers, Miley, etc. was always a deep state, RINO, plant embedded to try to sink Trump. How diabolical!
I wonder if we are about to see a race to see who can get their plea bargaining done before that door closes.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/847417
//update - On October 3, 2023, Bannon's appeal hearing was delayed to November 9 at the request of the DOJ due to the unexpected death of the son of one of the government's lawyers.//
I listened to a podcast or video the other week with a bit of background on Fani Willis. Her father was, apparently, a lifelong activist and lawyer, usually for defense cases, and used to take her to court to observe from a young age. She has been a dedicated prosecutor for quite a few years and has a pretty impressive track record of RACI convictions already. Definitely not a light-weight.
Trump is losing his mind.
With luck, it's more that the rest of us (US) are regaining our minds. Trump is preparing himself for jail by channeling Nelson Mandela. He would go to his execution convinced he is Jesus.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/24/politics/jenna-ellis-fulton-county/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/24/jenna-ellis-plea-deal-trump-georgia-election-case
– more MAGA flips to come! :clap:
Severe agitation and restlessness
Confusion and disorientation
Hallucinations (often visual)
Tremors and shaking
Rapid heartbeat (tachycardia)
High blood pressure
Sweating
Seizures
Fever
Delusions
Profound anxiety
Sleep disturbances
Loss of appetite
Nausea and vomiting
Some highlights:
Like many, I sat through many sessions of the Jan 6th Commission presentations. It was, of course, utterly compelling, and totally damning of Trump. Maybe the Jan 6th report is indeed 'poison' - poison to Trump's candidacy for the 2024 election. As it ought to be. Seems open-and-shut to me.
There were 8 prior instances following the Civil War. It remains debated whether it is applicable to Presidents. The chart lists the mechanism of adjudication, which has included having a state court judge determine eligibility.
If Colorado does remove him, it will only martyr him more, and all for nothing, because Colorado wasn't going Trump anyway.
Well that addresses my initial skepticism that the lawsuit would succeed.
The best outcome to push back against Trumpism and the degeneracy of these people would be if he completely and openly loses it and acts out his mental breakdown in front of cameras and the world to see in such an embarrassing moment that there's no possible way to spin it into something positive, even for them.
It would probably also be the only way to save Republicans from their growing cancer of anti-intellectual capitalists since I think it would be hard for any of them to support Trump after something like that as it would stain their own status in politics.
Even so, I think Trump is done. The real issue is how to defeat the anti-intellectual movement globally. The degeneracy of knowledge and wisdom among a large portion of the population who's unable to handle the overload of information that modern internet is washing over them. With AI pushing the capabilities of misinformation even further, these people will unable to operate as normal human beings since they do not have the capability to understand how to separate misinformation/disinformation and real information.
It's hard enough to evaluate real information from slightly (and traditionally normally) politically skewed information from unbiased information, but with an ocean of just pure crap floating around online I think it's almost impossible for some people to know how to handle it.
The problem isn't really Trump or his followers, it's how we operate in a world in which this online sphere of influence produces new Trumps all over the place. How do we fix the source of the problem?
The events showing dereliction of duty are no brainer. The events were televised.
My comment regarding federalism was to point at the irony involved in having a feature of "state rights" be the vehicle of creating fake electors alongside the power to remove candidates from the ballot.
He’s getting pretty damn close a lot of the time. Nancy Pelosi noted, back at the time of the Ukraine phone-call impeachment, that Trump’s entire psychological repertoire is defined by projection - he projects all of the bad things he does on others, while in his own mind, he himself is perfect and incapable of doing wrong, which has been constantly reinforced by his getting away with it. When and if he’s finally confronted with the reality of a felony conviction, it might induce such a severe cognitive dissonance that he will literally crack up and begin to rave uncontrollably. I can’t ever see him accepting any culpability, he’ll loose his mind before doing that.
Unless he gets a majority of votes nationwide. Then CO will, by legislative decree, add their support.
Don't count The Donald out. In an election in which a criminal runs against what many regard as a senile nitwit all bets are off.
Your fellow citizens and possible neighbours.
Your point being? It seems you didn't care to understand the point I'm making. We can criticize them for this behavior, but their behavior and handling of knowledge and information might be impossible for them to have honest introspection around. How do we fix the problem of populism for the people who are slaves to it?
It's also telling that anybody that voted for Trump is automatically an anti-intellectual in your book.
So the point is that your way of speaking about others betray several assumptions that make it completely understandable why "these people" don't vote for the candidate you'd vote for.
This is the problem with your counter argument. It's not about disagreement, it's about what functions as a foundation for knowledge and opinions. If they are slaves to the wave of misinformation and disinformation that makes them radicalized into things like Trumpism and right wing extremism, then that's not about "not agreeing with them", that's about radicalization into some form of extremism.
I could say "radicalized people" instead if that makes the point clearer. And the point being is that some people are more susceptible to such radicalization than others.
That there's a spectrum of abilities among the population to be able to understand complex information and act in good strategy of handling that information and not form radicalized ideas instead, is just a fact on human cognition and psychology. There's a difference between not agreeing on strategies for reaching solutions to societal problems, and ignoring actual facts and instead replace them with, essentially, fiction, which is how radicalized people functions.
Is it inaccurate to say that these radicalized people are anti-intellectuals? When they are more often than not actively acting out anti-expert, anti-academic, anti-anyone who uses knowledge and complex information to form solutions and answers to problems? A core tenet of their rhetoric is the dismissal of anyone who are part of groups essential for building a knowledge base in the world. And I'm not talking about politicians and other populists on the other side here, I'm talking about scientists, philosophers, writers and further thinkers who are only trying to figure out the complexity of the world. The radicalized people I'm talking about are actively hostile against them and that is why I call them anti-intellectuals. Because they've been radicalized into such anti-intellectualism by people like Trump, who in his language spreads hostility towards intellectuals to a point where some of his followers send death threats.
So, it's not about agreement or non-agreement between people, it's about how some people are being manipulated by misinformation and disinformation into either lacking any functioning substance of knowledge or being manipulated into beliefs that are actively hurting society and in the end themselves the most.
What you are doing is to actively misunderstand my argument based on a preconceived notion that you may have encountered with others in these types of discussions. When I say "these people", you immediately jump into the populistic mindset of war between two sides, disregarding actually understanding the point I'm making here. Unable to realize that I'm talking about these people more as victims of manipulation than enemies to be fought.
What's to be fought is the manipulation, the radicalization, the misinformation and disinformation. The strategies of wealthy people, lobbyists, politicians and power hungry despots to manipulate society into fighting each other instead of fighting problems in the world. The absolute ruthless hunt for voters, by any means necessary, skewing democracy into a degenerate shell of what it's supposed to be.
To return to the last point in my previous post...
"The problem isn't really Trump or his followers, it's how we operate in a world in which this online sphere of influence produces new Trumps all over the place. How do we fix the source of the problem?"
Please take off the populist hat and understand the point I'm making here.
I don't think it's very accurate to consider them "slaves" though. Yes once in a certain information environment, it's hard to break out. But this is less because of some outside imposing force and more because emotional needs have become enmeshed with the information environment.
Two things are important to keep in mind: that however wrong the theories, the Trumpian kind of extremism takes up real feelings of alienation and catastrophic breakdown. These feelings aren't particular to Trump supporters. Second, plenty of topics are viable for conspiracy mongering because most everyone is in denial about them to some extent, so this denial is merely rerouted.
Quoting Christoffer
I think the online sphere acts more as a catalyst than as the source of the problem. Social Media in particular has hugely reshaped out culture and our beliefs. But it is not in and of itself the source of the feelings that the conspiracies are a response to. That source is a crisis of western ideology. The new information environment has enabled a radical retreat into a fantasy world that supplies our longing for community, self-actualisation and self-absolution as a response.
We are all slaves to narratives. To say otherwise is to be blind towards biases. The key is how well we know our shackles and how well we can act against them. But in a world in which marketing and ideology rules the way we operate, we are all slaves to some kind of narrative.
The core problem is however that some are more susceptible to these narratives than others, it can be due to low education making it hard for them to see the framework of narratives that higher educations provide, or it could be due to high susceptibility of emotional manipulation making it impossible to find rational grounding.
A "slave" in this regard is better thought of as the level of subjugation to a ruling property, either a person or organisation in power, an ideal or a narrative. The problem is that if language keeps getting in the way of making my point, then it becomes impossible to communicate ideas. It's better to look at the holistic overview of the point being made, rather than getting lost in semantics of words.
We have somewhat of a problem today with how single words have become so loaded that any holistic point gets lost due to people just taking aim at singular words, like "these people" or "slaves", without looking at the grander context.
Quoting Echarmion
Of course, and that's the basics of the root problem I'm talking about. How do we solve the root of the problem? How do we give guidance to help battle such feelings and such dread in people while fighting off the ones who want to use these people just to gain democratic power through their votes without actually caring for them at all?
Because these powerful people and organizations in power aren't trying to gain supporters to help them, they are manipulating people through radicalization in order to gain power for themselves. In Trump's case it may even be that it's for something as basic and childish as feeding his personal narcissism rather than some actual long form power play to shape society in his own image, even if others around him support him in order to gain such power.
I'm not taking a particular aim at the random Trump voter, I'm taking an aim at how people in power have created a manipulative radicalization machinery that takes advantage of people who haven't the tools to easily spot this kind of manipulation. If we are all slaves to narratives, all slaves to biases and we live in a time when the internet has become a weaponized manipulation machine that effectively made democracy into almost a tool of control over people rather than push liberty and freedom, then the root of the problem is getting these people off the drug of radicalization and manipulation and fighting against people of power who want to utilize online strategies to manipulate themselves into having more autocratic power.
But instead, everyone polarize themselves into arguing over the symptoms. Trump is only one figure in all of this, there are Trump-like people in power all over the world and the threat to democracy isn't their specific shenanigans, but the underlying manipulation of people making democracy into a system of control.
Quoting Echarmion
Yes, but social media and the online sphere is a radicalization machine. It's built upon pushing negatives and destructive arguments to the front while pushing back on everything else. The algorithms are built for this because it drives the businesses of the big tech corps. They don't care about the consequences, the consequences are only cared for when rules and regulations are put on them to change and then they market themselves as caring about people's mental health as an afterthought. It's all within their narrative of control for their sector. But the algorithms are still putting people onto the online battleground and it radicalizes people into groups that in turn echo-chamber themselves into radicalized soldiers for these causes, pushing their hostility further and further until some of them storm the capitol, kill someone else, alienating themselves from friends and relatives, joining extremist groups, voting on despots and so on.
The damage to humanity that this is doing cannot be overstated and while we have existential problems outside of the online sphere, we are moving into a Baudrillardian desert of the real in which people cannot see the difference between the reality online and the reality outside.
The way to solve the existential problems is primarily to communicate, talk, discuss and meet people. It's the hard coded nature of survival that drives solutions and progression of ideas to better ourselves. But the online sphere is such a powerful manipulative algorithmic machine that you cannot take aim at those core issues while the algorithms skew reality and polarize people into arbitrary topics.
The counter culture that would help humanity to better ourselves is to fight against the system that radicalize ourselves into oblivion. We need a better internet, we need a better system not based on these privatized giants who doesn't care if the world burns as long as they gain massive wealth on the users.
Imagine a Facebook, Instagram, TikTok or whatever, that doesn't have ads, doesn't have algorithms based on optimizing for these ads and instead have algorithms that focus not on pushing conflicts, but pushing productive dialogue and good manners towards each other. It would need to be handled in the way of something like Wikipedia and it would need to be a place where people actually want to be, it would need to be the main place for the world to be on... and I'm not sure how that can be done when the world is so mentally fractured as it is today, and so in shackles by the megacorps owning all platforms while populist politicians gain support from these capitalists as they gain power from less regulation and rules while the megacorps can skew the population into democratically push back against movements trying to enforce more regulations onto them.
It's a loosing game if people don't wake up to these facts on their own.
The point I wanted to make is that the people concerned still have agency. Part of the solution involves creating a new mainstream where the energy that these people currently expend on "conspiracy activism" is turned towards actually positive goals.
Quoting Christoffer
I think part of the issue is that democracy was already well on the way of becoming a "system of control", because the democratic political institutions were being impoverished and starved.
So the solution probably involves reinvigorating democratic politics. Which means grassroots activism, political involvement beyond the ballot box via vehicles like unions etc. We could probably look at how e.g. Steve Bannon creates his political movement and take some cues from that.
People need to experience politics as something they actively do again, rather than as a succession of narratives being fed to them so they vote the right way once every four years.
The left also desperately needs to be more inclusive and stop focusing on every issue through the lense of one particular identity. Ever since the project of Marxism had definitely collapsed, the left seems to have lost its sense of an overarching, positive vision for the future. There have been important victories in particular fields like LGBTQ rights and anti-raciam and feminism, but arguably at the expense of splitting the left into ever smaller movement of individual identities. People like Bannon step into this vacuum and instead fill it with a horror story.
Quoting Christoffer
Yes, we'd need to break the monopolisation of our internet spaces, and turn them into public goods. This will require a break with capitalist ideology, which unfortunately has been almost unopposed for decades now. So first the groundwork would have to be laid to make a critique of capitalism no longer the realm of fringe theorists or extremists. It would really help to have better online spaces for that. It's a real catch-22.
I agree, although this point is somewhat self-contradictory in that you say people have agency, but then point out that we need a new mainstream that can steer them in a new direction. Meaning, people do not have agency, they are determined by directions of society. Which is what I say when I talk about narratives. The narratives that shape our perception of reality defines the choices made and if the perception of reality is skewed by power hungry narcissists and we fail to protect democracy from such people because we are lazy and naive, then they dictate the narratives steering society, not people with better intentions for humanity.
