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)
What with Trump literally threatening a dictatorship and leading in the polls, the DoJ ought to keep its powder dry for the real Trump killer cases - the Jan 6th secession, the Classified Top Secret Files in the bathroom, and the Georgia cases. The NY cases (the fraud one and the hush money one) are mainly a distraction from the big ones. And the big ones have to hit their mark, expeditiously. Even though I think Trump will be beaten fair and square in the end, everything available has to be brought to bear.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1344
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1014
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6662
The law is pretty clear. You can't just decide for yourself that your property is worth $10,000,000 when asking for a loan but worth $1,000 when paying your taxes. One or both are clearly, criminally, fraudulent.
:up:
While I like the anarchistic ideals, I fail to see how any such form ever lasts long enough to be sustainable on a large scale. Not necessarily to fall into ruin, but rather how people in their dynamic shifts over the course of history wouldn't just end up gravitating away from anarchy if the zeitgeist of a particular time in their history produces enough people to support another form of society.
In the end it feels like anarchy instead functions better as a perspective used to criticize hierarchies and deconstruct rigid structures to put them into a perspectives that can prove them not being a natural order, but instead an invention that can be criticized.
Your round-about way of defending censorship pushed you into maintaining a position you have been unable to defend.
You clearly didn’t know what the concept was until I mentioned it. I was using the concept earlier in the exchange and it fell on deaf ears until I gave you something to google. See this quote:
“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.”
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/859380
Later, after giving you the word “arbitrariness” to google, you confirm what I was arguing all along.
“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.”
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/859550
This merits its own consideration:
Why do you keep saying “our democracy”? Why not just say “democracy”? We know the answer: this trite phrase is political language, not used to discuss the concept, but used to appeal emotionally to those who read it. This is what “thinking in words” gets you, an over-estimation of the power of words and the attempts at propaganda as a result.
It also merits consideration that "us" strikes primal chords, in homo sapiens who aren't psychopathic to some degree. Any thoughts on that?
If by “strikes primal chords” you mean you get a little tingly sensation whenever you hear a first-person plural or first-person possessives, without first wondering what this “us” refers to, I’d say you’re susceptible all types of propaganda.
Your attempt to separate words from their meaning and consequence is the result of your irresponsible defense of Trump's irresponsible claims. Your inept defense of his right to free speech is based on your treating words as if they do not matter. Any rational discussion of free speech and censorship needs to address this.
Quoting NOS4A2
If you just look elsewhere you will see I have discussed this with regard to Wittgenstein in various threads. For example here from 5 years ago.
Note that the issue of linguistic arbitrariness goes much deeper than the form and sound of words.
I asked you to start a thread on your linguistic theories but you declined.
Quoting NOS4A2
I don't know if this is a reflection of your failure to understand or an attempt to dissemble. I am not confirming what you have been arguing, I am pointing out your fundamental misunderstanding. The arbitrariness of the form and sound of words does not mean that the meaning of words is arbitrary. It does not mean that words do not have power or do not matter.
Quoting NOS4A2
First, because it is our democracy that Trump endangers.
Second, there are various forms of democracy. You have no trouble with:
Quoting NOS4A2
but question the notion of our democracy. The reason you have a problem with this is because you reject the idea of a common good, of anything that is ours rather than mine or yours. There is ample evidence of this earlier in this thread. For you there is only the competition between individual rights.
Trump makes demagogical use of this. His only interest is in what benefits him. Perhaps he sees no problem with this because he assumes we are all like this, but perhaps because he just does not care, and to think otherwise is a weakness. But what does the demagogue say:
You can strike everything after "If" because it is just sophist propaganda spewing out of your head, whether intentionally so or not. A more interesting topic to me is whether or not you can relate to "us" striking a chord. Or to what degree you can do so?
Quoting NOS4A2
First off, as you demonstrate over and over in this thread alone, you are enormously susceptible to propaganda yourself. So now that we've established that we are humans here discussing things in this thread... Do you experience thoughts of "us" as striking a primal chord within you?
I forgot to mention Plato's Cratylus. The question of linguistic arbitrariness is not something new and not something I was not aware of.
I never said words do not matter. I think Trump’s words do matter, and that is why I am defending his right to say them, and from any attempt to suppress them. I was arguing words have no power, which means they do not do the things you claim they do.
I am pointing out your fundamental straw man. I never said meaning is arbitrary. I didn’t say that since the form and sound is arbitrary, the meaning must be. This is where your goalposts started to widen, as I’ve already shown.
No it isn’t. It’s your version of it he threatens, the one where every 4 years you spend an hour or two waiting in line to exercise your supposed rule, but end up delegating it to someone else. It’s the one where you are not allowed to contest the results of an election, where censorship is warranted, and where sorcery is regnant.
I do reject the notion of the common good, which is another selfish desire portrayed as something everyone wants and needs, where the ends always justify the means, including violating people’s rights so you can have it. No shortage of dictators used the rhetoric of the common good to justify totalitarianism.
I pegged you as more of a Gorgias kind of guy.
The word does not strike a chord, nor can any other abstraction you can put forward. You won’t tell me which “us” you’re referring to, proving to me it lacks any reference to the real world and flesh-and-blood human beings.
Which humans? You and me? Is this the “us” you’re speaking of? No chord is being struck over here.
Well, you can say that for you it does not strike a chord, but you don't speak for everyone.
Quoting NOS4A2
You didn't ask.
In the context of this thread, the "We the People" discussed in the preamble to the US constitution seems a relevant circle of who one might consider "us". Though I had no particular circle in mind. Some might associate "us" with family, and others with humanity, and draw the circle narrower or wider at different times, depending on circumstances.
Whatever monkeysphere you can relate to will do for the purposes of this discussion.
Quoting NOS4A2
You seriously need to improve your critical thinking skills. You mistake jumping to a conclusion on your part for something having been proven. I recommend greater recognition of seeking falsification as good epistemic practice.
Once again, you didn't ask.
Do you still need me to explain references to the real world further?
Just about everything you say demonstrates your disregard for words.
Quoting NOS4A2
If words have no power then they have no power and do not matter. The problem is, you open your mouth and stick your foot in it. In your attempt to extricate it you stumble.
Quoting NOS4A2
If words are arbitrary then they have no meaning.
Quoting NOS4A2
You claimed:
Quoting NOS4A2
and
Quoting NOS4A2
It makes no sense to treat words as if they are independent of thought and an equivocation to pretend that what is at issue with words is the form they take.
It certainly has a nihilistic tang. No effort is made to connect this view with the political statements being made concerning the immediate environment.
Perhaps we are witnessing a performance in the style of Dada, an expression such as that considered by Ball:
Quoting Hugo Ball
But that sophisticated self-awareness of the absurd is absent from using a Liar's paradox way of saying "everything is permitted." The absence of law is the state of Nature envisioned by Hobbes, the war of each against all.
As such, the statement is a contradiction masquerading as an idea. What is desired is only expressed as a subtraction.
Neither do you but you keep referring to "us".
In that case the "us" will be you and me. Still, no chord being struck here.
You haven't referred to the real world. You brought up "us", clearly referring to yourself and your own imagination. Let me know when the real world enters the picture.
Your magical thinking regarding words shows your disregard for them. You have to imagine they have a special powers in order for them to matter. “If words have no power,” you say, “then they have no power and do not matter”. It’s your own base and superstitious non-sequitur.
You seem to believe words are more than their form, but are still unable to show me that they are. Where is this other stuff? Point to it, take a picture of it, describe it—anything.
I have wasted enough time responding to, by your own admission, your thoughtless words. The cure cannot lie in more words. The only cure would be for you to begin to THINK. Clearly and honestly, as a matter of integrity. Drop the rhetorical defense of Trump and with it the defense of all the nonsense this leads you to say.
But perhaps I give you too much credit by implying that you are capable of doing this.
The real world has been in the picture throughout our discusssion.
I was curious as to whether you would falsify my intuition that you are on the psychopathy spectrum, and I provided you with multiple opportunities for you to provide evidence falsifying that hypothesis.
Quoting Fooloso4
Seems likely to me. (Although I don't think "credit" or "discredit" are necessarily relevant.)
This whole time you haven’t once revealed how words are more than their form. And your rhetoric is powerless. You try to tell me what to do but it has the exact opposite effect. A waste indeed.
I’m afraid we’ve never met so your intuitions amount to nothing.
Right, meeting you has nothing to do with the basis by which my intuitions formed. However, I have had previous experiences which led to me having good recognition of the pattern. You aren't providing any reason to think that the pattern doesn't fit. Do you think you are able to?
Sure, I’d love to see your argument.
If you are not on that spectrum it should be an easy matter for you to read up on the pattern and explain how it doesn't fit. Why would you need any help from me in that regard?
It should be easy for you to explain why I’m on it. You told me you saw a pattern.
I've got better things to do.
Looks like signs of delusion to me.
Special Counsel Jack Smith Petitions the Supreme Court to rule on Trump’s Immunity Defense
The above article contains the full text of Smith's filing. The filing identifies 2 specific questions to be resolved:
1) Whether a President has absolute immunity from federal prosecution in all circumstances
2) Whether a President has immunity from federal prosecution for crimes he's been impeached for, but acquitted.
Regarding (1): if SCOTUS rules in favor of #1, this would mean there is no constraint on a President. He doesn't have to follow acts of Congress. He can spend, or not spend, allocated funds per his own whims. IOW, it establishes dictatorial powers. It ends the United States as we know it. I don't foresee SCOTUS making this ruling (although I'd be unsurprised by a favorable vote from Thomas).
Regarding (2): the implications are narrrow: it would protect only Trump from being prosecuted in the D.C. Trial for any counts that were brought in the Impeachment.
For (2), I see no benefit for Trump. The Senate acquitted Trump of one count: "Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States..."
The count references various acts that Trump committed, but an acquittal doesn't imply a judgement on those specified acts, it just implies there was a judgement that Trump did not incite violence against the Government. This is not one of the charges in the D.C. indictment. Instead, there are 3 counts of conspiracy and one 1 count of obstruction.
I'm guessing SCOTUS will also rule against this, but it could be a closer vote. If they DO vote for it, the implications are primarily for future impeachments: in many cases, it would be better to let the criminal justice system judge guilt or innocence through an impartial jury rather than by a body that is inherently biased by politics.