We can never be free of narratives, they're part of the human condition. We can only focus on forming better narratives that focus on bettering ourselves, improving our well being and progress humanity into a better future for all, if we want that to happen.
Quoting Echarmion
The problem with the degeneration of democracy is that society have handled democracy in a sloppy and naive way. Instead of installing institutions that self-control democracy so that it never corrupts society from the core values of democracy, we just let society constantly balance on a knife's edge so that a nation could vote away democracy all together if they've successfully been manipulated enough.
As long as democracy focus on voting on specific people and not ideas and solutions, we will always have a corrupt system as we are rather focusing on personality traits and theatrics rather than actual decisions for society.
I think that the combination of capitalism and democracy have created this self-perpetual machine in which we have power hungry people who care nothing for society, only manage to take decisions for society because capitalism demands it, or else people will revolt.
Basically, no one's at the steering wheel. No vision exist, no ideas are being formed by knowledgeable people and instead society just flows by itself. That would have been good, if not for all the destructive messes it also generates.
Quoting Echarmion
That's only generated more populist movements with people using the speed of online marketing to manipulate themselves into power fast before anyone notice the problems they pull with them.
The solution is to fine tune the democratic system so that populist narcissists and people only interested in power gets replaced by people working for the needs of society more than pushing their own names and egos. If we had systems that removed people in power more easily when they abuse their power, and if politicians were forced to act more in-line with how the core democratic values of being "the people's voice" in politics, that would force democratic politics into being more focused on solving societal problems and help people rather than putting all energy into the illusion of helping or improving.
Quoting Echarmion
I don't think it collapsed, I think that the critique of capitalism is alive and healthy and with how extreme the difference between the rich and poor through the catalyst of neoliberalism has become I think we'll see more of it as time goes on. There's definitely gonna be pushes for more Marxist ideas through a Hegelian slave/master analysis going forward. The problem is that the polarized masses of left/right people who are uneducated on the actual concepts of criticism against capitalism just forms another part of the radicalized population who are stuck in a loop of non-solutions in society, battling out amateur interpretations and not actually doing proper philosophical discourse on that matter.
Quoting Echarmion
Exactly, criticism of capitalism is not really an ideology for any left or right leaning movement, it's part of the discourse to solve problems in society. Anyone who says capitalism is the root of all problems or that capitalism is the root to all solutions don't know what they're talking about and stand in the way of actual discourse for solutions and the progression of ideas on how we better society for all.
One solution for the online sphere is to create a new space that is considered better than the rest. I've seen this happen with things like computer software. When all major corporations produce subscription based software that they constantly increase the subscription price on while slowing down on innovation and progress, people get fed up by it and as soon as something that's open source reaches a point where it actually competes with the paid options, people start to move over to it and the corporations lose money. Even if they later put money into innovation, they hardly get the users back since the trust is lost and people don't want to be stuck in a system of manipulation by the companies who mostly put on a smiley face and dance the marketing dance to form the illusion of comfort with their software.
People don't trust these megacorps, people don't trust Facebook or TikTok, they only tolerate them because there's no wide spread alternative. If an alternative grows and their promise and delivery matches and outcompete the others, that can shift society. It's basically playing by the rules of the free market game, but with open source solutions that democratize spaces away from destructive algorithms.
Think of Wikipedia. It's been tested and found out to be more generally trustworthy for the purpose of sources of knowledge than many established and paid for sources, regardless of what people believe is the case. And because it's widely used, widely known and "open source", there's no destructive algorithms to be found. It's focused on being a good function and a good part of our online experience.
If we can generate better social media spaces that focus on having a similar good reputation, that doesn't have a big business behind it, that doesn't have a tech guru front figure wanting to reshape the world based on their skewed point of view, and that focus on gathering people on positive grounds with algorithms pushing back at destructive actions and behaviors, and being free of ulterior capitalistic motives... then that might save us from these radicalization machines.
But it demands an effort to create something that first and foremost can compete on the free market and deliver a better experience than all the others. Maybe if nations around the world were to have a fund for it. In which democratic nations fund the development and management of such an online space based on principles like the UN, a united space that cannot be corrupted by a single nation or corporation, in which there's no other focus than having a space for all to gather in, free from market movements and the manipulation of the people in favor of the people in power or narratives of nations.
One could dream.
It's not a counter argument. I'm highlighting the arrogant and elitist way you speak about people that don't view the world in terms that you do.
I did not mean to imply that the mainstream is some inexorable force. More that we need a mass movement that offers more productive activism.
Quoting Christoffer
Sure, but that doesn't imply the narrative needs to be cynically exploited to steer the stupid masses to enlightened goals.
Quoting Christoffer
There's no way to insulate democracy from the demos. A democracy that's immune to it's self-dissolution is kind of an oxymoron. German has an "eternity clause" in its constitution, stating that certain parts (like the basic democratic constitution) can not be altered under any circumstances. But obviously the constitution is ultimately just a "scrap of paper". Such a clause only works so long as the paper retains legitimacy
Which is why I think the more important institutions are the soft, cultural ones.
Quoting Christoffer
How would that actually work though? Electoral politics inherently draws certain personalities. It's seems more useful to work around that than try to somehow make the process as impersonal as possible.
Quoting Christoffer
This is true in a sense, since there is no overarching progressive vision. But of course there are people who actively do the steering. Some interests groups are definetly powerful and their particular interests have a noticeable effect on policy. It's not simply something as abstract as society in general.
Quoting Christoffer
Isn't that what we're already trying and failing to do? No-one has a recipe for getting "the right people" into the job, and I think this is ultimately a fool's errand. The problem isn't really that the politicians are uniquely bad, it's that they're exposed to pressures and temptations that lead to bad decisions.
The way to avoid this is not to rely on a theoretical superhuman which is somehow pure and good, but to broaden the base these people stand on. More people need to be involved in the nitty-gritty of local politics, so they have an understanding of how they work, broaden the pool of possible candidates and are aware of how to effectively advocate for themselves.
A popular movement need not be populist. Populism is a particular perversion of the popular.
Quoting Christoffer
It's been 30 years since the SU collapsed and capitalism is running rampant. How much longer will that take?
Quoting Christoffer
So your solution is to somehow conjure up a population of proper philosophers? How would that work?
Quoting Christoffer
Alternative spaces exist, but so far the holding power of the existing ecosystems seems to be too strong. X/Twitter is a good example where, despite bad management and various alternative platforms, the inertia of its huge membership is keeping it afloat (for now).
Convenience is king in the fast moving world and the social media giants are very adept at offering it.
Quoting Christoffer
I would rather say that people live in denial of how they're feeding the machine. It's much easier to project all your fears about surveillance on, say, a vaccine app than to cut your social media ties. The mistrust and the lack of privacy don't have an outlet, so we end up with conspiracy narratives as one option. Or people simply embrace the lack of privacy as the price of admission.
Without a popular systematic critique I don't see how we get enough of a movement going to decisively shift away from the current domination by big platforms.
Quoting Christoffer
Well we'd need to generate the impetus for such a shift somehow. I don't think there's an alternative to building a movement to provide that.
Wikipedia was lucky in that it came up early, before a monetised alternative took root. With social media, we do not have that luxury.
Fair enough, but maybe my mind didn't even think about that in my second language of writing in a post where my intention was to make my point as clear as possible and not make the post longer than it had to be. It's funny that semantics trigger you into ignoring my overall point and instead you just rage as an attack dog at "how elitist" I am, while ignoring the holistic perspective of my writing which clearly has a much more inclusive idea about these radicalized people as victims of manipulative abuse by people in power.
But the problem with how you frame this is that the people I talk about does not see the world clearly, that's the entire point of radicalization, to force a point of view that is exaggerated and sometimes downright false. I'm not talking about people who feel betrayed by Democrats and want change in how the government treats them and their lives, that's a point of view that I respect since it comes from an honest place and correct democratic usage of the system. But can you honestly just sum up these radicalized people's opinions as "because they don't view the world in terms that you do"? When these opinions are clearly a mashup of conspiracy nonsense, racism, triggered hate built up by hate speeches from populist politicians and so on?
What you seem to do is actively ignoring what I'm actually talking about and just invent your own idea in order to just trigger some arbitrary side-onflict. If I talk about Trumpism and the radicalized right wing, then I'm not really talking about the common Republican voter now am I?
So while I get your point and can change the overall grammar of my writing, it just feels like you are cherry picking stuff to initiate conflict and that's just low hanging fruit. Let me test doing the same, just to make the point clearer: "Your argument about that specific sentence just shows you the unfair way you treat people who doesn't use English as their first language, ignoring that some choice of words and grammar may not have the same attached value in other countries compared to yours and scolding others based on your own perspective of these words and your own higher knowledge of the language just comes off as elitist against others."
If you need to remark on how something is written, just remark on the problem clearly instead of using a grammatical source in order to dismiss the entire argument and intentionally ignore the specificity of it. It's like "guilt by association" but with grammar.
No, that's not what I meant. If narratives are something that we can never be without, then the narratives to shape the world by should always be the most honest, the most carefully thought through and which includes as much liberty for the people as possible. It should be based on common grounds of moral thinking and ecological health for both humans and the environment.
If such narratives are used, then the people will find good paths for themselves and society over time without any force.
However, the problem today is that narratives are not only fractured into thousands of different narratives, most of them are invented lies by those with power over the powerless. Our world consist of stories that push inaccuracies, fake news, opinions as facts, blatant brainwashing etc.
Is it cynical to argue for dismantling this chaos and form better common grounds for all, not in someone's name, but by ideas that people generally share as basic ideals of good, hidden underneath all of these false narratives that cloud people's core values?
It's not this that's cynical, it's the world that's cynical for thinking this is impossible.
Quoting Echarmion
The soft cultural ones also only works as long as that's the social contract to protect it.
What I meant with protecting democracy is rather to make sure the eye is on the ball. Actions that block demagogues from taking power. Forcing them to focus on issues and forcing them to have actually functioning plans, both in financial structure and scope. Even in the most functioning democracies, the parties who take power more often than not throw their promises out the window whenever they've got into seats of power. There's no repercussions on this and they play the long game with people forgetting that they broke the promises made. On top of that, debates and rallies have politicians just spew out insults and ad hominems against their opponents.
Here's one single thing that can be written into as a kind of law of democracy in order to improve it over night. Candidates and parties cannot use ad hominems and are not allowed to form rallies on inaccuracies. After using too many documented ad hominems and inaccuracies with facts, they are not allowed to be voted on. This would force politicians to be more careful in their politics, they would have to focus on actual issues and the facts surrounding those issues. They can also not get support on the grounds of attacking the opponent's character. I know the US would improve a lot since it seems the US modern politics is basically built upon these character attacks and invented realities through false statements.
My point is that we don't need to have it written into law that democracies cannot be changed, but we need to be able to fine-tune non-functioning and easily corruptible democracies to function better and be more robust against corruption and people abusing power.
There's a lot that could be done.
Quoting Echarmion
Why? Why focus on personalities and people's emotions about these politicians personas? Why is that preferable to focusing on the actual issues in society and possible solutions to them? If some people start to lack interest in politics because it's not as "fun" as when someone like Trump do his shenanigans, and because of that choose not to vote, then that's better than forcing people who have no insight or knowledge into a subject to vote.
This focus on maximizing the amount of voters as an idea for a functioning democracy, without regard for how well those votes are knowledgeable in the questions they are voting for, is just such a backwards ideal for what democracy is.
I respect someone who does not vote if they don't know what they're voting on, that is telling me that this person understands their current limits of knowledge and if they spent more time learning about the topics they would have a better foundation for voting. Pushing people to vote by manipulating them with false narratives and emotional arguments is just as bad as blocking people from voting all together.
Democracy should be about informing people on the issues in society and possible solutions, with facts and honesty so that the people can vote for what they feel is the solution closest to their own values in life. Anything else is manipulation that's corrupting the system and forming another strategy of control over the people rather than giving people the democratic control over society.
Quoting Echarmion
And these people are the ones in actual power. Not in the "illuminati"-level conspiracy type, but their money fuels politicians manipulation of the public. Society gets shaped by their intentions and the public does not necessarily know what their aim is.
That's part of why democracy needs to be fine-tuned away from these systems and be free from hidden influences by practices and consequences for those who abuse their power. Like, why not block all inflow of funds from lobbyists and count it all as bribery? Have a neutral institute that functions on effective bureaucracy to constantly review and investigate politicians in power and if caught, they're out effected immediately.
The protection of politicians, especially in the US, is in a way it's own level of corruption. There's no wonder that the US isn't high on lists about low corruption governments.
Quoting Echarmion
We only fail that because we play lose with the freedoms that people in power have. The bar set on what a competent politician is, is set so low that overgrown children like Trump reaches the highest office.
The recipe is to first evaluate different democracies around the world and see which one's have good fail safes against corruption and incompetence. And if we have much stricter rules about ad hominem rhetoric and a demand on accuracy in facts, statements and follow-ups on promises, then that would drive a lot of demagogues away either by not being able to drive their agenda or being excluded from taking part by their own incompetence.
It's like, everyone needs to get a driver's license in order to drive a car, otherwise it's not safe for others in society. But we have no real demands on politicians having a certain level of competence for driving an entire nation?
Quoting Echarmion
But this is exactly what doesn't work, because in our modern world we have created a society that is so distracted by irrelevant noise from everywhere that people have no interest in politics.