Does anyone have a different view?
Of course not!
As to how the court will rule, although political bias might favor protecting Trump, I think they are smart enough to see that such a ruling could bite them in the ass. Because of their bias they would not want to give the same protection to those who they are biased against.
Quoting Relativist
No. Acquittal does not mean that the person impeached is not guilty of the crimes for which they were impeached.
Well, it might be that his decisions will be those his wife concurs with. It might also be that consideration of whether she will concur is a determining factor. But, she too might see how this might come back to bite her in the ass.
On the other hand, and contrary to what I said above, the court might decide to rule in favor of Trump and deal with what comes when the person in office is someone whose politics they disapprove of when they come to that bridge.
Oh wait, I must looked it up and it's a criminal proceeding as well. This can be a difference in law systems. I'm pretty sure in the netherlands it's about the constellation of facts that you cannot be prosecuted twice for. In the past, prosecution wasn't even allowed to change the writ before the court session. So if you made a mistake you were screwed. This has been somewhat relaxed, in that you can change the charge as long as it is part of the same chapter (eg. related type of crime). This is why when you study, you're taught to charge suspects with all the crimes that you think applies. In practice, most prosecutors charge what they think will most likely result in a conviction. I never understood that since it's not a lot of work to add additional charges (a paragraph per charge suffices generally speaking).
@Tobias anything to add?
How so?
That's certainly how the Fifth Amendment is worded.
They might approve if it helps Trump but they might not want to help a liberal president.
No problem. They rule in Trump's favour and then when a liberal President does the same thing they rule that the facts are different this time and that the liberal President can be prosecuted. Easy peasy.
Hilarious.
Senile crook :joke:
Suit yourself: Trump offers scraps of his indictment outfit for $4,699.53 a pop
If the facts are that a President has immunity from federal prosecution for crimes he's been impeached for, but acquitted then it would be interesting to hear what other facts would make a difference.
I mentioned a few days ago scepticism regarding the NY fraud case against Trump org. Here's a strongly worded CNN OP on that. Again makes the point that the supposed victims of Trump Org's fraud didn't complain and made a profit from the transactions. It also seems to me that the judge is motivated by personal animus against greedy business practices. Pains me to say it, but best not to take shots at a bull elephant without having the right kind of gun.
The disdain for ordinary people, the "all means necessary" approach confirming one's own moral bankrutpcy while pretending to have a moral high ground, etc.
We saw the same thing in the Netherlands, though a little less extreme.
The irony of it all is amusing, but honestly it makes me want to wash.
Such change seems to always happen through oddballs like Trump (and for us, Wilders), but ultimately they're a symptom of the real problem that is the system.
In a sense it's a good thing that change now seems to be on the horizon, because the longer it is forestalled, the more extreme the eventual swing will be.
Anyone who would vote for someone like Trump and support his policies simply because they're offended by the disdain others have for them deserves such disdain. They're petulant children. Snowflakes.
If you're going to vote for him then do it only because you agree with the things he wants to do. Although, of course, that deserves its own kind of disdain.
If 80 million people will vote for Trump just because their feelings are hurt by Biden voters then 80 million people are idiots.
Talel is incorrect when he says that no bank confronted the false accounting statements. Deutsche Bank did so as the scope of the fraud became known:
The fact that the loan payments were paid on time has nothing to do with the stated value issue. That the bank profited from an undervaluation is not sustainable for institutions that establish conditions for other customers.
The Executive Law Section 63 that Talel refers to has the following duties assigned to the office:
Talel's claim that the law has never been applied before this case repeats Trump's claim of the same. That is challenged by the following report:
Quoting Alison Durkee
It seems you have located a basket of deplorables. This charge of moral and intellectual hypocrisy is as dismissive as the one you complain about.
Are the '80 million people' all being humiliated for not sharing liberal values or do some think they are being ripped off by other people and see the language of equal rights being one of the ways that happens. The game is rigged to benefit certain people. Trump promises a turkey in each of other pots to cover the loss.
The talk of "wiping out vermin" may not concern them. Accordingly, they will have little control over how those agendas will be carried out.
Quoting Tzeentch
It is evident that you have your own model of how the game is rigged. Theories of political economy do not represent all that is at stake in shaping and providing for a civic society. We cannot afford the luxury of Lucretius watching the ship sink at sea while standing safely on the beach.
Create, that is, according to your model.
Who am I in it? Who are you? Were you damaged by this creation you reference?
You charge me with complicity in a destructive force and then gloat about your view from a commanding height.
Pretty ripe from the bloke scorning easy contempt.
Indeed.
Which part is simple minded?
That is what you assert but do not support except by noting it is something you have observed.
All contempt, no cattle.
:lol: Come on, man.
Thanks for considering it.
There are substantive issues at stake and Talel has every right to point to problems with the law. I was disappointed that he exaggerated his version of the situation to dismiss the merit of the trial.
https://apple.news/AEOopt4aoSqOq-F3n-FsxMQ
Former FBI spy hunter gets prison time for giving information to Russian oligarch
https://theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/15/fbi-russia-charles-mcgonigal-convicted-spy-hunter
The CNN report reads like a dark comedy. The bungling ineptitude with which the documents were handled. The restraints put on Trump's reckless disregard. The redactions made before it was to be released together with what is claimed it would show but could not be shown because it unaccountably went missing.
People have been spitting that line a lot lately in the opinion section and among the pundits of legacy media. He's going to be a dictator. He's going to ruin democracy. It's like 2016 all over again. Then, without irony, these democracy defenders (it's always "our democracy") start telling the American people that voting for anything but the uniparty cannot be tolerated. Observe Robert Kagan, a neo-con editor at the Washington Post. He often writes of the coming Trump dictatorship. But his wife is Victoria Nuland, the architect of the Ukrainian scheme, who's work has arguably brought war to Europe's doorstep. Though she worked for Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden, Trump asked her to leave. So it's no wonder Kagan's propaganda reads so personal.
Like his joke about the Russians finding Hillary's missing emails, which she likely destroyed, they're going to use Trump's dictator joke as another piece of propaganda. It would be laughable propaganda from any other view, but from within the grips of this mass hysteria it's par for the course. It's just a shame to see it has worked so easily.
Stefanik Urges Ethics Investigation into Judge Linked to Trump Jan. 6 Cases:
Stefanik urges ethics investigation into judge linked to Trump, Jan. 6 cases
Apparently the limits of free speech stop at the doorstep of Dear Leader.
But rest assured, Trump promises he will only be a dictator on day one. That is enough time to root out the vermin across government agencies and replace them with his henchmen like Stefanik, who cannot wait to begin the purge. The investigations he has threatened have already begun.
Sleep well. Sweet dreams. All praise [s]Caesar[/s] Trump.
Hannity:
We almost have to go to a break. I want to go back to this one issue, though, because the media has been focused on this and attacking you. Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody.
Trump (18:51):
Except for day one.
Hannity (18:53):
Except for?
Trump (18:54):
He’s going crazy. Except for day one.
Hannity (18:55):
Meaning?
Trump (18:56):
I want to close the border and I want to drill.
Hannity (18:59):
That’s not retribution.
Trump (19:05):
I’m going to be… He keeps… We love this guy. He says you’re not going to be a dictator, are you? I said, no, no, no. Other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator. Okay?
Hannity (19:18):
That sounds to me like you’re going back to the policies when you were president.
Trump (19:21):
That’s exactly….
I just reserved the Cassidy Hutchinson book "Enough" from the library. Next up is Liz Cheney's book. I see Adam Kinzinger has a book out, too. One thing I notice is that a lot of the people raising the alarm about Trump are Republicans. They get called RINOs but they've all been more consistent in their political affiliation than Trump has been.
Incomplete sentences, because if you never quite make sense, you never actually lie. (First discovered by admen). Hope to have given a strong impression of exactly what I have definitely not said that you might think.
He's mentally challenged.
Anyone feel sorry for Time Magazine's 2001 Person of the Year?
I'm predicting a more sanguine future for Taylor Swift.
:rofl:
Should be in prison. I hope this causes him a great deal of suffering. At least in proportion to how much he’s inflicted on others with his baseless lies.
What kind of person would do what Giuliani did? You ruined people's lives, and for what? To prove your loyalty to Trump?
In some ways these kinds of people are worse than Trump, because they know what the truth is, and they know what Trump is all about, but they allow themselves to be corrupted. They made a political calculation to go along with the lies. They know it's wrong, but they do it anyway because they are betting that they will be on the winning side in the long run. This also applies to people like Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz and anyone else who could see Trump's flaws at one time but then later sold their own souls to become Trump loyalists.
How absurd that judgement might be needs to be assessed in the context of the differences between criminal and civil law, especially as that regards the application of Tort law. The distinction between compensation and punitive damages is still a loose ball in U.S jurisprudence as explained in this SEP article on Theories of the Common Law. The matter is described there as:
The purposes and justification for distinguishing compensation from 'punitive damages' is easier to measure when the damage is 'in kind.' The Dominion suit against Fox, for example, gave ways to calculate monetary loss. The case was settled so no punitive damages were involved. Punitive damages often become an issue when paying compensation by itself does not stop the defendant from injuring the plaintiff again. Dominion must have satisfied themselves on that score.
The Giuliani case involves monetary consequences that are difficult to calculate. The harm and fear along with the burden of disrepute imposed upon the life of the plaintiffs are incommensurate with any particular financial penalty. If the defendant does not accept that an injury has occurred, the only instrument left to get something from them is with money.
The need for the incommensurate quality of injury and redress is because it is something the defendant can elude responsibility for altogether if not applied. A common example is making the cost of repeating the injury too expensive for an agent to write it off as an expense incurred in the course of doing business.
The problem of arbitrary values being assigned by juries is an ongoing matter for constitutional law. Limited guidance and obscure means of calculation bring challenges to fairness and due process. The argument made by Mark A. Geistfeld does a good job of showing how this relates to case law. I agree with his proposal as a way to make this process better:
This above is a roundabout way to say that the damages were not based upon what Rudy could cough up. Probable factors include the lack of full acceptance by Giuliani that injury had occurred. His lawyers argued the damage was less but did not argue how to evaluate it. The decision does not look absurd with the latest move by the Mayor:
Quoting Aaron Blake
It beggars belief that he will still maintain this obvious lie in the face of all that is happening. And thanks once again for the detailed breakdown, it does help to comprehend the massive amounts of money being awarded.