We cheer the fact that just slightly over half of the population go to vote, and mostly because of extreme marketing on emotionally heighten ad hominem arguments and inaccurate exaggerations on topics actually not related to many of those who vote.
How in the world would you get people more interested in politics on the actual grounds of the boring day to day work of politics? No one cares, they want to live their lives and not think too much.
If we can only get people to vote by tricking them with emotional arguments, then don't. Do the proper thing and inform people about issues, about solutions to those issues, give people the option to learn for free about what each politician running wants to do, let people choose to participate on honest grounds without manipulation.
If some people choose not to vote, then don't force them. But don't block them from learning about who to vote for if they want to and let them have accurate information rather than dishonest manipulation.
We need less marketing in democracies, and more information. There's a clear difference between the two. Marketing leads to populism and demagogues, informing leads to less populism and demagogues.
It requires a restructure of the entire democratic process. It requires new laws and constitutional principles to restrict manipulation and push accurate information, but it would definitely improve the stability of a democracy.
Quoting Echarmion
We're only just now starting to see the consequences of the neoliberal free market that was pushed in the 80's. Why do you think we see so many young people on the left picking up Marx ideas to criticize capitalism? People who opt out from the job market by choice? And why do you think the opposite side of young neoliberals forming almost cult like behaviors around stock market strategies and "how to maximize your efficiency"-influencers?
These polarizing signs shows the contours of a collapsing structure. An increasing critique and an increasing enforcement. Both desperate on each end with less focus on a balanced system in the middle. Something will eventually break.
Quoting Echarmion
Philosophical discourse doesn't mean philosophers, it means a higher quality of discourse as opposed to the emotional battles of online debates.
One way to inspire such things would be to educate people on why it is preferable, why such discourse is more effective through not reaching who's right and who's wrong, but reaching a higher enlightened state after each discourse, with the aim of both sides reaching higher knowledge together rather than trying to bash an opinion into the skull of the other.
Schools don't do this, parents don't do this, society doesn't do this. People learn to fight for their ideals, not to inspire others by their ideals. And we teach each other to value your ego in a battle against the world rather than you being part of a world.
And with the online algorithms pushing people more into fights than into discussions and proper discourse, we have this radicalization machine making it even harder to get people to realize the futility of a fast battle compared to the slow but healthy progression of philosophical discourse.
Quoting Echarmion
They're not offering anything valid, they have a system that uses addictive systems to trick people into their platform being the best.
Like, just compare having a discussion on Facebook and this place, which one is more effective for the purpose of discussion? The odd and clumsy format of writing, the non-existing formatting options, the inability to quote properly... so why are people more inclined to discuss on Facebook? Because its addictiveness keeps them there longer. But the system in itself is lackluster to say the least.
These platforms have actively studied psychology and formed their systems based on what triggers our primal brain to interact with it. And it works best with children and teenagers, still developing their brains. It's easier because you, as the platform, can influence how their brains develop and more easily keep them hooked to the system, just like drugs have a higher addictiveness on younger people than older. Same principles.
To popularize a social media hub that does not have these addictive systems require an effort on the user and the common user is lazy and uninterested and will more often than not choose the drug over the sallad.
So it's not convenience really, it's a sort of getting the entire world into rehab and then get them on board a consequently less flashy alternative.
How? I have no idea really. Only if the functionality and lack of ads is better than the others and people reach a point of being more fed up with the old hubs cluttered reality and feel that a less flashy but more clean and functioning alternative is preferable.
But I have little hope that people choose the healthy over unhealthy until they face their own mortality.
Quoting Echarmion
And this requires knowledge, wisdom, experts and facts to be preferable rather than our current narrative of anti-intellectualism. Systematic critique requires people to see past the day to day reality they live within, to see the borders of their common existence, and that requires knowledge, wisdom and experts to be popular again rather than clowns like Trump.
Quoting Echarmion
Yes, and the irony is that if we were to create a platform, funded by nations in a UN type constellation, in order to push back on state-funded corruption and manipulation on that platform, people will think it's even more corrupt compared to the blatant corporation control that current platforms and state-owned platforms like TikTok have on us right now.
People are so ingrained into the false narratives of the world that they trust the liars and distrust the honest.
The problem with the assumption that people are pushed around by “narratives” is that it should be just as easy to push them in the opposite direction through the very same methods. But try to talk them out of what they believe and you’ll see that theory falsified immediately.
Rather, it is the fragility of the grand narrative that has led to its repudiation. Those tasked with ordering our lives, with informing us, with protecting our livelihoods and liberties, have all revealed themselves to be incompetent, corrupt, and self-concerned frauds, so much so that a reality TV host can come in for one term and do a better job than someone who has spent his life in politics. And despite the propaganda, people can witness with their own eyes the nonsense that is the current order. Under the current and typical regime it appears we are inching towards total war and economic failure, both of which the reactionary and incompetent experts told us would happen under the Trump regime, but never did. So maybe it isn’t any narrative that pulls us away from our obedience to the old regime, but its own stupidity and corruption.
That implies that the methods are neutral, which they aren't. And it says a lot about the people using the methods.
And narratives are all around us, everyone is following a narrative of some sort, it's not about produced narratives for the purpose of manipulation. A narrative can also be a moral code, it can be the values guiding someone's daily life. But, in the purpose I'm speaking of, it's manufactured, just like manufactured realities in commercials and ads forming a fiction that they hope customers will follow by buying their product, so to does the manufactured reality of political campaigns form the world view of the voters. To the point that they fight over fictional realities that confuse actual reality even further, making it extra hard for researched truth to become mainstream.
Quoting NOS4A2
This ignores the fact that change doesn't just happen directly. It's easy to make the counter argument that the entire ensemble of Trumps, Bannons, Johnsons etc. over the course of the past years have built up the foundation for what is now happening. How can you be so sure that your narrative is the correct one when all you support it by is your own opinion on it? Maybe the past years have been inching towards all of this, with the a catalyst of a pandemic pushing it even faster, and that the current politicians are just trying to mitigate the damage that is going on?
Whenever I see debates between polarized sides I see the same broken arguments. One side blames the current dominating political narrative, whatever it may be, as something that is the root of the problems in the world while the other says that it's the result of the past years of the opposite political narrative. And whenever the political landscape flips, we hear the same arguments flipped between the sides of the debate.
I'm tired of hearing it, it has no foundation in reality, it has no foundation in the complexities of all moving parts and it is just keeping us in the manipulated narratives people are slaves to.
The evidence-free Biden impeachment efforts in the House of Representatives are presented to news consumers without sufficient context. In the first round of headlines last week, most news outlets simply reported what speaker Kevin McCarthy was doing as if it were completely legitimate – the result of his likely high crimes and misdemeanors. The Washington Post presented it seriously: “Kevin McCarthy directs House committees to open formal Biden impeachment inquiries,” adding in a credulous line: “The inquiry will center on whether President Biden benefited from his son’s business dealings … ” No hint of what is really happening here. In this case, the New York Times was a welcome exception: “McCarthy, Facing an Ouster and a Shutdown, Orders an Impeachment Inquiry.” That’s more like it.
Trump continues to be covered mostly as an entertaining sideshow – his mugshot! His latest insults! – not a perilous threat to democracy, despite four indictments and 91 charges against him, and despite his own clear statements that his re-election would bring extreme anti-democratic results; he would replace public servants with the cronies who’ll do his bidding. “We will look back on this and wish more people had understood that Biden is our bulwark of democratic freedoms and the alternative is worse than most Americans can imagine,” commented Ruth Ben-Ghiat, author of Strongmen, and an expert in authoritarian regimes.[/quote]
And one more - the disgraceful attacks on electoral officers by Team Trump and the MAGA thugs. If the anti-democratic efforts of MAGA aren’t obvious enough in their continued defence of the Jan 6th outrage. Electoral officers are generally just administrators and office workers who, you would think, would be admired for their role in tending to the system of democratic governance, instead of being threatened, harassed and fired for their efforts. The story concerns one who is fighting back through a lawsuit, more strength to her.
Regardless, Trump is leading in many polls.
It is very telling of how bad the US democracy is built if Trump is sentenced and he still wins an election. The US democratic system is just a patch work of stupidity compared to other developed nations with functioning democracies. Like rolling out the red carpet for corruption and no one seems to care enough to do anything radical to change it. The delusional idea that the US system is the best things can get and that any problem is due to something else or someone else. The US needs an overhaul of it's entire system. Throw the constitution in the trash and draw up a new one with up to date ideals. If Trump gets sentenced to jail and win the election and people won't do anything other than write "how could this happen?" on their social media accounts, then that's a clear sign that the US will end up in the gutter in the long run.
"If you listen to fools, the Mob Rules." -- Black Sabbath
Winston Churchill called democracy “the worst form of government … except for all the others”.
What we're experiencing with Trump, Fox News, Newsmax, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, this whole phenomenon of alt-right, alt-facts, conspiracy theorists, demagogues, etc. is all what I would call the necessary evil of living in an open, democratic society with free speech. Yes, we run this risk that charismatic, popular demagogues can sway the masses to vote in a regime that can undermine the democratic system itself. I guess that is one way that democracies can come to an end, and we might be watching it happen. How do you reasonably debate or convince people otherwise when they willingly vote for someone who wants to suspend the Constitution -- the very document that secures their right to vote in the first place?
By creating the replacement and working for replacing the constitution rather than removal. That way, the replacement constitution can be worked on by everyone from politicians, to philosophers, researchers and the people, and be fine tuned to include better rights and better protections than it has now, and especially get rid of the awful second amendment which is just arming idiots killing each other. If the aim is to create a peaceful and good society, then anything that arms people just creates ticking time bombs. A constitution should aim for the protection of the people, by giving them rights and tools to stand up against government injustices, but also including a removal of the means to which people can hurt each other with weapons. The only issue with taking away weapons from the people is if the state gets more power to hurt the people, which could lead to totalitarianism, so the core rights need to include variety of ways in which the people have power over the government and not just the government over the people.
On top of this, there should be a clear focus on representative democracy in the form of representatives. Reshape politics into being less about the individuals in power and more focused being the people's democratic voice. Right now, especially in the US, a president is essentially a form of king that's being elected. While not within the exact level of autocratic power, they still have more power than a democratic system should allow. On top of that we have all the emerging issues with the supreme court, with the easily corrupted congress backed up by capitalist lobbyists in every corner who skew decisions into being more about helping these capitalists instead of making good decisions for the people. And get rid of the stupid electoral system that's so overly complicated that you don't even have to be corrupted since the system itself seems to be able to skew an election into something other than the people's actual choice.
The US democracy needs a cleanup and be reshaped and simplified by looking at what worked and what didn't in the past.
Remove systems that aren't helping the speed and clarity of running the nation. Lower the focus on individuals in government and increase the focus on representative systems. Have a redundancy through independent institutions that review the seats of power and block any attempts of corruption. Produce a functioning bureaucracy that can spot irregularities in procedurs so that abuse of power gets shot down directly. Anyone who abuses his/her power or acts with corruption gets removed immediately, with no drawn out processes or trials, and when in doubt the review happens outside of the a halls of power without them able to screw the system during the process.
With a less focus on the people and individuals in power, there won't be a problem to remove them quickly and replace them. The focus would be on representing the voice of the people and work for them. With a heavier focus on using research to find solutions to problems in society, rather than making decisions based on some arbitrary delusion by a single person who marketed themselves on hyperbole simplicities to a gullible population.
The thing that stands in the way of this is the delusional idea of US hegemony, which makes people believe that the US system is perfect and in no need of a change. It's so ingrained that the people who are in most need of help from the government are the very people voting on politicians who would do nothing to help them. It's this delusion that's eating the US away, slowly killing society by fooling the people that the government exists as if chosen by God.
It is not simply a question of democracy. There's also the economic system to consider, the state of technology, and who wields it.
The current situation is not simply the result of "free speech running it's course" but of a combination of crises.
The American system certainly has staying power- 200+years and counting. The system can be amended to add safeguards against someone like Trump again.
Quoting Christoffer
The lesson of the fascist movement that led to WW2 is a moral lesson, which has been forgotten.
[quote=Goebbels]We enter the Reichstag to arm ourselves with democracy’s weapons. If democracy is foolish enough to give us free railway passes and salaries, that is its problem... We are coming neither as friends or neutrals. We come as enemies! As the wolf attacks the sheep, so come we.
[/quote]
[quote=Jonathan Swift wrote in The Examiner in 1710.]"Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it," [/quote]
With this in mind, it is certainly naive and imprudent to protect the right to lie. On the contrary, media that lie, advertisers that lie, estate agents, politicians, scientists, doctors, that knowingly lie and deceive, need to be sanctioned and firmly discouraged from doing so. Ordinary people can be easily deceived and persuaded by ranting demagogues when trust in the general honesty of leaders and professionals is lost. To mistake freedom of speech with licence to lie is to promote a destructive anti-social ideal, and welcome tyranny into the heart of the nation.
God knows it is easy enough to be mistaken, to misunderstand, to be wrong in what one believes and says unintentionally already, we need no help from purveyors of snake oil.
Who's going to be the arbiter of truth? Government?
If you maintain that it is never possible to distinguish truth from lie, you have already given up on communication, and there is no answer for you. You and I and others need to to do our best, and the law needs to do its best and professional bodies need to do their best, and it will never be perfect. But this is not some radical reform I am proposing; there have been prohibitions on fraud, libel, etc since a long while in many communities, because communication is founded on truth and trust.
Of course there is no one arbiter of truth - stop asking misleading questions and putting yourself on the side of the lie.
I have no problem with fraud and libel laws, but you said Quoting unenlightened
Who's going to do the sanctioning and discouraging, if not government?
I'm not clear on what you mean. You want to sanction and discourage politicians from lying. We already have libel and slander laws. Apparently, you want to go further. You want government to sanction and discourage politicians from lying? I see enormous problems with that.
Does not equal the system perfect or better than other democracies with far less corruption and problems. It is also a system that works when people uphold a certain level of professionality in their purpose as politicians. But when the halls of power gets overrun by narcissistic abusers of power, it is clear there's problems with the system not self-cleaning itself from such abusers.
Quoting unenlightened
Your logic is that when someone brings up problems with the US democracy to immediately link that to an argument for fascism? Or did you mean that as an agreement about the cleanup?
Quoting NOS4A2
Replacing and updating is not equivalent of "trashing". Try again without the strawman.
Trashing it and replacing it with one Christoffer likes.
Do you mean other democracies that were rescued by America at some point in their past?
Lies and disinformation is not the same as information "you do not like".
Quoting NOS4A2
You obviously didn't read what I wrote, ignored or doesn't care. You're just a dishonest interlocutor you twist things to fit your narrative. Why should anyone care about your opinions when you ignore what people write and just make up whatever strawman you can think of?
Quoting RogueAI
You think that's all the democracies that exist in the world, the US and then all that's been "rescued"? No others?
Which democracies did you have in mind?
Of course there are problems with that. We are used to politicians lying and when caught in a lie, shrugging it off or doubling down (to hell?). Yes I want politicians to value truth and reject lies and demand some honour of each other. We are in the situation where that seems an impossible ask; we expect to be lied to all the time, and that is why many people fasten onto whatever conspiracy theory is current. Perhaps it will take another world war or an environmental catastrophe before folk will learn their mistake.
Yes, vote for the party that sanctions its own members occasionally for the most egregious bullshit. Support the Science foundations that expel the fakers of results. Frequent the philosophy forums that remove the proselytisers and crackpots. Do your own best to make the distinction and support others to make the same distinction. Do not vote for liars and charlatans. If you do not make the distinction and hold fast to the truth as best you can, then you cannot in good conscience complain when your democracy is subverted by liars and fascists.
There is no freedom in not being able to believe what anyone says; it is the end of the life of the mind, and the end of civilisation. I see that as an enormous problem.
You can look at places like Scandinavia and Europe to find democracies that have less corruption than the US.
I don’t care about any screed that proposes treating adults like children and limiting their most basic rights so Christoffer can feel a little safer.
I'm sure there are places that have less corruption than the U.S. I'm not sure their system would work for a country as large and diverse as the U.S. It also amuses me when Europeans trash the U.S. while living under the umbrella of protection we've provided for their whole lifetimes.
This doesn't seem to be an uncommon attitude among Americans. I always found this way of arguing kinda odd.
It is after all precisely because the US provides the umbrella of protection that we Europeans are so interested in US politics.
At least on my part, I'm genuinely concerned about the health of the US democracy. And it would seem to be false pride to reject criticism because you're yet strong.
Didn't write anything like that, my proposal was changes to the system to protect people even more, especially from corrupt politicians, and refining the system to be better at self-governing against such corruption and abusers of power. I don't know in what world you live in where that kind of proposal equals whatever nonsense you're interpreting it as. The thing that you don't care about is actually understanding what other's write. Which looks more like evangelism than participating in a discussion. So it's hard to take you seriously because of that. I've talked to marketing chatbots that are more able to understand what I'm writing.
Quoting RogueAI
The protection you talk about does not cover every nation and that also has more to do with military strategies than the stability of any democracy. The fact that other democracies have a lower corruption-index has more to do with redundancy and responsibility and it's easier to get rid of abusers of power. There's also not such a high concentration of power towards just a small portion or single individual and the other institutions are very independent from the government leading to them being better at addressing potential issues with the people in power. And just think of the EU, able to collaborate between such a diversity of nations that individually at their core has a great variety of different political strategies and values, but still able to stabilize as a greater union. That tells a lot about the stability of the system and that's also not a small size.
The bigger question is, do you think it is better to have a president that consolidates so much power or to have less such consolidated power and focus on representatives of the people ruling as a group?
It's also easy to turn things around and point out that the US alone wouldn't survive much on the world stage, it needs its allies just as much as they need the US. It's easy to get lost in the size of the US and forget the capabilities of other nations. Just think about the Swedish little sub who single handedly took down a US Aircraft Carrier. What others don't have in numbers they make up in tech and strategies. So I think you need to adjust your idea of how important the US is, even if it is the most important military ally.
I started worrying about American democracy when Republicans went off the deep end after Obama was elected. I think they saw the writing was on the wall for their brand of white Christian patriarchy and they collectively went nuts. But I was heartened by Biden's victory, the 2022 midterms, and these recent abortion referendum. I don't believe Trump can win again. I think America passed a stress test. I'm still very much concerned though. And sometimes European criticisms of America annoy me. It's easy to bitch about our system, but it has endured and America remains a colossus and a positive force in the world.
Why do you think other adults require your brand of protection, unless you thought they were children? You advise taking their weapons and then turn around and suggest protecting them from the people who are going to take their weapons. If you want to protect them from the state and totalitarianism, let them keep their weapons and instead take the weapons away from the state.
I agree with you here. The world is interconnected, and America can't do it alone. We need allies to contain countries like Iran, Russia, and China. We need a strong Israel to serve as a counterweight to the barbaric states that surround her.
This is just nonsense and ignorant of what I wrote. Arguments for improving a democratic system that push for more rights for the people and better protection against corrupt politicians that abuse their power is treating the people like children?
Quoting NOS4A2
Other nations seems to be just fine without the need to arm citizens to the extent the US is doing, and the US has the highest rate of gun violence as well as accidents involving home-owned firearms so the facts stack up against you on this. Second amendment advocators mostly just function like religious evangelists, disregarding every sound argument and actual evidence in favor of made up scenarios for when to use the weapons as why they're needed, all while the actual use of these weapons are rather killing American citizens like a nationwide corpse factory.
It's also funny that you advocate for these weapons as defense against a potential totalitarian government, but don't want to change democracy to have better tools to fight corruption and remove people who abuse their seat of power. In your world it seems that there's no problems going on, but you still need that Kevlar, M4 rifle and akimbo Glocks to protect against the government. It seems it's rather you who can't seem to spot their dissonance here. Who do you think is more likely to create a totalitarian government, the corrupt power abusers, or a more typical representative democracy with redundancy that removes anyone who abuses their power?
You have a point. Fraud, libel and slander are all crimes in my country. Nonetheless, many lie anyway and get away with it protected under the aegis of free speech. It's a problem. What is the solution? I notice a lot of conservatives lately complaining about "fact checkers being bogus" on media platforms, but when I was young if you wanted to publish something, you had an editor, and if you were an academic you had peer review. We used to have standards -- specifically to filter out the bogus stuff.
My bet is he’s not on a winning trajectory even in the absence of convictions. The story my quote was drawn from was castigating the media for not speaking out more strongly about Trump’s obvious malfeasance and corruption. There’s this kind of massive hype bubble around the so-called inevitability of Trump’s return to the White House, when in fact since his solitary win, Republican candidates have lost 5 electoral round on the trot. The next one will be a complete wipeout for them and for Trump personally. His single solitary ability is to convince large numbers of people of bullshit, it’s the only thing he’s ever done in life.
Sure, but isn’t that what it takes to be elected President?
Mind you, this ‘skill’ without the likes of Bannon and Murdoch, would probably not have taken him far. Even his ‘Art of the Deal’ and so called business acumen was invented and codified by Tony Schwartz, who regrets the shit out of his ghost writing all those years ago.
Yes indeed; standards. It goes for anything. We have food standards, hygiene standards, safety standards, building standards, that we rely on; and, here on this informal site we still have standards of behaviour. Fake money is not tolerable why would we tolerate fake talk? Money is nothing but a promise that we trust. Counterfeit money destroys trust in the currency and inflation is the measure of the loss of trust. Civil unrest is the measure of the loss of trust in government.
And wacko conspiracy theories are the measure of the loss of trust in those institutions that have taken over from religion – Science and the Media.
Without trust there is no society, no government, no police, no army, "...and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short".
Don't forget his Russian comrades.
The idiots like that Trump is an idiot. He is their Golden Idiot, and they put him on a pedestal. "He is one of us, he is just like us!" they say, "Except he's a billionaire, and you know, one day I might be a billionaire, too!" A billionaire idiot who is held up as the golden standard of idiocy, that's what Trump is. He gets away with petty insults, rambling speeches, self-aggrandizing, and constant lying -- which is what the idiots do, and they love it. Take that, intellectuals and people with any education or nuance!
I think there's only one here.
Well, Trump went to the Ivy League.
Where he learned enough about tertiary education to set up one of his scams, Trump University.
[quote=Source;https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2021/10/25/where-did-trump-go-to-college/]The New York attorney general sued the company, accusing it of scamming students. Two class action lawsuits alleged the school defrauded students through misleading marketing and aggressive sales tactics.
Trump initially denied the allegations, but he agreed to pay a $25 million settlement to those who attended Trump University in 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010. Of the thousands of students who attended Trump University between 2005 and 2010, 6,000 are covered for damages under the settlement agreement.[/quote]
His re-election as president may trigger all sorts of PTSD. Be prepared.
He may, nonetheless, not be eligible to appear on the electoral ballot in Colorado, due to his participation in the Jan 6th coup attempt, if a lawsuit there succeeds.
Meanwhile, Trump has been telegraphing his intentions, loud and clear, to gut the bureaucracy, suspend the Constitution, call out the Riot Squad to suppress protests, and go after his enemies in the Department of Justice and FBI. You can bet your boots he would also call off the 2028 Elections. I'm sure this is all part of the fevered revenge fantasies that are playing out in his tortured mind every evening before sleeping, based on his fury at the impudence of mere underlings who are trying to bring him before the Courts. It's why he admires Putin and Kim - he fantasises that he'll be a Strong Man, like them, who can dispose of his enemies in the press and in government by having them killed or exiled to Siberia.
I'm not conceding that Biden is using the justice system to go after a political enemy, by the way, I'm merely pointing out that even if this were the case, it wouldn't make Trump's intention to use the justice system to go after political enemies in the future okay. That would be tantamount to doing away with our democracy, and making us like a Banana Republic, Russia, North Korea, or other totalitarian states where elections don't matter or don't occur at all, and where no one has any true power except the dictator who justifies what he does in ways very similar to what Trump is doing now. You aren't "righting the ship" in a democratic republic with a law that is supposed to apply equally and fairly to everyone if you're simply going to adopt the method of your political opponents that you are claiming is "wrong" now but somehow becomes acceptable when you do it later.
The notion that Trump called for the termination of the constitution or that he was going to indict political opponents is nonsense. It’s just the clever twisting of his admittedly loose words into something palpable for the anti-Trump mind, riddled as it is with the incessant campaign for views and advertising bucks from an industry in its death-throes. So it cannot be that Trump’s opponents are weaponizing the justice system against him, even though they campaigned on it and are now doing it, it’s that we ought to fear Trump maybe doing it in some dystopian future, much like the future they promised us before he was elected the first time, but what only Biden could deliver: war, failed economy, weaponized and two-tiered justice.
The reason the investigation was not conclusive was because of the obstructions put up to it by the involved parties. Mueller explicitly stated this is why he could not exonerate the parties.
A.G. Barr launched an investigation into the FBI that petered out after years of Durham rooting about for a cabal who was said to be the fabricator of the cause for the investigation. It was what MAGA likes to call a fishing expedition.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1723029594368794640[/tweet]
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109449803240069864
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/376097-trump-take-the-guns-first-go-through-due-process-second/
This is true. A fraud at that level allowed for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles of the constitution. That’s why it was wrong.
He was explaining why it was wrong to weaponize the justice department, because doing so sets the precedent.
No it's not.
Quoting NOS4A2
He wasn't just explaining that. He was also saying that he will weaponize it in the future.
And whereas he is being indicted because there is evidence of multiple crimes, he explicitly said that he would indict someone if "[he sees] somebody who is doing well and beating [him] very badly."
He's planning to weaponize the justice department in response to legitimate cases against him.
But you thought he was saying it allows him to terminate the constitution, which is an absolute lie.
False. He was explaining why it was wrong.
"A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles ... found in the Constitution."
He's literally saying that.
Quoting NOS4A2
He wasn't just explaining why it was wrong. He was explaining that he would commit that very same wrong (that he is falsely accusing others of).
:up: :100:
He’s literally not.
All I have to do is look at the preceding context (which you suspiciously leave out) and see that you’re wrong.
“They have done something that allows the next party — I mean, if somebody, if I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say ‘Go down and indict them.’ They’d be out of business, they’d be out of the election.”
He literally is.
Quoting NOS4A2
Exactly. He’s saying that because he is being indicted then if he wins the election then he will indict his opponents if he sees that they are doing well and beating him.
And you think he’s going to do this in the 2028 election, even though he can’t and won’t run in 2028? Utter nonsense.
"“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”"
He'll just make up some bullshit and then call for terminating the Constitution again. The authoritarian playbook for consolidating power is not hard to follow: declare an emergency, suspend whatever rules there are, and tell the people you're their only hope.
The saving grace here is that Trump will be very old, but if he's capable of reading a teleprompter, they'll certainly try and keep him in power. Even if he's in a coma, one of his toadies will try and "terminate" the 22nd amendment.
The Horowitz Report is actually a more disturbing report on the problems with FISA warrants and information sharing in the various institutions. That report did not, however, support the charge that the entire investigation was a hoax.