Giuliani's lawyer said this in his closing statement: “remember this is a great man.”
If I were on the jury, this would have pissed me off. No greatness was displayed by this man in his remarks about the election workers, in the lead up to the trial (where he constantly complained he was being treated unfairly, and in his failure to provide required disclosure material), nor during the trial. He did something great once, 22 years ago. That doesn't make him a great man, in perpetuity.
If the justification for punitive damages is to stop the injury from being repeated, the dollar amount was not enough.
He emulates his mentor, who has developed quite a following with this sort of behavior.
Quoting Paine
Will it stop him? I don't think so. Following Trump, who learned this at the knee of Roy Cohn he will continue to double down. He might even believe his own lies.
Trump tells rally immigrants are ‘poisoning the blood of our country’
[sup]— Chris Michael · The Guardian · Dec 16, 2023[/sup]
At least someone has a spine and calls him out.
Trump’s rhetoric in final campaign sprint goes to new dark extremes
[sup]— Zachary B Wolf, Ariel Edwards-Levy · CNN · Dec 18, 2023[/sup]
"David Frum
@davidfrum
If liberals insist that enforcing borders is a job only fascists will do, then voters will hire fascists to do the job liberals won't."
Frum is on to something.
I agree with Frum's tautological statement. I also agree that it is wrong to regard anyone who looks to secure the borders is a fascist. But what Trump is saying goes far beyond border enforcement. The borders could be closed today but based on what he is saying the immigration problem would remain. If immigrants are poisoning "our" blood then the distinction between legal and illegal immigration is dissolved. What is to be done with them? Sequestered? Deported? What about their children? Are they too poisonous? How many generations back should we go?
Maybe the whole thing is an elaborate attempt to get rid of Melania?!
Maybe those who will vote for Trump are not bothered by this because they assume they will be included as "ours". They should not be too certain.
I don't think it's tautological. Frum is saying that voters value border security so strongly that they'll pick fascists to do it over liberals who won't. That's not true by definition. Voters could behave differently and pick liberals who are soft on border enforcement. But that's not where American voters are at the moment. I think he's right on that.
Quoting Fooloso4
I always ask Republicans how they're going to deport over ten million undocumented immigrants. I remind them there's a proud tradition of xenophobes using cattle cars to round up "vermin". I usually get called names after that. America has historically low unemployment. America needs an influx of young workers to prop up social security and medicare.
:rofl:
Hey if the GOP thought said influx would vote for them they'd be laying out the red carpet.
On a more serious note, there's a kind of osmosis at work with undocumented immigrants. America has a human rights framework, whilst many or all of the countries from whence they come do not. So to return them to their point of departure is to violate their human rights - rights which of course are not recognised by their home countries. And no humane country can do that. So what MAGA are suggesting amounts to descending to the level of the originating regimes and abolishing the rights they are automatically granted to undocumented immigrants by merely turning up in America. It might work, but at the cost of undermining the kind of nation that America aspires to be (not that MAGA would understand that, as it means nothing to them, and they seem eager to bring it down to that level.)
If only X will do Y then Y is will be done by X.
Quoting RogueAI
As I say in the next sentence, it is wrong to regard anyone who does Y as X. Many liberals recognize the need for border security. The question is how to go about doing that. The problem of thinking that anyone who advocates for border security is a fascist is that it blurs the meaning of the term and opens the door to actual fascists.
Some voters might put it in the hands of actual fascists. I would like to think that most voters would not choose fascism, but I am no longer confident that is the case.
I think you're misreading Frum's quote. He's not saying border security is a fascist thing. He's saying that given a choice between fascists who happen to police the border and liberals who won't, Americans will pick the fascists.
I am not a Conservative, but here is a rather long lecture by an ex conservative UK mp about world politics that I think is worth hearing. Apart from the insightful contents, the clarity and fluency is an absolute delight. I defy you to listen to it or to read a transcript and not learn something, if only the startling fact that Aristotle did not have an iPhone!
https://www.gresham.ac.uk/sites/default/files/transcript/2023-06-08-1800_Stewart-T.pdf
Actually, if conservatism was all like this, I probably might be a a conservative.
It is, rather, that you are misreading what I have said.
Quoting RogueAI
That is correct.
Quoting RogueAI
Not exactly. It is not as though if Americans were asked to choice between securing the borders or fascism they would choice fascism. He is warning the liberal readers of The Atlantic that immigration must be taken seriously, that if they dismiss such concerns as fascism we could end up with fascism.
In the article he says:
As I said above:
Quoting Fooloso4
The rise of fascism, however, is not the result of immigration alone. According to the article:
The "they" he was speaking of were his political opponents, for instance "Biden and the lunatic left" and "the radical left democrats". He was saying they were poisoning the blood of the country, in this context by refusing to secure the southern border and stemming the influx of illegal immigrants. He falls in love with, marries, and has children with immigrants, so the notion that Trump is implying immigrants qua immigrants are poisoning the blood of the nation is just plain stupid.
Why do his haters fall for this cheesy propaganda all the time?
Well, you may wish to "endow" his words with that meaning. Although given all that you have said about words, if you are not being hypocritical, it raises the question of why you would even bother to attempt damage control. After all what he says are just words.
When he says:
it is clear that he is not talking about Biden or Trump's political opponents. Neither Biden or Trump's political opponents are pouring into our country, coming from Africa or Asia.
Quoting NOS4A2
No. What is stupid is your attempt to change what he said and argue that because he has a white trophy wife he is not saying what is saying. Note that Slovenia is not Africa or Asia or any of the "shithole countries" he refers to.
In typical fashion he oversteps and overstates. In this way he gets the support of white supremacists but can, and most likely will, deny he said what he said or mean what he said. He might even trot out Melania as evidence that he is not anti-immigration. She might even be coerced to make a public appearance and display her tortured smile before once again retreating from him.
As usual, all I have to do is take a gander and look at the context you suspiciously leave out, every single time. He's speaking about more than one "they" and you've simply pretended he is speaking about one.
"We've got a lot of work to do. You know when they let—I think the real number is 15/16 million people into our country—when they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They're poisoning the blood of our country, that's what they've done. They've poisoned—mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world they’re coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world they’re pouring into our country"
https://www.c-span.org/video/?532231-1/president-trump-holds-rally-durham-hampshire
No, immigrants are not letting in immigrants.
As for the second "they", the group who is coming into the country illegally, through sophistry and lies you pretend the he is speaking about are immigrants here, not the illegals.
It is the immigrants who are poison, not those who let them in. If the immigrants were not poison letting them in would not poison our blood.
On Truth Social he says "illegal immigrants". At the rally he says immigrants not illegal immigrants. This is exactly what I said he would do:
Quoting Fooloso4
:up:
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/111593149429973351
Your misrepresentations are the direct reason white spremacists are emboldened and think Trump is their guy. This has been confirmed by a member here who told me his cousins believed the “many sides” hoax, that he never condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis,m. They believed the lie as it was told and amplified by anti-Trump propaganda. No doubt the entire scam regarding Trump’s racism or fascism has fueled more racism and fascism than anything Trump has ever done or said.
The article was about his speech in New Hampshire.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/16/trump-immigrants-new-hampshire-rally
But the article said he was talking about immigrants, not illegal ones.
And you said he was talking about Biden.
At least the article was closer to the mark.
He was talking about Biden and his croneys. They are the direct cause of illegal immigration.
He was talking about illegal immigrants. His Truth Social post makes that clear. You are misinterpreting his words at the rally.
That’s false. His speech makes that clear.
Illegal immigration is a process, an act, not a group of people.
It's an act done by a group of people.
“ You know when they let—I think the real number is 15/16 million people into our country—when they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They're poisoning the blood of our country, that's what they've done.”
Are you saying that illegal immigrants have let people into the country?
I'm saying that Trump said "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS POISONING THE BLOOD OF OUR NATION".
Illegal immigration is "the migration of people into a country in violation of that country's immigration laws".
Therefore, Trump was saying that the migration of people into the U.S. in violation of U.S. immigration laws is poisoning the blood of the U.S.
That’s true. The democrats refusing to enforce the laws of the country is poisoning the blood of the country. That’s what they’ve done.
At best you can say that they're allowing the country to be poisoned, but the poison itself, according to Trump, is the illegal immigrants.
He has a problem with the foreign nationals who are coming into the country (illegally).
What a choice upcoming. I cannot forgive Biden for ignoring the border crises.
That is indeed all I'm saying. They (the politicians) are poisoning the country. Given the corrosive effects of crime, the metaphor is quite apt otherwise.
This is beneath you. You know Trump is talking about immigrants when he uses words like "vermin" and "poisoning the blood of the country". And you also know what other famous fascist leader has used language like this. I think that if Trump actually said "subhuman" you would defend him. Maybe even if he said untermensch.
It's not, if we're to take your immediate next phrase seriously. Politicians are allowing is not the same as simply Politicians are doing something.
The vermin term was used in reference to communists and fascists.. I can’t think of a better term, myself. But yeah, illegal immigration is a big problem, like poison.
Yeah, nothing racist here guys. Just more liberal media putting Hitler’s rhetoric into his mouth.
Oh wait…he actually said that.
So, some unnamed member told you that his cousin believed something. Well that settles it.
Funny how you go to such lengths to defend Trump. On the one hand pretending that words have no force, and on the other pretending he does not say what he says. Why? Because words do matter.
That should give the Supreme Court something to look forward to.
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/colorado-trump-14th-amendment-12-19-23/index.html
This is huge. Yes, Trump can appeal, but if the decision is under appeal in the Supreme Court, how many States will admit him on the Ballot, with a decision pending.
I love it, personally. The more they expose themselves as an anti-democratic force the better.
It will be overturned by the Supreme Court. I know you think it is justified for this person, but even some Democratic strategists are calling it a step too far. A Democracy in which one cannot vote for a popular candidate of a major party because the reigning opposing party won't even allow his name to be penciled in on the ballot?
Remember the 'birther theory'? That Obama was ineligible as a candidate because of being born in Africa? That hoax was pushed for years by Trump even though it was a lie. But it is a fact that if someone is ineligible to be on the ballot, then they are not eligible as a candidate for the democratic process. And I think Trump's actions have proven his ineligibility in spades.
The lower court in Colorado believed that the wording of 'officer of the US' in the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the office of President, but the Colorado Supreme Court says it does. But they both agree that he participated in an insurrection - something for which he is due to face trial in early 2024. How he can remain a candidate in light of all this beggars belief. He's seeking popular support to overturn the constitution. The electors want the right to overturn elections. Makes zero sense.
Are you saying that the "Disqualification from office for insurrection or rebellion" section of the 14th Amendment doesn't exist?
Or are you saying that this section doesn't apply to the Presidency?
Or are you saying that this section doesn't apply to Trump because he did not "[engage] in insurrection or rebellion against the [Constitution of the United States], or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"?
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that that section of the 14th Amendment does exist, that it applies to the Presidency, and that Trump engaged in insurrection. If each of these is true then it follows that Trump is constitutionally ineligible to run for President.
It should also be noted that this case was brought by “both registered Republican and unaffiliated voters”, not by Democrats.
Actually, those conservatives or conservative parties which reject populism are quite like that.
Yet it's quite telling that Rory Stewart resigned/was kicked out of the current conservative party.
OK, well could hardly be clearer (even though I originally thought I was reading satire).
He's being more overtly fascist than he was the first time around. He knows he'll take Florida no matter what he says about Latinos. People are stupid.
The quoting out of context, the false equivalencies—it’s a deluge of really bad takes. One minute we’re talking about illegal immigration and in the same breath we’re trying to connect it to the holocaust. Why do you guys fall for this, and not even for the first time?
You get a little testy every time I take your propaganda away from you. I show that in fact Trump does not compare immigrants to poison, that illegal immigration, a crime, is not the same as illegal immigrants, a group of people, and then you get salty at me for doing so while those who lied to you never receive your ire. It must sting having to think so hard.
Name-calling and emojis—the tell-tale signs of good satire.
What have I misread?
[quote=Washington Post; https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/20/trump-refrain-disqualification-thee-not-me/] Trump repeatedly pointed to the possibility that lawsuits could disqualify Ted Cruz over his birthplace, adding, “I don’t want to win it on technicalities, but that’s more than a technicality. That is a big, big factor.”?
He added that a constitutional lawyer who questioned Cruz’s eligibility “should go into court and seek a declaratory judgment because the people voting for Ted, for Ted Cruz, those people — I think there’s a real chance that he’s not allowed to run for president.”
Shortly after Cruz won the Iowa caucuses, Trump tweeted, “The State of Iowa should disqualify Ted Cruz from the most recent election on the basis that he cheated — a total fraud!” (The thrust was that Cruz allies had promoted the false claim that Ben Carson had suspended his campaign, affecting the results.)?
Trump also said in 2011 that then-Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) “should never ever be allowed to run for office” because of his sexting scandal
And during the 2016 campaign, on dozens of occasions he said that Hillary Clinton shouldn’t “be allowed to run” because of her private email server. “She shouldn’t be allowed to run for president. She shouldn’t be allowed,” Trump said shortly before Election Day 2016. “I’m telling you, she should not be allowed to run for president based on her crimes. She should not be allowed to run for president.”[/quote]
My theory about his attraction to dictators and facists is that it’s not grounded in political theory, but the simple fact that they wield the kind of power that he craves. He wants to be able to liquidate critics and journalists and be sorrounded by toadies who worship his every word and hang portraits of him in their offices. That’s why he expresses admiration for Putin and Kim (who incidentally are about the only world leaders that Trump ever had good things to say.)
Is that your favorite card to play?
This brings in a state's right question. If the decision is upheld by the Federal Supreme Court, that court limiting a state's power to repeat their decision when the general ballot is drawn would require a contortionist fit of legal reasoning to come so soon after whatever gets validated by a ruling on the primary ballot.
The weight given to each state's prerogative to administer the election will become greater if the Supreme Court supports the ruling.
Things like this are not new, just look at the history of monarchies and big religions. People fighting for power.
Not loyalty to Trump per se, but to what he is taken to represent: a ruthless will to win, the belief that life is a struggle for the upper hand.
Many people have this will, this belief (including many of Trump's critics), which is precisely why Trump's chances for victory are so good.
I don't think there's any possibility SCOTUS will rule Trump ineligible, with or without that verdict. He's not charged with insurrection, so he can't be found guilty of that. I anticipate SCOTUS will probably base their decision on the lack of due process establishing he engaged in insurrection.
I had to laugh when I saw this:
RFK Jr. issues stark warning after Colorado court blocks Trump from ballot: 'Country will become ungovernable'
"If Trump is kept out of office through judicial fiat rather than being defeated in a fair election, his supporters will never accept the result. This country will become ungovernable," Kennedy, who initially launched a Democratic primary challenge to President Biden in April before switching to an independent 2024 bid in October, wrote on X.
It's hilarious because Trump's supporters still don't believe the 2020 election was fair and they never accepted the result. What's the difference?
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/past-14th-amendment-disqualifications/
Not that I expect the Supreme Court to follow precedent.
Interestingly the case referenced a decision Gorsuch made before joining the Supreme Court:
Yes. This can't be pointed out enough.
That same disdain, ridicule, and supremacism on both sides. Were it not for mere names, one couldn't tell who's who.
If the Gorsuch ruling is indicative of a consensus, the Supreme Court's present inclination against Federal initiatives could lead to them to letting each state decide by itself; Quite a change from counting dangling chads.
I agree. But his following continues to grow in a world turned upside down.
Further, it's not even clear to me what SCOTUS can do here. The Colorado Supreme Court ruling pertained specifically to Colorado law - which SCOTUS has no authority to overrule, unless they find something unconstitutional in the law or in the ruling.
But doesn't apply to Donald Trump, because...
Quoting The Colorado Ruling Calls the Originalists’ Bluff by Adam Serwer
[tweet]https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1737630463236178175?s=46&t=IakyLvDoU1iHVTU4X-LNfg[/tweet]
They are actually going to evoke Our Democracy after Dem judges remove their political opponent from the ballot for something no one has been charged with or convicted of. I thought there might be a little pause in the Our Democracy propaganda, at least until the matter is settled, but they’re actually doing it. It’s just terrible optics, or he thinks his voters are stupid, one or the other.
Free speech.
They didn’t remove him from any ballot. They said that “the Secretary may not list President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, nor may she count any write-in votes cast for him.”
And, of course, these are just words. They have no power to influence what the Secretary does. If she doesn’t add Trump to the ballot then that’s her choice and only she is responsible.
Yes, they’re just words, and it’s superstitious to pretend they have power to manipulate the actions of organisms… but law isn’t just words. People are employed to obey and expected to enforce those words, for instance the Secretary. Of course, she can disobey and leave him on the ballot because words don’t have the magical powers you pretend they do, but she’ll be punished.
What else is it? It's certainly not magic.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes. So you can blame the Secretary if she doesn't add him to the ballot, but you'd have to accept that she's doing it out of fear of punishment and not because she has some anti-Trump agenda.
I’m not sure where you’re going with this except into a deeper hole.
That if we use your logic then a) you cannot accuse the court of removing Trump from the ballot and b) if Trump is removed from the ballot then it isn't because of some anti-Trump agenda.
Sure, Dem judges are ordering the Secretary to remove Trump from the ballot. Is that better?
Well, to be pedantic they're ordering her not to add him to the ballot, but yes.
But so what? Orders are just words and you're a free speech absolutist.
On the contrary. As of July 2023, there have been many hundreds of convictions arising from the January 6 2021 assault on the Houses of Congress
Quoting DoJ
All at the instigation of Trump, indeed at least some of those convicted explicitly said they acted in accordance with Trump's wishes.
Again the basis of the decision is that due to his actions on that day which will live in infamy, he is not eligible to stand for public office.
Coercion is not just speech, I’m afraid.
And he finally admits that words can influence another's behaviour.
You're welcome ladies and gentlemen.
It’s the fear of force that influences their decision. Sorry.
How many have been convicted of insurrection?
The fear is in her head, not in the words written by the judges. So, again, by your own reasoning you cannot blame the court for the Secretary's decision to not add Trump to the ballot (assuming she obeys the court order).
I am blaming the court for coercing the secretary, abusing the law for corrupt ends, and political persecution. But thanks for admitting it’s not the words but the fear in her head that influences her.
The charges against the individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, uprising at the U.S. Capitol include obstruction of an official proceeding, assault, trespassing, disrupting Congress, theft or other property crimes, weapons offenses, making threats, and conspiracy, including seditious conspiracy. The District of Columbia’s attorney’s office has sentenced some 378 individuals to periods of incarceration over their involvement in the insurrection . The sentences range from home detention to longer prison terms for those who engaged in violence or threats . According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, the median prison sentence for the Jan. 6 rioters is 60 days . However, some individuals have received longer prison terms, such as Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, who was sentenced to 18 years in prison on seditious conspiracy charges.
According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), “sedition” is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. “Insurrection” includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion. In a constitutional democracy, sedition and insurrection refer to inciting or participating in rebellion against the constitutionally established government, its processes and institutions, or the rule of law.
While the two terms are related, they are not interchangeable. “Seditious conspiracy” is a federal crime that occurs when two or more people conspire to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof. “Insurrection” is generally understood to mean the actual violent acts of an uprising aimed at overthrowing the government.
However the fact that charges of insurrection were not brought, does not mean that the acts did not constitute an insurrection.
Donald Trump is facing charges related to the January 6th events. He has been indicted on four counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, conspiring against rights, and obstruction and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding. The ABC News reports that the charges against him include obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement, and incite, assist or aid and comfort an Insurrection.
Nobody who reads the report of January 6th commission could be under any illusion that Trump did not act with seditious intent, namely, to prevent the transfer of power to Biden, He has said as much in public on numerous occasions.
How do they do that? All they've done is printed words on a document. What does it mean for words to "coerce" another person? Seems like another word for "influence".
[quote][However the fact that charges of insurrection were not brought, does not mean that the acts did not constitute an insurrection./quote]
It does not mean that the acts did constitute an insurrection either.
I didn’t say words coerce others. People coerce others.
How? What have the judges done to coerce the secretary?