The Durham report ignored many elements of the investigation Mueller presented. Durham's ignorance of those elements came out in Congressional testimony:
Quoting Jonathan Chait
And then there is the fact that Durham failed to bring proof of the conspiracy he was promulgating into any successful convictions.
At the 12:16 mark, Acevedo asks if Trump would do what he says has been done to him:
At the 15:35 mark, Trump says "It could certainly happen in reverse." Not the most cogent response but certainly not a matter of his words being taken out of context.
“You can’t do that, you can’t go after people. You know, when you’re president, and you’ve done a good job and you’re popular, you don’t go after them so you can win an election.”
Why wouldn’t you include this in there?
Now who is taking the comments out of context? The question was whether he would do what was done to him. He continues to describe what he claims happened to him, not what he would never do.
The media was kind enough to quote him out of context, frame it, and you were silly enough to fall for it and defend it. Shameful.
I included a link to the entire interview. The section I pointed out gives the context for the ensuing remarks.
The quote I gave is in the ensuing remarks, but suspiciously missing from your context.
Just play the video longer than where Trump says: "It could certainly happen in reverse" in response to the question from Acevedo. The quote you provide is not a qualification or reversal of that response.
The video concludes with how successfully Trump is depicting these cases as political persecution, and the shocking thing is how many people are simply prepared to believe it.
Trump's malfeasance ought to be obvious to anyone who reviewed the January 6th hearings, which as you will recall were produced by a seasoned TV executive so as to cut through all of the technicalities and get to the essence. And yet a large section of the electorate either hasn't seen it, or chooses to turn a blind eye.
I don't think sufficient political or media attention is being paid to Trump's obvious threat to constitutional democracy. There's too much of an acceptance of the 'business as usual' nature of Trump's candidacy, a kind of resignation - 'oh well, look at the polls'. (That is why the various 14th Amendment cases against eligibility may prove crucial.) In any case, the media itself, with the exception of MSNBC and the like, is remiss in not drawing more attention to the obviousness of Trump's intention to disable American constitutional democracy.
The January 6th coup attempt is ongoing.
I played it longer and it follows the one sentence you’ve quote.
“ You can’t do that, you can’t go after people. You know, when you’re president, and you’ve done a good job and you’re popular, you don’t go after them so you can win an election.”
That sounds pretty explicit to me.
It's beyond doubt what he says he intends to do:
[quote=Trump calls Political Enemies 'Vermin', echoing Dictators Hitler and Mussolini;https://wapo.st/47rE7Qi]“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections,” Trump said toward the end of his speech, repeating his false claims that the 2020 election was stolen. “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.”
Trump went on further to state: “the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within."[/quote]
That "threat" is, of course, the duly elected Government of the United States and the officials of the various Departments which execute the law.
These remarks dovetail with the interview's argument that legal means to correct the elections have been overpowered by a nefarious power. An extra-legal force may be necessary in order to remove an extra-legal regime.
It is the logic of the Secessionists used by the Confederates in the Civil War but with the insistence that the whole Union comply with the new constitution.
Trump Was ‘Not Going To Leave’ The White House, Lawyer Testifies In Georgia Case
Jenna Ellis told investigators a senior White House aide insisted to her that Trump was just going to “stay in power” despite losing the 2020 election.
“‘We are just going to stay in power,’” she recounted him telling her. “And I said to him, ‘Well, it doesn’t quite work that way, you realize?’ and he said, ‘We don’t care.’”
And Sidney Powell, who also has pleaded guilty, told prosecutors Trump relied on her counsel against the advice of those in the White House, saying he did so “because we were the only ones willing to support his effort to sustain the White House.”
“I mean, everybody else was telling him to pack up and go,” Powell said in her testimony.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-shares-creepy-fantasy-about-citizens-arrest-of-judge-engoron-ag-letitia-james
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-fiery-rhetoric-jonathan-karl_n_6552a1dee4b0c9f2466156af
Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?
Did he stay?
As an aside, it truly is amazing the lengths you'll go to to lick this guy's boots. Literally nothing at all could make you think he did something wrong. He said he could kill a man in broad daylight and not lose any fans - you seem exactly the type that he's talking about.
:up: :up:
So another nothing burger. Look at the lengths you go to fabricate a reality you know is not true.
Then they lecture people on how brainwashed they are. Without a shred of self-awareness.
The lengths I go to are "reading the words of his employees and people who worked with him". Oh, and also listening to his own words - I go to that length too.
They said some things…the total extent of your complaints.
Wow.
NOS doesn't believe that words have any power because like, they're not physical stuff. Nevertheless, he's used countless words over the years to defend his God-King in this thread.
It stands to reason he could also pose the most danger through his words
Charles Manson is in prison for words.
Trump seems to care about words too:
But remember: when it's against my ideology or team, it's only words. When it's the "other" guys, Clinton, Hunter Biden, etc. -- more than words.
Au contraire, with mere words Trump managed to convince millions that the election was stolen, despite all evidence, or rather lack of evidence, to the contrary. In fact, some of them believed it so fervently they stormed the nations capitol and intentionally disrupted congress.
As of September, around 380 people have been imprisoned because of January 6th. Imprisonment caused by mere words from your God-King.
No. They saw a virtual candidate in Joe Biden, someone who didn’t leave his bunker and had abysmal attendance at his rallies, but got the most votes of any president ever. That’s the problem: you pretend Trump convinced everyone, but really they’re just watching your malfeasance.
It's surprising to you that Biden is popular, fair enough. Is it also surprising to you that people really, really dislike trump?
Remarkably, you’re using some of the Big Lie words verbatim, that Joe never left his bunker, had poor attendance at his rallies, and yet got the most votes in history. This strongly indicates that you believe these words have influential power. And you’re right, they’ve proven to be effective.
I personally didn’t attend any of Biden’s rallies. Does that somehow disqualify my vote for him? I simply chose what I thought was the much lesser of two evils.
Why would anyone attend a political rally? It's so weird. Just watch whatever they have to say on TV. It's much more comfortable.
I guess it’s a cult thing.
I was just thinking how meaningless a life must be to flock around a creep like Trump as though he were the second coming of Christ. And indeed many of them claim he was chosen by God, whatever that means.
Hah, Jack Smith even quoted this in a recent court filing.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232/gov.uscourts.cadc.40232.1208570955.0.pdf
Big Lie, capital letters, exactly as written by political operatives. Everything is decided for you. Your only duty (and ability) is to repeat it. You cannot do otherwise. But your sorcery theory of words suggests you’d blame them and not yourself for being their parrot.
The same could be said about your rhetoric. You got it from the same well your fellows drink from. What have you decided for yourself?
And do you have limits upon what rhetoric you will apologize for? Are you on board with Trump's call to root out his opponents like vermin as he expressed during his Veterans Day speech?
On the one hand I'd implore you tell me in your own words what was wrong with Trump's speech, but on the other hand I don't need you to because I know what you're going to say.
NOS, how would you not see this as unhinged, echoing well-trodden fascist rhetoric for political opponents? Trump is saying all the stuff upfront, political opponents are going to be “rooted out”. This is literally fascist dictator playbook 101. And references to vermin cannot be just coincidence to fascist rhetoric…insane.
Perhaps you can quote him and we can analyze his "echoing" of "fascist rhetoric", words that are plucked directly from the headlines that report on it.
A big lie about a big lie written by political operatives? :chin: :snicker:
A big lie is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth primarily used as a political propaganda technique. The German expression was first used by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf (1925) to describe how people could be induced to believe so colossal a lie because they would not believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". Goebbels said that if you tell "a lie big enough" and regularly repeat it [by someone viewed as an authority], "people will eventually come to believe it."
Anyway, if you’re saying that the Big Lie is a big lie then that seems to mean that you believe the Big Lie and that Trump’s propaganda has succeeded in shaping your beliefs.
Hitler claimed the jews were using the big lie to deceive Germans. Praxis claims Trump is using the Big Lie to deceive Americans.
Correct. :up:
I guess your mind-numbing conclusion is that I’m a nazi.
You’re literally thinking like Hitler now.
Well, I don’t seem to be convincing you that the Big Lie is actually a lie so I gotta work on my Hitler thinking.
“We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections, “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream.” - Trump, Vermin Speech
Okay, it sounds like you have no problems with the speech. Seeing as how you believe the election was stolen, do you agree with Trumps stated agenda? Or do you consider the eliminationist rhetoric another instance of poetic license?
You dodged the question of how your rhetoric is less manufactured than the ones you oppose.
A fascist dictator campaigning on rooting out fascists? Pretty wild.
Politicians use inflammatory metaphors and dysphemism. Trump’s rhetoric is closer to that of Winston Churchill, for example, who described Bolsheviks as “swarms of typhus-bearing vermin” and said they were “like troops of ferocious baboons amid the ruins of cities and the corpses of their victims”. His threat to root out both “communists” and “fascists” suggests a closer parallel to Churchill (who opposed both in war) than to any fascist dictator. At any rate, making such parallels is clearly a poor exercise in guilt by association. Trump is a business man, nothing like the Austrian artist, the Italian journalist, or the British writer, who have higher social, ideological, linguistic, and spiritual affinities to Trump’s critics than to a man of Trump’s standing.
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour-extras/the-creeds-of-the-devil-churchill-between-the-two-totalitarianisms-1917-1945-1-of-3/
So you are comparing Churchill’s behind the scene writings, who was born in 1874, and known for his notoriously anti-communism to the point of frothing fury, as that article points out, and who participated in the hate rhetoric at the time, right after a cataclysmic world war, where the Russians all pulled out of the Eastern front in 1918 under the Soviets, and which the article pointed out had an even more pointed hatred at “Leftist Jews” to Trumps modern day speech said to the public at a rally, fascist dictator style (like Hitler and Mussolini), and knowing with the knowledge of history that this style rhetoric lead to extreme fascism in both Italy and Germany in the 30s and 40s where political minorities and ethnic minorities were stripped of their rights and lives brutally imprisoned and killed?Get outta here.
The difference is that both Trump the US are fighting fantasy 'enemies within', and that is what puts them on the fascict side on this occasion. Identifying the real enemy is the crucial step that is lacking (hint: think oil).
I was trying to illustrate how fallacious such comparisons are. You’re comparing rhetoric; it’s like saying they’re all fascists because they swear. It’s dumb.
Been perusing some of Churchill's racist quotes. They do sound like the sort of thing Trump would say. Therefore, racism is fine, I guess. The useful thing is that we can apply this method of making bad things good to pretty much anything by simply finding an admired historical figure who was also an arsehole. Thank you, @NOS4A2 :up:
“They do sound like the sort of thing Trump would say. Therefore, racism is fine, I guess.” We’ll have to name this fallacy Badenism!
The difference between public and private declarations of agendas can be seen in figures like Senator Joe McCarthy, who propelled investigations into "un-Americans" infiltrating government and society. A similar effort to go beyond rhetoric to shaping institutions can be found in Trump's executive order, issued on October 21, 2020: Executive Order on Creating Schedule F In The Excepted Service.
The order chips away at the civil services means to resist the power of patronage to fill the ranks of government. That is attractive to Trump's unipolar view of personal loyalty but also appeals to a conservative movement he fawns upon but does not actually represent. Consider the Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. Their mission statement is as follows:
This intrepid band of Culture Warriors are a vital component of the coalition supporting Trump but does not represent the animus of those willing to break the law. The "stand back but stand by" rhetoric is still alive in Trump's speaking of pardoning January 6 participants.
The rhetoric being used is a tug of war between two camps. The poo-pooing of alarmed Liberals as suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome is straight from the Fox News normalization of MAGA. But the language of being completely dominated by an ideological regime has that Confederate tang you want in an energy drink.
NOSism - fat-shaming someone by noting their similarities to Churchill.
https://apnews.com/article/trump-letitia-james-fraud-trial-gag-order-c25e51a094dbcdeffbf67589b1c07f37
I’m surprised there are still some adults in the system, to be honest.
Same, can't believe trump didn't get rid of em all.
Biden fired them all. He went after Trump appointees and filled the positions with his loyalists.
State judges are not removed by the executive branch:
Quoting New York Constitution Article VI - Judiciary Section 23 - Removal of judges
Federal judges are removed thusly:
Quoting Article III of the Constitution
Yes good points. It is the frog being boiled slowly with ever higher temperature increases. It is the dog whistles and winking nods and the suggestive language. It is the tactic of lawyer tricks. It's all about getting away with technicalities so one can always hedge and say the audience is just misinterpreting or reading too much into it. The difference between a January 6th and something like the DNC headquarters being inundated with extremist pro-Palestine protestors is that Biden (clearly) isn't encouraging these behaviors. It's the same reason (among many others) for why that pathetic Churchill analogy wasn't adequate. Rather, it is intentionally using fascist language. He was reading it off a teleprompter. Whoever helped him write that knew the rhetoric. There is a reason he put "fascists" amidst the Marxists and communists. Plausible deniability. "How can I be promoting fascist language if I said I would root out the fascists". Who does that actually work on? Also, what kind of fascists is he referring to? Is he meaning, "Woke fascists"? If that's the case, then again, it can always be sidestepped as being overmined, misinterpreted, Trump Derangement Syndrome. This is political gaslighting at its finest.
I was not speaking about judges.
I followed the trail back a bit, and it appears you're referring to his 1/6 speech. If so, it's a red herring. The context is relevant: Trump had been publicly proclaiming the election was stolen since the election night, which ginned up anger in his supporters - including the crazy and violent, like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys (remember Trump's callout to them during a debate: "stand back and stand by"). They took him seriously then and when he invited his angered supporters to D.C. "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" This was despite the fact he'd been told by DOJ leadership, and White House Counsel the fraud allegations were bogus.