If you don't see, it's not because it isn't there, but because you have chosen to be willfully blind, like other members of the Trump cult. I don't know why anyone bothers responding to you, and I certainly no longer will.
They’ve ordered her to remove Trump from the ballot.
And their orders are just words. Therefore, if their orders have coerced her then their words have coerced her, which according to you is impossible.
No one has been charged with insurrection. You can’t pretend two different crimes are the same. I’m sorry you can’t get past that. Good riddance.
I didn’t say their orders coerced her. Words cannot coerce. Words cannot order. Words cannot do what you keep trying to pretend they do. I said they ordered her.
You: People coerce others.
Me: What have the judges done to coerce the secretary?
You: They’ve ordered her to remove Trump from the ballot.
Make up your mind. You're tying yourself in knots trying to defend your indefensible position.
Are people orders now? I don’t get what I’m supposed to be making my mind up about.
Me: What have the judges done to coerce the secretary?
You: They’ve ordered her to remove Trump from the ballot.
If your response doesn't answer my question then I'm still waiting on an answer.
Me: They’ve ordered her to remove Trump from the ballot.
You: And their orders are just words. Therefore, if their orders have coerced her then their words have coerced her, which according to you is impossible.
Yes, thanks for repeating the nonsense.
The hypocrisy in your claim that the court saying things is an act of coercion but that Trump saying things can't be an act of influence is laughable.
This is what happens when you will do anything to refuse to admit that Trump is in the wrong.
Fwiw, this is incoherent. The words have no coercive power. The threat of losing his/her job might. But that's not on the judge/s by the other commenter's account.
Do orders order, commands command, according to you?
Obviously.
More evidence of his direct involvement in an illegal scheme to defraud the election.
Humans don’t command or order, then, only their words do?
Why would she lose her job?
Humans command by using words, just like humans kill by using a gun.
And Trump influenced his cult by using his words.
Right, humans command. Humans order. But you believe commands command and orders order. I’m just trying to wade through the magical thinking here.
Yes, just as guns kill.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's not magic, it's common sense. The problem is that your position is nonsense.
Right, I was just making sure.
Guns are murderers now. Commands are commanders. We have a little fantasyland going on here.
:lol:
If he loses it’s rigged, if he wins it’s just.
I said that guns kill, not that guns are murderers. If I said that drowning kills then would you interpret that as me saying that water is a murderer?
Sorry, guns are killers now. I wonder how they get away with it.
I said that guns kill, not that guns are killers. If I said that downing kills then would you interpret that as me saying that water is a killer?
I suppose then that guns shoot people? Lock them up!
Ridicule as an attempt to deflect from your hypocrisy. Very transparent.
I'll try to make this simple for you.
You are claiming that the judges would be to some degree responsible for Trump not appearing on the ballot even though the only thing they've done is issue a written judgement.
The rest of us are claiming that Trump is to some degree responsible for the attempted insurrection even though the only thing he did was give a speech.
Either accept both or reject both.
Excuse my reductions to the absurd because it’s nonsensical. You’re taking acts committed by humans and saying inanimate objects do them. I just can’t get past such weird sophistry.
The judges believe he engaged in insurrection, a federal crime, and are keeping him off the ballot because of it, even though no one has been charged (let alone convicted) of said crime. So much for the constitution. So much for democracy. The United States is now a banana republic.
The 14th Amendment doesn't say that only someone charged (let alone convicted) of insurrection is ineligible. It only says that someone who engaged in insurrection is ineligible. It's all explained in the court order.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say they should look in the dictionary for what an insurrection Is, but that’s what they’ve done.
Oddly enough they didn’t look up what “engage” means, because he wasn’t even present where the event happened, yet they conclude he engaged in it. It’s one of the worst court documents in history.
They referenced United States v. Powell, 1871:
Also they did look up the dictionary definitions. It starts on page 103.
Then there's this:
You have just explained why it is wrong to regard words as meaningless marks and sounds, separate and distinct from a form of life. Legal language is not a combination of laws that have force and words that don't. Words are an integral part of a larger whole.
Section 3 of the 14th amendment is not "just words". The words establish what the law is. There are no laws without the words, and no words without meaning. Thus the words have force. The words matter. Without them there would be no question of whether Trump is disqualified. Without them there would be no way to settle the question.
Nice, definitions from the 19th century. Thanks for clearing that up.
Lawmakers establish what the law is. Other than that I can’t follow your non-sequiturs.
It's a kind of thinking that completely refuses to acknowledge authority or the power of others. As in:
Judge: I order you to pay this fine.
Refuser: Duh. [You're not the boss of me.]
The part in brackets is usually intended but left unsaid.
To a person like that, it also makes sense, for example, to say that A didn't simply kill B by shooting him, but that B allowed himself to be shot and/or that B was too weak to withstand the bullet (and so B's death is actually B's fault).
It's a kind of thinking that takes the motto "everyone is solely responsible solely for themselves" to its logical consequences.
It's democracy at its most American finest: everyone is equal, everyone can be equally dismissed and ignored (whether a stranger in the street, a family member, or an officer of the law). If someone says something to you, it's on you and entirely on you how you will take it, whether you will even feel addressed by it at all.
Probably because he and his supporters are not anarchists. They do value the idea of various institutions and institutes, but not necessarily the particular persons who (currently) hold those positions. So they, for example, respect the office of the president or the democratic process of elections, but not necessarily Joe Biden or the 2020 presidential elections. They are not simply biased tribalists either, as is evidenced by how they cut ties with or get rid of those who no longer serve their cause.
'Evil is eating away at Western democracies,' says Hungarian PM Orban
[sup]— Euronews + Agence France Presse · Dec 21, 2023[/sup]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/euronews/status/1737861735896306059[/tweet]
Such easy things to point out (especially when skipping the larger contexts), but, hey, maybe he's right. How would he characterize the Kremlin, then? (In public, no holding back, preferably?)
One of those arguments that works forwards and backwards and belongs really in that Ryle dilemmas thread.
It's because they're Trump loyalists who will buy into whatever argument Trump advances regardless of the evidence supporting it or the logical consistency of it.
His supporters bought into and still buy into the argument there was a nationwide conspiracy to rig the election in every contested district across the country. Despite no evidence, he continued to try to obstruct the result, all the way down to convincing his followers to physically standing in the way of it.
Trying to characterize his followers as ideological or principled is not consistent with what's been going on.
Well yes, that’s how originalism works, and originalism seems to be one of the most common ways to interpret the constitution.
Can you articulate what that cause is? Have you associated with a range of Trump voters where this lack of simple bias has been demonstrated to you?
On the face of it, you assert a unity of purpose while denying that it exists.
Donald Trump knew there would be violence— and rallied his followers for it, knowing full well he could claim plausible deniability while he drove back to the White House.
Kudos to @Michael for continually exposing to any viewing bystander just how ridiculous our resident Trump cultist’s views are.
They do not and cannot do this without WORDS.
Quoting NOS4A2
There is a difference between your inability to follow an argument and an argument that does not follow from what has already been said. Don't blame the argument for what you are unable to do.
The truth is though that I do think you are able and just resort to claiming non-sequiturs rather than admitting that you are wrong.
Trumpsters see this in a very favorable light. They prefer autocrats to the rule of law.
Now that he [Trump] has put us all in this situation, the U.S. Supreme Court – and especially the Roberts majority – has a real dilemma on its hands. It has advertised itself as being a textualist and originalist court, in which the words say what they mean and were intended to mean when adopted.
Given that the 6 conservative justices on SCOTUS espouse some form of originalism, they (the conservative justices) must use these definitions if they wish their rulings to be consistent with their legal philosophies.
it's going to be interesting. Will politics trump principals? My prediction is that the conservative justices will find some way to wave their hands and rule against Colorado. But it would make me very happy to be wrong.
The majority opinion is so stupid and unjust, and the dissenting opinions are more originalist (some of which call out the majority’s misreading of the constitution), that I would be very surprised if they ruled in favor of the court. But hey, stranger things have happened.
Yes, and courts determine what the law means. There is no law that defines what constitutes a rebellion or insurrection. Colorado violated neither the law nor constitution in their interpretation. It's possible SCOTUS will create a definition that has the effect of overturning the Colorado ruling, thus creating new law. If they do, it's game over. Is that what you're hoping for? SCOTUS creating law like this?
Most of us acknowledged Trump's legal rights to challenge the 2020 election in courts, so why can't you support the rights of states to challenge his eligibility using the same justice system?
So should an originalist judge should use the historical definitions of the terms? Yes/no/other?
The basis of their argument is based on two claims.
First that Smith does not provide a reason for the date proposed.
Second, they say it should be "resolved in a cautious, deliberative manner — not at breakneck speed" and that the justices should not "rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon."
The first argument is weak. If there is nothing special about March 4th then there is nothing special about March 3rd or 1st either. The argument could be used to push for an even earlier date. They have not said what they would consider to be a reasonable date. If the proposed date was April or May 4th the would make the same argument. The only satisfactory date for the is after the election.
The second argument rests on the questionable assumption that in order to comply they would have to proceed without caution in a matter that is deliberative, that they would be have to rush to decide the issues with reckless abandon. None of this, of course, is true. As they no doubt know, the way to move forward quickly is by putting it at the top of the list of cases to be decided.
If the court decides quickly and against Trump they can still use this argument in an attempt to persuade voters that the decision was rushed and Trump was treated unfairly. And, of course, the Supreme Court will be added to the list of the enemies of the United States of Trump.
Another fine example of Trump doing what he accuses others of doing, using the courts for political ends.
Added: As I was posting this the court made a decision not to fast track. A cowardly move. They can't avoid dealing with Trump. They are deciding to not decide, a decision that will harm their reputation more than the fear of making the wrong decision.
Yeah, that happened about the same time I posted. When I saw I posted an addendum.
At least they were quick to decide not to decide.
I agree with the general idea of moving slowly, but not in a case like this.
Think about Reconstruction. If state courts were to decide what constituted an insurrection, and who was guilty of it, the southern states could say those who fought for the confederacy were not insurrectionists, and thus could hold office.
It’s probably why section 5 of the fourteenth amendment says “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” In regards to enforcing these provisions It doesn’t mention states or state courts. An originalist would need to consider this as a glaring problem with the state’s ruling. The fact that the president is not mentioned in the list of people who would be unable to hold office might give the originalist some more ammo against the ruling.
Would you say the same about the Thirteenth Amendment?
Quoting NOS4A2
It mentions "or as an officer of the United States". The court found that the President is an officer of the United States, starting page 79.
I suppose yes because the 13th amendment also grants “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.
No state or federal court has authority in either matter.
How do you draw that conclusion? The 13th Amendment establishes two things: first, that slavery is abolished, and second, that Congress shall have power to enforce this abolishment.
Your conclusion only follows if the 13th Amendment was written as:
But it wasn't written this way.
Compare, for example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
This wording precludes state and federal courts from laying and collecting taxes.
It doesn’t say that any court has the power to enforce the provisions of the article. It says there in plain English that those powers are left to Congress.
Neither does the 2nd Amendment.
Quoting NOS4A2
No, it simply extends Congress' power. As I mentioned here, the Supreme Court has already ruled that these amendments are "self-executing" (much like the 2nd Amendment), and much like the 2nd Amendment the courts have the power to enforce it.
I’m talking about the 14th amendment, section 5.
A congress full of insurrectionists. A congress full of folk who attempted to stop/obstruct an official proceeding. A congress of folk who continue to commit fraud against the American people.
So am I, and so was the Supreme Court in The Civil Rights Cases. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment doesn't entail that the courts cannot enforce Section 4, and Section 2 of the 13th Amendment doesn't entail that the courts cannot enforce Section 1.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and Section 1 of the 13th Amendment are "self-executing", and like every other Constitutional provision (e.g. the 2nd Amendment), the courts have the power to enforce them.
If this congress were responsible for enforcing it as written, they would be forced to conclude that they themselves were disqualified from holding their own positions. Well, a large portion of the republican members anyway.
Section 5 entails that Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the article. It doesn’t confer that power to anyone else. So why assume someone else can have that power?
That would never have survived SCOTUS review. The Confederate States had left the US, so attacks on them could not be considered insurrection against the US.
[Quote]“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” In regards to enforcing these provisions It doesn’t mention states or state courts.[/quote]
The 14th doesn't say Congress has EXCLUSIVE power to pass legislation to enforce the ban. Similarly, Article I Section 8 states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."; clearly that's not an exclusive power.
Trump's ban was a consequence of State law.SCOTUS doesn't have appellate jurisdiction over state law, except in the case where that law is deemed unconstitutional.
Congress has passed no law that applies, so SCOTUS would (in effect) be creating law in order to overturn Colorado's Supreme Court Ruling.
I'm not predicting SCOTUS will uphold the ban (I think it's unlikely); I'm just arguing the litigants had as much right to pursue their preferred outcome as did Trump's supporters (like Texas v Pennsylvania), in the many lawsuits to overturn the 2020 election. Don't you agree?
The 1st and 2nd Amendments don't confer the power to anyone. So why assume that anyone can enforce them?
On the other hand, the 14th amendment does confer the power to enforce the provisions to Congress, so one can assume correctly that that power belongs with Congress and no one else.
How would that work if there were members in congress who were guilty of what the article sets out?
Guilty according to who?
The judge doesn't matter at this point.
If they were guilty, by whatever means you find acceptable, what sense would it make for them to have the sole exclusive power to enforce the article?
One would be assuming incorrectly.
See also the Supreme Court's ruling on the 15th Amendment in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966)
The notion that the inclusion of Section 2 entails that there must be a federal law that grants citizens the right to vote is a false one. Section 1 is enough, and if someone is denied the vote then they may petition the courts to enforce their right. Congress doesn't need to get involved.
Just as the article prohibited confederate officials after the Civil War, it applies equally to those currently in congress who attempted to obstruct an official proceeding as well as all of those who've given aid and comfort to insurrectionists.
If the power of enforcing the article was exclusively conferred to congress, it would be completely incapable of removing any members guilty of what the article sets out. Given that the very purpose of the article is to prohibit such members, it is clear that that interpretation is wrong.
My prediction is that they will stay the ruling beyond Jan 4th because they're too busy to hear it right now, after which they will declare the case moot as Trump would have already been added to the ballot.
Yes it invalidates state voting qualifications or procedures which are discriminatory on their face or in practice. It doesn’t invalidate Congress’ power to enforce the provisions of the article. Congress could repeal the entire amendment if they wanted to. That’s because only Congress has the power to enforce them.
It’s the same with the 13th and 14th. The cases you cited were clearly about slavery, and the violation of voting rights, not about section 3. The “self-executing” as it is described in both your cases is about nullifying the power of the states to violate those rights. The disqualification section is not about a state violating rights, and therefor it cannot be said that that particular section is self-executing and immediately bars someone from the holding office should some state court decide they are guilty of insurrection. Either way I assume the Supreme Court will clarify the matter.
True, but the particular case brought before the Colorado Supreme Court was to stop Trump being added to the Republican primary ballot. If Trump is on the ballot, or otherwise wins the Republican primary without winning Colorado, further litigation will be required to remove him from the actual Presidential election.
I think that is likely, but would replace "because" with "based on the excuse that they're too busy".
No it can't. Congress does not have the power to repeal the Thirteenth, the Fourteenth, or the Fifteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that each are self-executing.
They wouldn’t have the power because they would be barred from being in Congress.
Right. It seems to me that that article applies much much more broadly than is currently being applied. In other words, it is clear that a large number of current elected officials ought be removed from their office, and many of them are currently holding congressional positions.
It was my understanding that Congress can repeal an amendment with another amendment, which it has done before.
If they were members at the time they gave aid and comfort to insurrectionists, they would.
First they would need an insurrection and insurrectionists to give comfort to. But no one has been charged with insurrection, so it’s kind of moot.
A new amendment requiring 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of States can repeal any Amendment, including the First.
But that’s not what we’re talking about. You are arguing that if Congress does not establish the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendment as law then they are effectively moot and that the courts cannot enforce them if petitioned by affected parties. That is simply not the case. The Supreme Court has already ruled that they are self-executing, and like every other self-executing provision of the Constitution, the courts can enforce them.
Evidently you're unaware of all the cases where some have plead guilty and/or been found guilty of precisely the language in the article. So, check... there are such people. Secondly, there are members in congress who have and continue to offer aid and comfort to those who've been found guilty by the facts in earlier court proceedings...
Trump had and does as well, and that ought be check mate.
The cases you cited were clearly about slavery, and the violation of voting rights, not about section 3. The “self-executing” as it is described in both your cases is about nullifying the power of the states to violate those rights. The disqualification section is not about a state violating rights, and therefor it cannot be said that that particular section is self-executing and immediately bars someone from the holding office should some state court decide they are guilty of insurrection.
What is clearly self-executing is the due process sections of the 14th, which, according to dissenting opinions in the case, occurred in the ruling, thus nullifying the state court’s authority.
Either way I assume the Supreme Court will clarify the matter.
How many were charged and convicted of insurrection?
Attempting to obstruct an official proceeding such as the peaceful transfer of power counts as an offense that disqualifies one. Offering those people aid and comfort also disqualifies one.
It doesn’t. The section speaks of insurrection and rebellion, not for some witness tampering crime.
Well no... sedition and seditious conspiracy is enough. We have that too!
Like Eugene Debs. He was convicted of sedition but was nonetheless able to run for president from prison.
That's a matter of enforcement... nothing else. Some people run stop signs too, and yet the cop doesn't ticket them. It's an offense nonetheless.
Trump has been found guilty of offering aid and comfort to people who are guilty of sedition. That disqualifies him from holding public office.
Well, no, the constitution doesn’t mention sedition nor seditious conspiracy.
Look again. Sedition is rebellion against the United States
He has not been found guilty of any such thing.
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
No sedition.
What those cases show is that the inclusion of a “congressional power of enforcement” section in an amendment does not entail that the other sections in that amendment are not self-executing and can only be enforced by Congress.
Therefore your claim that the inclusion of Section 5 in the 14th Amendment entails that Section 3 is not self-executing and can only be enforced by Congress is unjustified. There is nothing in the text that suggests Section 3 to be unique in that regard. Any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution will grant it the same status as being self-executing and subject to judicial enforcement.
Also seditious speech has been ruled as non protected speech, besides the 14th amendment clause:
By anyone who looks.
Rubbish. Sedition against the United States is both rebellion and insurrection. Trump and many congress members were involved, have and continue to offer aid and comfort to those already found guilty of sedition and seditious conspiracy... ahem... rebellion and insurrection against the United States.
Those cases also don’t show that it is self-executing, especially since that section has rarely (if ever) been litigated. What has been litigated and has been shown to be self-executing, thus nullifying state power, are the rights entailed within those amendments, one of which has been violated in the case of Trump according to dissenting opinions.
Seditious conspiracy is insurrection and rebellion? Then why didn’t they get charged for insurrection and rebellion?
Does not matter. Rebelling against the transfer of power with arms nonetheless is enough.
Surely it does matter because you’re trying to conflate two different crimes and laws.
I'm conflating nothing. Sedition is enough.
I suppose you'd agree with all that?
It’s all interpretation but how is a sitting president encouraging protests and then not doing anything about it when they get violent and storm the capitol, not in that definition? Also, why don’t you find the video clips where Trump said if he loses, he will have lost unfairly BEFORE the elections even took place? That means he didn’t even agree to the election as a real thing to begin with!
:roll:
What do you even call this, if it is coupled with everything else? If you don't even believe in the fairness of the system you are running in, and thus even if you lose, you ADMIT that it can never be otherwise, otherwise the system is rigged, and then you actively call for violent rallies near the capitol, and actively have rhetoric about stopping the count, and then not stop rally-goers from getting out of control, part-and-parcel of the same thing? I don't get how there's even a doubt really.
He did get on Twitter and told them to be peaceful and go home, to respect law enforcement, etc.
I said he was convicted of sedition.
You mean THREE HOURS after the protestors started breaking into the Capitol??
It was Colorado State Law that made Trump ineligible to be on a primary ballot.
Quoting NOS4A2
Because the language of the law does not use those terms.
The Supreme Court, having a few justices appointed by Trump, is going to throw it out based on some procedural thing or what not and not even make a ruling on it, when they do. Certainly, they won't try to admit it was sedition. They'll say something like "officer" or "office" doesn't apply to the President. That's my prediction. Perhaps I'll be surprised, but I doubt it.