Why the scare quotes? He engaged! But the judgement was that the clause doesn’t apply in this case.
Needless to say, Trump will trumpet this as a huge win. No collusion!
Still reckon he’s going to be a convicted felon before November next.
I agree that the smorgasbord of incompatible themes provides a means of plausible deniability. I am proposing that it also reflects the motley crew gathered under his tent.
The Sovereign individual movement rejects government, as such. The various nationalists' movements who seek state power range from the old school white civilization vision of Buchanan to the 'anti-globalist' stew of Bannon. The Christian evangelists are fairly represented in the Heritage Foundation paper I linked to previously. The anti-regulation message serves the interests of the wealthy to become more so. Old school Libertarians want isolationism, etcetera.
The degree to which Trump could be said to genuinely support these various ideas has to be seen through the lens of his experiences in New York City. This article, How Gotham Gave Us Trump, gives a helpful account of his view of the world. The dynamic of wanting to be recognized by a certain elite while simultaneously seeking to punish them for not doing so still is alive today.
Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe made this point on MSNBC this morning. They suggested this may have even been the strategy of the trial judge. (I realize MSNBC tends to tell Democrats what they want to hear, but nevertheless it's an interesting theory).
Just like to occasionally point out the facts in the midst of all the make believe the cultists have developed like bad improv comedy.
The tribalism is so glaringly obvious it’s hilarious. Watching them go after Biden (often rightly so, in my view) and then turn around and go through the most pathetic contortions to defend Trump…just classic.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/investigatej6/status/1726444531774562575?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
I think this only shows that the protesters were too stupid to run away from pepper spray and rubber bullets. Do they also piss into the wind?
The protesters were too stupid to run away from pepper spray and rubber bullets. Don’t forget, there was also the one that was too stupid to run away from the real bullet.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. :worry:
Who received a bronze statue for BLM rioting? Oh, you mean the slavers statue that was pulled down. Were you a fan or something? Why do care so much about that?
If the time stamp on the video is correct, these "provocations" by police officers began at 1:15PM. By then, the following had already occurred:
12:45 p.m - FBI, Capitol Police, and ATF responded to a pipe bomb that had been found outside RNC HQ,
12:49PM - Police found a vehicle that contained home-made napalm, a loaded M4, and molotov cocktails
12:53PM - the outer perimeter of barricades at the Capitol had been breached
1:03PM - 3 layers of barricades had been breached
1:07PM - A pipe bomb was found outside DNC HQ
So it looks to me like the poster of that video is still trying to rationalize his irrational denialism regarding 1/6. Not one shred of that "slick narrative" you refer to is debunked.
This highly edited video makes me wish the police had used even greater force. Something similar to the force they use against peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstrators anyway.
This video only shows their restraint. Those imbeciles should have never been there anyway. They’re very lucky they weren’t mowed down.
I’m sure the police would have had such restraint if the crowd were black or Muslim. I’m sure they would have been allowed to stroll into the Capitol and shit in the hallways too.
Your racism sure does shine through sometimes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_George_Floyd
Ah.
It is admirable that Floyd turned his life around with the help of the church. After being found libel for fraud and rape, and facing scores of felony charges, there’s no sign that Trump’s going to turn his life around. Despite all that there’s also no sign that NOS, who’s been diligently defending Trump in this thread for years, thinks that he’s a scumbag. No Trump supporter would say that Trump’s a scumbag. If fact, many claim that he was chosen by God.
So when a person like NOS calls someone a scumbag it is meaningless.
They’re throwing concussion grenades into the crowd of people indiscriminately and without warning. They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces. Did you see any of this in the J6 show trial?
Exactly. One point does have credibility, in my view: that militia were “leading the way,” so to speak. Oath Keepers, etc. That’s not a surprise, though, and doesn’t negate why people were there to begin with: they were whipped up into a frenzy by lies of a stolen election. Given that they actually believed that stupid bullshit, it’s no wonder they wanted to storm the Capitol.
If they are black, it wouldn’t be “less than lethal.” There should consider themselves very lucky indeed.
The way I see it is: on the street they were protesters, pushing past the police barricades and approaching the Capitol building they were rioters, and breaking into the Capitol building and trying to get into the rooms where Congress was certifying the election results they were insurrectionists. If you want to understand why and where Ashli Babbitt got shot, this is how to frame it. She was attempting to climb through a broken window beside a barricaded door into the Speaker's Lobby while Capitol police were evacuating members of Congress to keep them safe. These people weren't protesting peacefully, they were trying to intimidate and prevent Congress from certifying Biden as the President.
...who had breeched the barricades and police lines and after pipe bombs had been found. Are you suggesting the actions of these undermanned police wasn't warranted? Do you think it was a legal act to break into the Capitol?
[Quote] They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces.[/quote]The video appears to show one guy who took a shot to his face, presumably from police shooting from a distance. Again, were the cops unwarranted in doing so? What would you have them do, under the full context of circumstances? (A context you've ignored)?
[Quote]Did you see any of this in the J6 show trial?[/quote] Are you referring to Stewart Rhodes trial? J6 committee hearings? Please explain what falsehoods came out.
It seems he's defending an attempt to overthrow the government and disregard democracy in order to whitewash Trump's connection to it.
Has this thread basically become his constant attempts at defending Trump and everyone else trying to get the discussion down to earth?
Christian nationalists party at Mar-a-Lago and warn of God's wrath if Trump loses again (— Brad Reed · Raw Story · Nov 21, 2023)
Trump has long praised autocrats and populists. He’s now embracing Argentina’s new president (— Nicholas Riccardi, Jill Colvin · AP · Nov 21, 2023)
... or maybe not. That Lance Wallnau fellow is a goner. I guess we'll see what Javier Milei is going to do.
Responding to trolls is counter-productive. Best to ignore.
If these people were guilty of something, then they might have deserved such treatment. If they weren’t guilty of any such thing, then they didn’t deserve such treatment. Some people were simply exercising their fundamental rights. The suggestion all of the people there were doing something illegal or were associated with a potential pipe-bomber is unwarranted, as was the indiscriminate application of force.
Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune. Should the protesters have been shot in the face with pepper balls and concussion grenades thrown at their feet?
Yes, they were unwarranted because it is not clear who is or is not guilty of the crimes you imply they have committed.
I am asking about the J6 committee show trial in particular, the one tasked with investigating and informing the public on the matter. Did you see any of this video in the footage that was sewn together by the Hollywood producer, or at any time throughout the hearing?
The reports show that pepper spray, tear gas, and concussion grenades were used to disperse a crowd of hundreds. By contrast, it’s estimated that ten thousand were at the insurrection, two thousand of which made it into the capital building.
The right to protest does not confer the right to break the law. It is illegal to pass through a barricade erected by police. Everyone fired upon was guilty of that, and they were fired upon because the crowd was moving toward the Capitol, during an official proceding - a proceeding that (it was known) many in the crowd wanted to stop, and there were good reasons to suspect some might have bombs. It was the duty of police to stop the crowd from illegally entering and disrupting the proceeding.
Undoubtedly, many were just following the crowd- they didn't personally push through the barricades or personally break into the Capitol. But it was nevertheless stupid and dangerous to follow.
[Quote]Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune.[/quote]
You have shifted from an allegation the police did wrong to complaining about a perceived double standard in the media and some politicians. Violence, vandalism, and breaking&entering is wrong in all cases - do you agree? The 2020 crowd engaged in those crimes, but they did not break into the White House or disrupt an official proceeding.
[Quote]they were unwarranted because it is not clear who is or is not guilty of the crimes you imply they have committed.[/quote]
100% had crossed the barricades, and it is impossible for the outmanned police to distinguish the violent from the nonviolent. In 2020, tear gas cannisters were thrown into the crowd - was that also inappropriate?
What should police have done on 1/6? What do you think they would have done had they tried breaking into the White House in 2020?
[Quote]I am asking about the J6 committee show trial in particular, the one tasked with investigating and informing the public on the matter. Did you see any of this video in the footage that was sewn together by the Hollywood producer, or at any time throughout the hearing?[/quote]
Yes, I saw it. It wasn't a trial, it was closer to a grand jury proceeding pusuant to an indictment. I'm waiting for you to identify what lies it contained.
They were fired upon for passing through a barricade erected by police, and for moving toward the capitol during an official proceeding.This justifies the indiscriminate throwing of concussion grenades into the crowd, who are all criminals, according to Relativist. That's all I needed to know.
I haven't shifted. It is wrong to use force so indiscriminately, especially when those people are only guilty of waving flags and middle fingers. Nothing has changed.
I'm just making the side point that the entire year prior was filled with far worse violence and destruction, up until and including an attack on the white house, which spread beyond the temporary barriers into the streets where private property was destroyed and (of course) looted. I'm just wondering where all the investigative committees and finger-wagging about "our democracy" is. This apparent hypocrisy doesn't go unnoticed.
A "show trial" isn't an actual trial either.
Again, my only point that this footage wasn't found in the inquiries, or at least I missed it. But you did see this footage in the hearings? There were 10 hearings in total (C-Span). Do you recall which hearing it was? I'd like to see it with my own eyes.
You omitted the fact that they were fired upon with non-lethal weapons to prevent their entry into the Capitol, that would jeopardize the proceding, and there was a real threat that they could have bombs. They weren't fired upon to stop them protesting.
Quoting NOS4A2
Was it inappropriate to stop people from breaking into the Capitol? You have sidestepped this point. Explain how police could discriminate between those who would be harmful from those who were harmless.
Quoting NOS4A2
Sure, worse violence and destruction, but the Capitol situation is unique in that an official proceding required by law to take place on that date was being jeopardized. You treat this as irrelevant, though it was the key point.
[Quote]my only point that this footage wasn't found in the inquiries, [/quote]
So you agree the J6 committee told no lies, but you would have liked them to have shown this guy who inadvertantly got hurt by police. The committee was focusing on crimes, but I agree it would have added to the story, implicating Trump's immorality even further. Had he not inflamed his followers with lies (e.g. election was stolen and certification could be prevented) and had he not encouraged them to come to the DC that day, the innocent protestors would not have been hurt. You completely ignore this.
BTW, police actions were scrutinized and deemed justified. See: Www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
You omitted the fact that no one was found with bombs at the riot. So the "real threat" was in fact not real.
When protesters stormed the police barriers during the Kavanaugh hearings, and tried to break into the building, they were arrested. When they broke into the Hart Senate building and protested illegally, they were arrested. When Isreal/Gaza protesters got into the Cannon House Office Building and protested there, they were arrested. That sort of enforcement is justified. What they didn't do was fire "less-than-lethal" weapons into the crowd indiscriminately. What they didn't do was shoot an unarmed woman in the neck.
It think it is appropriate to stop people from entering the capitol. Go ahead and arrest them. But it is not appropriate to inflict violence on the non-violent. Are you unable to discriminate between those who are violent and those who are not? If you see a woman waiving a flag in protest, or filming the crowd on her phone, do you suggest throwing a concussion grenade at her just in case?
Who cares about official proceedings? It's a stupid point.
The whole thing was an show trial. I've said this many times. They implicated nothing but their use of public funds to spread propaganda.
The capitol police believed their own actions were justified. Big surprise.
That's irrelevant to the police actions at the time. They aren't clairvoyant. There was a credible threat when the actions were taken.
The context includes much more than hypothetical threat. A good outline of events is clear from radio dispatches presented at the trial of some Proud Boys. See:
https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/proud-boys/our-situation-here-is-dire-radio-dispatches-reveal-police-scrambling-as-jan-6-rioters-break-into-building/
Quoting NOS4A2
The other situations were different. For example, in the Kavanaugh protests there were maybe a couple hundred protesters banging on the door of the Supreme Court - they didn't break in, and the number was small enough it could be dealt with by arresting them.
Quoting NOS4A2
Here's a quote from a Capitol police officer:
"You couldn't have arrested anybody. You could not. We were surrounded. Normally in mass-arrest situation, they comply under arrest. But (the attackers had) already proven to us they wanted to beat our asses. No way arrests could have been affected at that moment. Just get these people out and survive."
Quoting NOS4A2
It's highly relevant, and it seems that's why you choose to disregard it. It was a key proceeding mandated by law, one that Trump wanted to corrupt (through Pence) or to stop (through the actions of his unthinking minions).
Quoting NOS4A2
Propaganda? I asked you to identify some lies, and you couldn't find any. Important facts were presented. We learned about the role of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, of Rudy's lies, of Trump trying to get the acting AG to lie for him, of Eastman's unconstitutional scheme, and of Trump's pressuring Pence to illegally reject the certified results. It presented an accurate timeline showing Trump's inaction (save for condemning Pence) as the Capitol was broken into. And many more. Your only concern was the fact that there were some presumably innocent people in the crowd that got hurt, while ignoring the context that led to the use of non-lethal force, and ignoring that these innocent people were there based on lies by a man who'd sworn an oath to defend the Constitution.
You've made it clear you don't care what anyone did except for the Police.
The irony: most Trump supporters were outraged that Biden had ostensibly stolen the election. What actually occurred is that TRUMP was attempting to steal the election with lies, but when Trump does this, you think it 's insignificant. Are you disappointed he failed?
Quoting NOS4A2
Big surprise: you disregard it because it doesn't fit your preferred narrative. Who would you have wanted to conduct the review? Steve Bannon?
I’m glad there are still some adults in the system, to be honest.