Regardless of who appointed them, the "Conservative" Justices embrace the principle of Originalism. Sedition seems moot; the 14th Amendment refers specifically to " insurrection or rebellion", and neither term is defined in law. So they should ask how these terms were used at the time the 14th Amendment was passed.
The events of 1/6 wouldn't constitute a rebellion, to the 14th Amendment framers, who's standard was based on the Civil War. But insurrection is in play. How was the term used in the 19th Century? The only detailed historical analysis I've seen is contained in the New Mexico decision that barred a County Commissioner from holding office because he participated in 1/6. The decision is here. On page 29, the court identifies how the term was used at the time. Here's an excerpt:
The term "insurrection", as understood by knowledgeable 19th century Americans and Section three's framers, referred to 1) assemblage of persons; 2) action to prevent the execution of one or more federal laws, 3) for a public purpose; through the use of violence, force, or intimidation by numbers....Section three's framers and 19th century Americans did not understand insurrection to require actual violence; intimidation by numbers sufficed.
Perhaps more historical analysis will identify more ambiguity, but if this analysis holds - I don't see how originalist justices can rationalize a decision contrary to their stated principles.
You may be right that the Justices will find some procedural excuse, but they need the ruling to apply to all states - not just the specific issues with the Colorado decision. That seems tougher.
I don't think it is so much that they were appointed by Trump but that they were appointed because they held to a conservative political ideology. Ironically, Trump himself is completely devoid of any political ideology. "Trump" is the brand that caters to the Christian ideologues and plutocrats whose perks the conservative justices enjoy.
"Originalism" is a term used to disguise the indeterminacy of legal interpretation by appearing to give it a solid foundation. It is a slogan that does not match practice. One need look no further than Scalia's decision on the second amendment.
Quoting Fooloso4
I'm just completely cynical as to how principled people are, even on the bench. Clarence Thomas had to recuse himself, that is how close this goes to the justices themselves. If you don't think they are not influenced by favoritism, you haven't gotten to the depths of pessimism that is needed to wade through the modern political landscape.
Originalism I believe is as was stated here:
Quoting Fooloso4
Quoting Relativist
Looks like "giving comfort" to me. No?
I didn't hate Trump right away, but then I began to realize he was a habitual sore loser. I hate sore losers. I hate them when they are the neighbor kids, I hate them when they are me, and I hate them when they are the POTUS. That is the core reason I hate Donald Trump. He's a malevolent sore loser who puts his own ego before the country's interests. He's like a spoiled kid who was never taught by his parents the very important maxim: "Don't be a sore loser." This isn't just a hollow platitude, it is one of the principles that allows us to function as a stable society. It is especially important in a form of government like a democratic republic because we are constantly having elections with winners and losers. We are constantly engaged in the peaceful transition of power in order to respect the will of the people who do the voting. Without people who accept losing graciously, the fabric of this system becomes frayed, and eventually will rip apart. Donald Trump isn't doing this accidentally, or unintentionally, either -- we can see he has history of using the recurring claim that the only way he (or his side) can lose an election is if it is fraudulent. Saying the election was stolen cannot be a belief based on evidence when he starts claiming this prior to the election taking place. And he does it over and over. He did this in 2020 with Joe Biden. He did it in 2016 with Hilary Clinton. He did it in the 2016 Iowa primary with Ted Cruz. He even did it by proxy for Mitt Romney in 2012 when he tweeted "This election is a total sham and a travesty" and "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty." It has enough frequency that we can call it Trump's modus operandi.
The difference between a child who is a sore loser and an adult like Donald Trump or Kari Lake being a sore loser is that children can learn to stop doing it and overcome their emotional immaturity. The adults know better -- or at least have no excuse not to, at this point -- but choose to be sore losers as a form of strategy. Trump's refusal to graciously accept defeat (and attempt to disrupt the peaceful transition of power) is the cause of so many problems we as a country are experiencing, and may even result in our country being ripped apart in a civil war.
In typical fashion the Trumpsters they gets things backwards, as if it were because he is hated that he cannot be seen for who he is. The truth is, because they cannot see him for who he is there is a good chance he will win the election.
Tyrants want to be loved. Above all else they desire recognition. Trump's gold toilets and other ostentatious signs of wealth are nothing more than a means to this end. This is why he claimed, contrary to the evidence, that his inauguration was the biggest ever. It is an essential factor in his attempt to overturn the election and the claim that he won the popular vote. His neediness is tangible. This is the source of both his weakness and his danger.
Children grow out of it only because they aren't constantly surrounded by enablers. There are tens of millions of enablers for Trump and Lake. The Trump phenomenon is a consequence of some unfortunate elements in our society.
It's the classic Giant Douche vs. a Turd Sandwich. Both options are awful. The other side isn't a bunch of deplorables because they differ in taste of awful.
I wouldn't call the commitment to a peaceful transition of power a small margin, personally. The difference between a dictator and just a president who is run of the mill shit is huge too me
Any failings of Biden are related to one's judgments of policies he's implemented or failed to implement. Trump is a fundamental threat to our system of government.
Germans believe Russia will attack Europe if Trump is elected.
:meh:
Then there's Biden's cart blanche to Netanyahu, the loss of the Persian Gulf, etc.
Despite its many faults, the Trump administration really did a much better job at foreign politics.
The idea that Russia will attack Europe is extremely silly for several reasons. The Germans are probably afraid Trump will be elected president because Trump realized the Europeans are in a shitty bargaining position and started to press them. He was exactly right about that. That was actually a good move on Trump's part.
Famous last words
Why is that ironic?
Quoting Tzeentch
What evidence do you have of this post hoc claim?
Quoting Tzeentch
With funding provided by Congress.
Because the article linked was talking about how the Russians might attack if Trump gets elected. The Russians in fact attacked when Biden came into office, likely due to his long-lasting involvement in Ukraine.
And his involvement is not any kind of secret. He was in charge of the Ukraine portfolio as VP under Obama, from the period 2009-present (now as president, obviously), including when the 2014 coup happened. Nuland was famously handing out cookies on the Maidan, caught on tape designing the post-coup government, etc. Sullivan and Blinken have also been deeply involved in Ukraine.
The links between the Biden administration and Russia's invasion are crystal clear.
The link between another Trump administration and a Russian invasion of Europe are also pretty clear. Neither Trump nor a large swath of the American population would care.
Are you claiming that this would not have happened if Trump was in office?
Are you going to blame Biden for Putin's invasion of Cimea in 2014?
In response to the question of evidence for your post hoc claim "crystal clear" won't cut it.
If there is a cease fire will you give Biden credit or is he only responsible when it comes to placing blame?
Biden is old but the history of the region is much older.
Obviously that would be way too strong of a claim. I think there's a non-trivial chance that it wouldn't have happened under Trump, but the question is whether Trump would be able to go against the neocon establishment ("the Blob") - something Obama was unable to do (despite wanting and trying to do so).
As for Biden, he is the Blob.
Quoting Fooloso4
Biden is obviously not responsible for Putin's decisions, but in a way, yes. He is responsible for knowingly sowing the seeds for conflict, together with Nuland, Sullivan, Blinken - the whole gang. Ukraine was their project, they pushed Russia and refused dialogue, and they turned it into a complete and utter disaster.
Quoting Fooloso4
Evidence? :brow:
The involvement of all of the people I've named is not controversial or even secret.
Quoting Fooloso4
The US has blocked a cease fire several times already. Of course Biden would deserve no credit for it. As far as I am concerned, the US is complicit in the war crimes Israel is committing as we speak.
The US congress just passed legislation making it harder for a US president to withdraw from NATO. That kind of legislation doesn't usually work though. The SCOTUS will declare it unconstitutional.
The reason for this attempt is that everyone expects 1) Trump will be reelected, and 2) he's going to withdraw form NATO and basically join BRIC. No, it doesn't make much sense, but such is life. :grin:
That does sound a bit far-fetched.
Everything about Trump is far fetched. :razz:
The US is going to have (basically is already having) a huge problem keeping all its interests afloat now that shit is hitting the fan. If Europe with a combined GDP roughly equal to the US can't even maintain a credible deterrent towards Russia, which has 1/10th that GDP, something is wrong.
He despises Europe because he sees them as weak. He likes dictators because he respects them.
The underlying reality is that the US was allied with Europe because of the cold war. That era is fully gone now and Europe is just dead weight to the US. NATO no longer makes sense. This and abiding American isolationism will probably result in the demise of NATO. The Germans understand this. I don't know if anyone else in Europe does.
In that case, if you cannot rule out Putin attacking if Trump was president, the connection with Biden is tenuous.
He is responsible for knowingly sowing the seeds for conflict ...
What seeds of conflict did he sow?
Quoting Tzeentch
The involvement of these people is that they are acting within their official capacities as government officials in the Biden administrations. Of course they are involved! As would members of a Trump administration, unless you think Trump's "solution" would be to turn his back and ignore
what is going on.
Quoting Tzeentch
I am referring to Putin.
So, Hamas and Israel have agreed to a cease fire and the US has blocked it?
Again, since 2009 onward all the people I've named from the Biden administration including Biden himself have been deeply involved in project Ukraine.
That project sought the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO, and zero attention was paid to Russia's many objections, who spoke about red lines, fundamental security threats, etc.
Perhaps they thought the Russians were bluffing, but they knowingly invited conflict by ignoring them.
Quoting Fooloso4
Perhaps that is true, but I'm not aware of any members of the Trump administration handing out cookies on the Maidan.
To many people's dismay, Putin and Trump kinda liked each other. Regardless of what one thinks of that, it didn't appear to me that the issue was being pressed under Trump.
I'm open to being corrected. I'm not here to defend Trump. What I'm trying to make clear is that Biden has been a disaster in his own right.
Quoting Fooloso4
No, the US blocked UN Security Council resolutions calling for a cease fire, and expressed its unconditional support for Israel.
Again, I view the US as complicit in the war crimes Israel is committing.
Ukraine has been fighting against Russia's occupation of Crimea since 2014, a move Trump praised at the time, and actually parrotted Putin's assertions that Crimea is Russian. What makes you think Putin would have hesitated to attack Ukraine if Trump were still in office? Trump's isolationism, and criticism of NATO, would have been the best possible situation for Putin.