""Without expedited review, [the defendants] will continue to suffer irreparable injury daily"
(https://news.yahoo.com/trump-seeks-urgent-review-gag-162355358.html)
Consider what this means: Trump is "injured" by being restricted from making false statements attacking the judge's clerk, judge's wife, and others. This is his forte, and his best path to getting elected, but I wish his supporters could make this connection.
That is a curtailment of free speech, as i understand it. Unfortunately, it's actually the legal proceeding protocol that matters, so your conclusion is still correct (particularly with the second post immediately above this one)
The broad legal issue is: are any judicial gag orders constitutional? Trump isn't special.
(am not trained in constitutional law, but law in general).
Yes. It has to meet the benchmark for 'fair trial rights' being preserved, though. That can be pretty vague and requires serious scrutiny of the order in question.
Trump Loses Bid to Fast-Track Appeal of His New York Gag Orders
That was fast.
Trump has posted degrading lies about many people over the years that led to threats by some of his devoted deranged followers. This is protected free speech (I presume). But now he's in a civil court, and this apparently gives the judge some discretion to restrict that speech.
Supporters of maximal free speech (like the ACLU) defend Trump's right to disparage people, irrespective of any consequences that follow from that disparagement, and deny that involvement in a court proceeding makes any difference.
The gag order in the criminal court has different circumstances. When someone's indicted, they aren't entitled to all freedoms: they're often jailed pending trial, but usually offered the opportunity to post bail to stay out of lockup. But in this case, there can be conditions of release. I think this gives a judge in a criminal case broader discretion. Nevertheless, the ACLU still insists 1st Amendment rights "trump" judge's discretion.
It's tempting to criticize the ACLU for caring more about free speech than the risks posed to the people Trump is disparaging. But they are just defending a principle of maximal, unrestricted free speech. So it's a fair Constitutional question (IMO). But setting aside this Constitutional technicality, I think there's something inherently wrong with allowing people to be endangered by false and inflammatory public language.
I'm interested in hearing your assessment of what I just wrote, since you're a lawyer.
Yes. it's dangerous, for a start. And false and inflammatory.
That’s what these gags are about. As usual, it’s Trump’s fault they are getting threats. It has nothing to do with their own behavior. His Truth posts must be so powerful they trigger successive interactions in the human nervous system, leading to danger. In the deranged Trump supporter, Trump’s criticism leads them to commit threats.
But that’s just the bullshit excuse they use to cover for their political desire to censor the one man criticizing their malfeasances. The proof is that they have the tools to protect their staff and prosecute those who commit threats but they punish Trump instead. He can’t criticize the law clerk chumming around with Chuck Shumer. Can’t criticize the judge and his weird, shirtless social media posts. But they can let a racist DA with TDS abuse the justice system to hurt Trump financially and politically.
Get real. No one's claiming the people making threats are innocent. But it's firmly established that there are people like this who follow Trump. Threats to the people he disparages are inevitable, and Trump surely knows that - so it's irresponsible to inflame them - irrespective of the legality (that's for courts to decide). Consider that Trump could add a disclaimer to every one of his attacks, reminding everyone not to take actions or make threats. Or he could simply remind all his followers to remain law abiding. Instead he's passive, which leads one to suspect he's fine with whatever happens. Reminds me of his 1/6 tweet: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long".
"But that’s just the bullshit excuse they use to cover for their political desire to censor the one man criticizing their malfeasances"
The only thing Engeron "censored" was Trump's attacks on his law clerk. How does that hurt him politically? Do his political ambitions depend on maximizing animosity toward anyone he chooses to denigrate?
Racist?
The race that speaks with a forked tongue? :gasp:
Your use of the word “attack” indicates your belief that his criticism is somehow aggressive and violent. But this specious rhetoric only serves to disguise the truth, namely, that his criticism is non-violent. He neither speaks of violence nor advocates for it, something that his critics would never mention because it undermines their whole case.
And sexist, apparently.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/endwokeness/status/1717030987060727999?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
You're groping for something to complain about, since you ignored the substance of what I said. The label "attack" applies to many negative statements a person might make against another. Engeron described it that way: “Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate and I will not tolerate them in any circumstances.” Have his lawyers objected to that term? My impression is that they're simply arguing that his attacks are protected free speech.
Has anyone said Trump's "criticism" is violent? I haven't. But I said that it is PREDICTABLY likely to result in violent threats, and Trump is clearly aware:
[i]"A top court security official wrote in an affidavit that transcriptions of threats to Greenfield and Engoron produced since Trump's original Oct. 3 social media post filled 275 single-spaced pages. Charles Hollen, an official in the Department of Public Safety, said the threats included calls to Greenfield's personal phone and messages to her personal email account.
"Hollen wrote that the threats increased when the gag order was stayed, and that during that time, "approximately half of the harassing and disparaging messages have been antisemitic."[/i]
--https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gag-order-new-york-fraud-case-appeal/
As I've said, the courts will have to sort out the Constitutional issues. Perhaps they'll decide Trump has the constitutional right to post inflammatory lies about people. But that has no bearing on the immorality of what he's doing. Why don't you comment on that?
Quoting NOS4A2
Non-sequitur. James has been pushing for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party. Such a desire does not entail sexism. Consider: https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-hopes-to-add-black-lawmakers-to-house-11603892455
One of the greatest dangers of words comes from disregard for their importance, as if what Trump says does not matter.
When Trump speaks his "patriots" listen. When he says:
they believe him. Do you think these "patriots" will act on his words or not?
The substance of what you said was pure wind. I don't care what Engeron describes. I don't care what the unjust court says. Their arguments are hokum. Of course his criticism is free speech. Their gag order is censorship.
There is nothing to comment on. It's complete nonsense. He has a right under the constitution to say whatever he wants, up until the very high bar of "immanent lawless action". No matter how hard they try to say his criticism somehow correlated with someone else's threats, it doesn't matter, they are abridging his human rights. These threats also correlate with the degree to which they are exposed as unjust, petty tyrants and fellow travellers with Trump's political foes. If they were just, fair, and did not violate his rights, I bet they'd get less threats.
Straw man. I did not say her desires for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party entails racism, though it does, and for the same reason desiring more men and whites is racist. She was saying the administration is "too male, too pale, and too stale" which is both racist and sexist.
No and for the same reason you wouldn't act on his words. Words don't have the power you pretend they do.
If they do act it is because they perceive an injustice, not words.
You have a lot in common with Trump: you're rebuttals consist of negative adjectives and biased judgment with no facts or logical arguments.
Quoting NOS4A2
Are you an expert in Constitutional Law? I'm not, and that's why I simply indicate that the courts will decide that issue. I would certainly PREFER that they consider the consequences of such incindiary speech, but I'll accept what is decided. But as I said, regardless of how the courts will decide - his behavior is immoral. If you disagree that it's immoral, then make a case (for a change. reminder: this is a philosophy forum).
Quoting NOS4A2
A video of her chanting "too male, too pale, and too stale" doesn't entail (i.e. logically imply) that she's racist. Neither does a desire for more people like her serving in public office. Whether or not someone is truly racist is usually difficult to know, because we can't peek into their heads to understand what they actually believe and what their motivations are. Only when there's a long term pattern of behavior can we discern that, like members of the KKK. I think it's debatable as to whether or not Trump is racist for that same reason, and there's a boatload more questionable comments and actions he's responsible for over the years.
The accusations are confessions, of course.
Of course they do, and you know it. Why do you continue defending Trump if words do not have power? Why do you object to the gag order if words do not have power? Why insist on his right to say whatever he wants if his words do not have power?
The fact of the matter is that you use words as a rhetorical devise in an attempt to destroy the power and meaning of words, accusing those who oppose him of whatever it is he is accused of.
Quoting NOS4A2
If they perceive an injustice it is based in large part on words, on what they have been told. On Trump telling them:
and:
Yes.
Did Trump attemp an self-coup?
No.
The Secret Service just drove him off (against his will) to the White House where the hapless idiot watched from the TV at his followers invading the Capitol mesmerized at what his supporters could do. A President that doesn't control even his Secret Service isn't capable of a self-coup. And likely he never thought of it that way: he blindly thought that the vice-President could make it happen. Or he could get the votes from somewhere.
Would there have been a possibility for a successful self-coup?
Absolutely! But then Trump would had to have the balls to go through with it. He would have needed guys like general Michael Flynn, who would have had the ability (thanks to his background in special forces and being the director of the DIA) to pull it off. The crowds would have been there to support Trump, which would have been important. The institutions of the US would simply have been paralyzed. People wouldn't have understood just what would have happened or that it could happen in the US. And Flynn and the like would have pushed through it understanding that either they prevail or it's very long prison sentences for them, perhaps even capitol punishment otherwise. That's a huge incentive once you are going to do a coup. The self-coup would have been likely bloodless.
Is there a danger of Trump pulling something like that in the future (as President)?
No!
Trump is a great populist orator, but lacks leadership qualities. And seems to think that the politics even at the highest level is still something you can fight in the courts. Because...he has fought in the courts all his life. He simply cannot pull that kind of thing off, just make everything chaotic, which his supporters absolutely love.
Trump is the wrecking ball. By delegitimising democratic institutions, causing chaos and shifting what is acceptable he's paving the way for an actual dictator.
He does play with the idea. Apparently he just recently clarified that he wouldn't be a dictator - well maybe for the first day. This is just Trump being Trump, but it's also a normalisation. He won't be called out on it by his base, and that means the next time someone says this, it'll be a little less outrageous.
While I do not think Trump was planned, I do think there are forces, which we might call disaster capitalists, which seek to exploit him, perhaps to the point of an actual "managed democracy" which would perpetuate laissez-faire policies while redirecting popular anger to outsiders.
Never underestimate the lack of leadership qualities that Trump has. Remember: this man is simply not fit to be a President. We've already seen this, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. He want's to be a dictator, yet he lacks a lot what is needed to be one. Also Trump is uncontrollable, hence nobody can control him. Yes, it's chaotic, but that simply makes the Presidency ineffective. That's the end result: more Trumpian chaos, more political polarization.
What will likely happen is that: a) The US as the sole Superpower loses even more of it's leadership position, b) US politics will continue to be as toxic as ever.
It's the Argentification of the US politics. You have more chaos, more leaders that are outrageous because so many are disappointed about, well, everything. And everything will become just slightly worse in the end.
Argentinian way to cut government spending: foul language and waving a chain saw.
The judges' words seem to have some power though. Otherwise @NOS4A2 wouldn't be criticising them, would he? It really is a most fatuous argument that has unfortunately undue influence on the hard of thinking. The whole attraction of power is that what one says can and does change the world, and if it were not so no one would bother to speak at all.
I take your point that Trump wanted his regime delivered to him like a take out meal but I doubt that such an attempt would have been bloodless.
We will never know what would have happened had Pence done as he was told. Such a bold venture of disenfranchisement would be performed in plain sight rather than lurk in the dank Venezuelan basement that houses the MAGA dream.
I don't see how the Supreme Court could bury this within the hanging Chads that enveloped Bush and Gore.
Words have power because I like defending Trump. Words have power because I object. Words have power because I insist. There is a gap of hot air between the premise and the conclusions. I don’t believe in sorcery so I don’t believe I’m changing the world with my words. The fact of the matter is I use words because I like using words and I like sharing my opinions. I like reading the opinions of others and I like responding to them. Unlike you, I’m not trying to change anything. Again, I don’t believe in sorcery.
Are my words affecting you now? Am I tickling your brain at a distance? I just put the words there. That’s the end of my influence. That’s the extent of my sorcery, the extent to which I’ve changed the world with words. But it’s your eyes running over the text. It’s your faculties making sense of the symbols and providing them with meaning. You are using my words. They are not doing anything to you; you’re doing things to them, and you’re influencing yourself in the process. That’s the way it has always worked, with Trump’s words, the judge’s words, your words, whomever’s words. Not a single one of them has caused or influenced a goddamn thing.
It's a good thing you don't work in advertising.
Are you the type that buys a product when you see an ad for it?
Not all the time, but I'm a sucker for a sale.
I suppose that reveals more about you than the power of the words.
That my behaviour can be influenced by the words I see and hear? Well, yes. That's just a well-known fact of psychology. Advertising is a science.
It's also why some politicians use slogans like Obama's "Yes we can" and Trump's "Make America Great Again". They serve a psychological purpose in winning over support that a dry explanation of policy wouldn't achieve.
So, if you did not like defending Trump then words would not have power? You are incapable of seeing beyond yourself as he is.
Quoting NOS4A2
That much we can agree on. But you are not Trump. Who says something, where and when it is said, and to whom it is said all matter.
A conman relies on the power of words. Don't you know this? Or do you just deny it in an attempt to make the weaker argument stronger?
What do you think is the connection, if any, between words and thoughts? Do you think in words? Does what you think influence what you do?
No, it reveals that you like sales. What you don’t mention is all the sales and all the ads that do not influence you. But that you pick and choose maybe one or two out of the excessive din of the advertising world, and do not run for a products after every billboard you see, reveals that it isn’t as influential as you make it out to be. It’s the same reason you pick and choose articles and quotes, post them at your whim and fancy, while dismissing countless others. And through these countless efforts you cannot point to one person you’ve influenced.
I speak and write in words.
Yes conmen believe in the power of words. Are you a conman, or so easily conned, that you’ll believe the same? When you hear their words are you compelled into some sort of action favoring their expectations? If others are forced to move at the sight and sound of words, what’s your excuse?
I’m not claiming that everyone is influenced by everything. I’m claiming that people can be influenced by the things other people say. It’s not sorcery; it’s psychology.
Well this a strawman. Influence and incitement aren’t force.
The question is the degree to which you think in words. You avoid making the connection.
Quoting NOS4A2
What is at issue is not whether I or any other single individual can be conned or believe people can be conned. It is evident that they can. I am on the fence as to whether you have been conned by Trump. Perhaps you are just testing the extent of your ability to argue whether or not you believe what you say.
Quoting NOS4A2
I make no excuses. It is not the sight and sound of words that move me but their content. Unlike you do (or pretend to do), I do not believe that they are all just empty sights and sounds devoid of meaning or consequence.
The gag order is just words. They don’t censor anything. That would be sorcery. Trump is perfectly able to ignore the gag order and say and post what he wants.
And as gag orders are just words, judges have a First Amendment right to issue them. They’re allowed to say whatever they like - even if they are threatening punishment.
You can criticise any punishment that’s actually issued, but unless and until that happens, there’s nothing for you to object to.
And the same for you paying your taxes.
Trump sort of made a tenuous attempt at a self-coup. He pushed Pence to do something illegal, and he wanted to appoint Jeffrey Clark as AG - because Clark was committed to lying about the election in order to get State Legislatures to illegally overturn the election. Pence didn't play along, and he backed down on Clark.
Trump has a history of treating the law as an inconvenience to be worked around (that's what "fixers" are for), rather than rules that must be followed. My guess is that his followers are fine with that, and many feel frustrated when the law stands in the way of doing what they believe is best (e.g. with their views on "closing the border" which includes violating laws regarding asylum).
I don’t think in words. The metaphor is absurd to me. Do you think in words? Well, where are they?
You’re right. But there are people willing to act on all of the above, to abide by someone else’s dictates, up until and including throwing someone in jail because he made certain sounds with his mouth. That’s how censorship works.
And there are people willing to act on Trump's false claims of a stolen election and his suggestion to "fight like hell" against an "illegitimate president".
Glad you finally understand.
It usually leads to threats against the speaker. History shows that the censor is immoral and irresponsible in moving to censor speech he doesn’t like. It’s the same story over and over again. His speech will lead to some species of public disorder, like the corruption of the youth, the loss of faith in the one true god, witchcraft, hatred, threats, violence, racism—I promise. Therefor commit violence and persecution against the speaker.
And that’s on them, not Trump. Took you long enough to get there.
Quoting NOS4A2
I asked you to specifically discuss the morality Trump's attacks. The mere fact that free speech is a generally good thing doesn't imply all speech is morally acceptable.
I earlier pointed that there's an established correlation between Trump's verbal attacks and threats to the object of his wrath. Trump is surely aware of this because it's been noted in court filings:
"Hollen wrote that the threats increased when the gag order was stayed, and that during that time, "approximately half of the harassing and disparaging messages have been antisemitic."
--https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gag-order-new-york-fraud-case-appeal/
Just like to remind everyone of the facts once in a while. Laughing at, and engaging with, members of the Trump cult is fun though.
It's on both.
This why the lawsuits against Fox for amplifying lies are important. The lies would be curses uttered in a parking lot without that power.
I would be very interested in hearing you start a thread explaining how you think without words and how you understand the words you respond to without words,
I’d love for you to show me where these words are.
They are not physical entities like words on a page that exist somewhere that can be shown to you. But words that are on the page or spoken are not, or at least should not, be independent of thought.
As is evident in much of what you say, the corollary to your claim to think without words it your using words without thinking.
Please explain how you think about concepts such as freedom, democracy, and autocracy without words.
You don't have an internal monologue/voice? Do you think Germany's DOW against America in 1941 was "just words"? Should death threats be legal?
Words are independent of thought. It’s the reason we can’t understand a language simply by reading it or hearing someone speak it. Scratches on paper, text on screen, and articulated guttural sounds are arbitrary, merely conventional. It is not possible to deduce the underlying meaning from its word form.
There are no voices in my head, no. Do you?
That goes a long way to explaining the curious sensation one has in dialogue with you that one is talking to no one; that text is produced according to some algorithm that is entirely unaffected by the process of the dialogue.
Now me, when I look at the screen with your post on, it is as if you are talking to me. but it seems from what you say, that I nor anyone is talking to you.
This is writing, not talking. I’m writing to you. Such a simple mistake that it’s no wonder your grasp on this and other topics is lacking.
Does the voice in your head tell you what to write?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/intersections/202304/inner-monologues-what-are-they-and-whos-having-them
30-50% of people have inner monologues.
"Regularly" have. I'm shocked it's not close to 100'/. tbh. Let's take an unscientific poll here.
And literal minded as well. That I have already noticed. I'm sorry, I wasn't really addressing you to be honest.
Is there a little narration going on up there? What does it sound like?
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/inner-monologue-experience-science-1.5486969
I can if I want to. It's an odd sensation to turn it off and be aware that you're not letting it start again. It's like floating.
It sounds like me saying "it sounds like me saying ''''It sounds like me saying. ..
Metaphor is an overrated crutch. Used too often it comes to replace the truth.
No need to apologize.
I can turn it off too but usually requires effort. Have to concentrate on my body.
So you hear your own voice. Interesting. Perhaps my malady is the reason I can refuse to overestimate the power of words. It explains a lot, really.
It's not exactly hearing it because it doesn't sound like sound but like silent sound. But I identify with it so it sounds like me, Bugger. Am I abnormals? :scream:
It sounds like you’re in a higher state of evolution. Or lower, depending on how you look at it.
The first person I met who had it all the time was German, and there's a German movie where you're hearing the inner voice of each person the camera travels over, so for a while I thought it might be a German thing.
At least they won’t be lonely.
No, but you treat them as if they were.
Quoting NOS4A2
Not understanding a language does not mean the words of that language are independent of thought.
Quoting NOS4A2
This shows that there is more to words than just scratches and sounds. Your thinking that this is what words are is a damning indication of just how empty and meaningless your inept but endless defense of Trump and his use of "the best words" is.
I'll ask you again:
Quoting Fooloso4
This has got to be the one of (if not the most) off topic discussions I can recall. :rofl: :joke: :lol:
Then you should be able to show me this “more to words”, or point to any word in your lexicon of thoughts. But you won’t. It goes to show how you rely on your imagination too much.
I think about things, like words or concepts, but that does not entail that I think in things like words and concepts.
Me too. Very subtle movements, perhaps tiny, inaudible but articulated expressions.
Are your words just scratches and sounds without meaning or significance? Can you replace them indiscriminately with any other words? Or, just strings of sounds and scratches? Does your defense of Trump amount to more than grunts? Is there more to what you say than there is to a dog barking?
Quoting NOS4A2
But I did. I gave you three: freedom, democracy, and autocracy. But you refuse to explain how you think about them and other words without words.
Quoting NOS4A2
Then what is it you "think in" when thinking about them without them?
We have the best words.
Well, I eventually decided that I would have heard of it if it was.
Nobody is ever truly alone. You have yourself.
They are. And you have to supply them with meaning and significance. They have neither. In linguistics it is called “arbitrariness”.
You gave me three words in text. Point to me any of the words that you’re thinking in. A picture would suffice. Any thing to which the word “word” signifies.
I don’t think in anything. I just think.
I think everything should be legal.
If they are devoid of meaning and significance I'm not going to do for you what you have failed to do for yourself. If your words are devoid of meaning and significance there is no reason to take anything you say seriously.
Quoting NOS4A2
You clearly do not understand what linguistic arbitrariness means. 'Water' and 'agua' have a different form and sound but mean the same thing. Theform and sound of words may be arbitrary but the meaning is not. If you look up the meaning of a word in the dictionary it does not say that the meaning is arbitrary, that it means whatever you want it to mean.
Quoting NOS4A2
You are deeply confused. When I think of those words I am thinking in terms of those words. I am thinking about what democracy and freedom mean and how a demagogue like Trump and his followers threaten our democracy. I am thinking about how there has been a disturbing shift to autocracy in many countries and how if Trump is elected or attempts to overturn the election again the US will become an autocracy as well. And I am thinking of how Trumpsters will attempt to render the term meaningless by accusing their opponents of being autocratic.
This reminds me, a while back I asked you if you support democracy. You never answered. Is it that you think it is a meaningless sound or are you just unwilling to admit that your loyalty to Trump trumps democratic rule?
Might we not as well shut down elementary (and other) schools then?
In case Trump's crap was true, it would merit action (like the My Lai massacre and the Holocaust and Watergate did), and if someone believes so, then you'd expect them to act, yes?
(As an aside, do you think belief formation is necessarily rational or "free choice" (assuming there is such a thing)?)
?? words
If you can read you should be fine. If you want me to clarify, don’t be afraid to ask.
One minute we’re talking about words, next we’re talking about meaning. The goal posts continue to expand. I say the word is arbitrary, you tell me the meaning isn’t, tell me to look at the dictionary, and I guess I’m supposed to feel refuted thereby. So where are these words you think in?
When you think of those words you are thinking in terms of those words…you can’t get any more circular than that.
Only an autocrat would suggest no one is allowed to contest an election. Never will you mention the forces at work trying to keep people off the ballot, or that state and federal governments are trying to railroad their greatest political opponents, or the routine censorship of dissenting voices. Maybe it’s you rendering the term meaningless. “Our democracy” has become pure doublespeak in the mouths of those who continually utter it, anyways, so no glittering generality you pretend is at threat will work here.
I support the rule of the people. I don’t support your version of democracy, which is no doubt conflated with electioneering, vote-grubbing, and representative government. How many times have you ruled? Your version of rule of the people is centered on how many time the earth rotates around the sun, for purely astrological reasons. You exercise your rule one day every few years for no other reason than it’s time to vote. This is oligarchy and serfdom and I do not support it.
Nobody has a problem with his legal attempts at contesting it. Take it to a court, they look at it, decide if the case has merit. That's fine.
The problem was everything else he did to contest it. Like literally telling pence not to confirm it. Like asking governors to find votes.
It's like, if a football coach thinks a ref made a bad call that lost them the game, the football coach was within-the-rules means of contesting that call. But if that coach then just decides "we would have won if it weren't for that bad call" and he goes behind the scenes and bribes the guy holding the trophy to give it to him instead... that's not okay, is it?
These seem to be the common talking points of Trump supporters right now. But I would ask Trump supporters to attempt to be fair and balanced about this. For example, there can be legitimate reasons to keep people off of the ballot, being a political candidate doesn't exempt you from being indicted when you commit crimes, and in some contexts censorship is good -- fact-checking and editing are both an essential part of journalism and gag orders can be appropriate during trials. You can always frame things a certain way. But at least try to see the other side.
You've just underscored why it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.
In 2017 Democrat in Congress begged Biden not to certify the election based on conspiracy theories. It’s called politics, and I don’t recall anyone raising any stink about it then.
https://cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html
In any case, so illegal was the Pence move that they had to change the law after Trump tried it.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/congress-approves-new-election-certification-rules-in-response-to-jan-6
The Trump-hater has proven himself incapable of fairness and balance. Justice evades him. It’s all about power and conformity, and moving to control how others think. Unfortunately his power wanes. His double-speak doesn’t have the effect he thinks it does.
This whole exchange has been about your attempt to separate words and meaning. I called you out on this from the beginning of this exchange. From my first two posts on this:
Quoting Fooloso4
Quoting Fooloso4
More on this last point below.
You then go on to defend yourself by misunderstanding and misusing the concept of linguistic arbitrariness. But we should expect no less from someone who claims to think without words.
Quoting NOS4A2
Back to this factless talking point. But thanks for confirming my point that:
Quoting Fooloso4
Quoting NOS4A2
We have not discussed my version of democracy. I have never said what it is. Despite all its faults and weaknesses one positive thing about our democracy is that we will have the opportunity to vote to keep Trump from being elected. But, of course, the way the system works he might be elected. The price of freedom.
My biggest concern is what he will attempt to do if elected. As he is promising, one thing he will attempt to do is remove the checks and balances that prevented him from doing whatever it is he wanted last time around.
Your wish is granted, including that it is legal to make laws and enforce them. The fundamental problem with anarchy is that it fails to forbid government.
This goes both ways. What I see on the conservative side, with conservative media, is defining liberals and Democrats as evil -- demonizing them non-stop, 24 hours a day. Democrat = Satanic. Once you've done this, then it doesn't matter what the shortcomings of conservatives and Republicans that you've chosen to support are, since they're still better than the opposition which has been defined as pure evil. This is how Christian Evangelicals justify supporting someone like Trump. And then it kills any chance of working across the aisle since that means being a traitor. Anyone who does that gets branded as 'Republican in Name Only' or RINO -- basically an apostate. So, you purge anyone moderate out of your party. People like Mitt Romney are feeling like the Republican party is no longer something they identify with because it has become so radicalized. Being a 'real' Republican now is no longer a set of beliefs or principles, it has been reduced to a single criterion which is passing the loyalty test to Trump.
Why are supporting Trump then? He certainly doesn't think "everything should be legal". Far from it. I would think, based on what you've said, you'd be better off writing in some anarchist's name.
It sounds like you favor major changes in the U.S. Constitution; or scrapping it entirely for a new form of political participation.
Your descriptions of Trump do not place him in the context of the partisan processes you scorn. The talking points you use to argue your points come from those processes.
Trump would have won in 2020 if he had gained a few more Electoral votes. Few things exemplify the legacy of 'representative' polity better than the Electoral College.
The views you advance on the nature of government do not connect with reasons why you support Trump so assiduously. That is in stark contrast to those who support him because they see him as the best chance to gain their interests in the present conditions.