I don't think the Russians wanted to invade Ukraine at all. They did so because they felt they had no other option. If the US hadn't pressed its wishes to incorporate Ukraine, this war could have been avoided entirely.
His administration is committed to Ukraine joining NATO despite Putin's rhetoric. It is a defensive move in response to Putin's aggression.
Quoting Tzeentch
Right. The Maidan conflict predates Trump and cannot be blamed on Biden.
Quoting Tzeentch
To many people's dismay, Trump aligned himself with several autocratic leaders. This is why he did not press the issue of Ukraine. For him the issue was to implicate Biden. If elected the fear is he will side with Putin against Ukraine, against NATO, and against anyone and anything that stands in the way of the aligned autocrats.
Quoting Tzeentch
Except you haven't. The post hoc blame game should not be mistaken for insightful political analysis.
Quoting Tzeentch
This is quite different than:
Quoting Tzeentch
A resolution calling for a cease fire is not a cease fire. Both sides in the conflict must agree to a cease fire. It is not as if they did and the US blocked it.
.
Apparently Putin has been fishing on back channels for a cease fire since practically the beginning of the invasion. He's still doing it, but in public he never says anything like that. US military intelligence has assessed it as part of some strategy to cause confusion on the battlefield?
Anyway, at this point the Russian economy has become dependent on the war. It grew by about 3% last year in spite of the heavy sanctions. This is partly because of oil sales to China and India, and partly because they have a booming war economy. So it wouldn't be to Putin's advantage to stop the war in Ukraine. He wants people at home to feel like everything is fine, and it's not going to be without that boost to the economy from the war.
Biden was VP during the Maidan, and Ukraine was his portfolio. Of course he was involved. The entire current administration was involved in the Maidan. Ukraine is their project, and it crashed and burned in a most spectacular fashion, sadly taking Ukraine itself along with it.
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting Fooloso4
You don't think the Biden administration has been an unmitigated disaster? Ok.
I suppose it will forever remain a mystery to you then why people vote Trump.
Probably not.
We've been through this already. I'm not going back through. :wink:
War is always profitable ... for some.
Quoting frank
How do the people feel? How will they feel long term? How closely aligned are the perception and the reality?
I don't know. You'd have to ask a Russian resident.
Being "involved" might mean several different things. What I said is that he cannot be blamed. Are you putting the blame on him?
Quoting Tzeentch
More accusations without substantive evidence. Are you blaming the entire current administration?
Are you claiming that without the US involvement there would not have been a conflict?
Quoting Tzeentch
No. What could Trump or anyone else have done do prevent or fix the messes we are in?
Quoting Tzeentch
Not at all. I can sum it up in two words. Ignorance and resentment. Many see him as a savior or hero who will save us.
I don't know either. The answer we are likely to get from them will depend on whether Putin is listening. But whatever their perception might be it might not be a good measure of how the economy is doing or will do in the next few years.
It would be interesting to hear what Putin really thinks about the economy. That it can continue to sustain the war might be enough for now.
Yea, that's beyond obvious. I don't know how anyone can seriously deny US involvement in the Maidan coup and the dumpster fire that it turned into today. I attribute primary (though not all) responsibility to the US, and the people in the US that orchestrated it are sitting in the White House right now.
Are you not familiar with the Nuland-Pyatt phonecall?
For extra reference, from 2015, by the way:
Nonsense. Putin couldn't countenance a pro-West Ukraine. Ukraine has been moving toward the West since 2004, when the pro-Russian President (Yanukovych) lost to Yushchenko. Yushchenko began the push to join the EU and NATO, which has continued. Putin's invasion was inevitable.
Of course. And that's why they brought it up repeatedly in search for a solution. They were ignored.
Putin's invasion wasn't inevitable at all. All it would have taken was for the West to take Russia's security concerns seriously. At least enter into serious dialogue. None of that ever happened. They pushed the Russians, probably because they thought Russia was weak and Putin was bluffing. It turns out they weren't.
Ukraine is primarily the West's fault. Had Ukraine remained committed to neutrality, and had the US not sought to change Ukraine's neutral status, the entire conflict could have been avoided.
It will all be over if Trump wins.
No, it's Russia's fault. Ukraine was neutral when Russia invaded in 2014. Russia had signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 (along with the US and UK), committing to respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine in exchange for their giving up the nukes. Independence and sovereignty gives them the right to see economic alliances. They were seeking such economic alliances with the West (seeking to join the EU), while remaining "non-bloc" (militarily neutral). Ukraine was driven toward military alignment with the West in response to Russian aggression. You're blaming the West for failing to appease Russia's aggression.
Quoting Tzeentch
It's less so about NATO in particular and more so about what the Kremlin can control. That said, NATO is the most visible limit to the Kremlin's control, and hence what they talk about. Their officials have gone as far as saying that Russia is doomed for destruction unless they follow the (present) Kremlin.
You underestimate the (under)current of sentiments against the regressive authoritarian anti-democratic trajectory Putin has put Russia on. When this sort of down-slope happens to the largest country in the world, a technically developed country with resources, the danger can't be ignored (unless chosen to). As a result of the Ukrainians looking elsewhere, the Kremlin has come pretty close to portraying Kyiv as traitors (they went with Nazis).
Are you aware that this is a standard Trumpian rhetorical tactic, claiming that everyone knows or everyone says or everyone thinks?
Quoting Tzeentch
Again, an allegation without substantive evidence is not a substitute for an argument.
Rather than posting an hour plus video how about explaining in your own words or at least a transcript of why the Ukraine is the West's fault, and specifically why Biden is to blame.
Why do you say that?
Quoting frank
I'm just thinking that the Kremlin can't be that dumb. :) Then again, it's just conjecture on my part. I suppose they could make it look like they were attacked first?
Quoting Dec 25, 2023
If the US has left NATO it would make a little more sense. I think you missed our discussion about how the US congress has just passed a law to make it harder for a US president to exit NATO. They did that because Trump is expected to try.
Once the US has left NATO, it will make more sense to use funding from oil sales to enlarge Russia's territory. Maybe Poland first.
Quoting frank
Apologies, yes, the comment assumed the US is still in NATO.
By the way, this stuff is also on-topic over here: Ukraine Crisis
I'm not claming such things. I just don't think it's a serious argument.
Also, I think your attempt at likening me to Trump is really immature. :brow:
Sure, there was "US involvement" (+ other involvement) supporting ...
Quoting Revolution of Dignity (Wikipedia)
(There's a bit more at Euromaidan (Wikipedia).)
Part of this stuff was about shedding the shackles of the dominant (regressing) northern neighbor, whom you'll notice have some of those same problems the Euromaidan protests were about. Protests/assembly have more or less been stomped out by the Kremlin. The Ukrainians said "No", looked elsewhere, backed by the UN (ES-11/6 and prior), and have gone through moves addressing some of those problems in negotiation with the EU. I'd have thought it difficult in wartime, but they have made some improvements. They're trying, while being bombed. The Kremlin orders the bombing, and their trying is on another path.
A covert conspiracy for Ukraine to become a modern democracy, eh? :D "The Kremlin involvement" was of a different nature.
You use the term 'covert conspiracy' presumably to ridicule the idea, however the US has been on a constant tour to do exactly that: toppling regimes, and even legitimate governments, in pursuit of its own interest, leaving utter chaos in its wake.
If the idea sounds ridiculous to you, it must be because you don't know your own country's history very well.
Pointing to the same argumentative tactics that someone uses is not likening you to anyone.
What disastrous things has it done?
I really don't care that you criticize Biden. What I care about is reasoned argument. It has become evident that will not be forthcoming.
Ukraine was their project, and it has been a hopeless mess. From cynically pushing Russia (probably in the belief that Putin was bluffing), to a strategy of wishful thinking that not only failed to hurt Russia but in fact spectatularly backfired, and continuing by burning all bridges by boycotting diplomacy, only to then make a 180 and subsequently failing to push Zelensky into negotiations.
The fact that many states refused to side with the West basically lost the United States the Persian Gulf, where, to add insult to injury, China brokered a rapprochement between Iran and Saudi-Arabia, and now there's Israel where again the Biden administration doesn't seem to realize it is playing a losing hand and goes with the true and tried "When in doubt, express unconditional support for Israel" strategy.
In terms of foreign relations, the US lost on all fronts under Biden. It's been one tragic clownshow.
The proof is in the pudding, as they say. :lol: But I gave you the means to educate yourself, and don't pretend I didn't produce arguments.
You're blaming Biden for Russia invading Ukraine and Ukraine not willing to give away some of their territory in exchange for "peace"?
Quoting Tzeentch
What about domestic? I suspect that's what Americans care most about.
I view US as being principally responsible, and Biden has been on that portfolio since the start of the conflict. Nuland, Blinken and Sullivan have all been involved in various capacities and advisory roles to Biden, Nuland of course being especially notorious.
So in short, yes. I view Biden and gang as bearing principal responsibility for the outbreak of the conflict. Russia bears responsibility for its own decisions.
Since the outbreak the administration has consistently doubled down on stupid, mostly predicated on the erroneous idea that developed during 2022 that Ukraine was winning the war.
Quoting Michael
I'm a European. I don't know enough about American domestic politics to judge how well he's doing there.
While it cannot be proved with 100% certainty, all indications are that they (Trump supporters) approve of Trump's authoritarianism.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/23/trump-america-authoritarianism-420681
https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_AuthPanel_011921/
None of those are dictatorial, authoritarian, or anything of the type. In each case it’s a weird leap from one premise to the other. Unfortunately they resemble better the fever dreams of his enemies.
Submission to political power and the party is the domain of the establishment. The activities of the uniparty, from trying to frame the president for treason to the current persecution, is the reactionary force at work here. That’s your version of democracy and nobody really wants it.
Maybe you don't even know what happened.
It’s a good thing contesting an election is part and parcel of democracy. At least they didn’t furiously change election laws in the lead up to the election underneath the noses of voters.
There are legal and illegal ways to contest an election. Trump's way was illegal.
Since Trump was elected Plato's warning about how democracies degenerate into tyrannies through demagogues has frequently pointed to. The demagogue poses as a champion of the people. Because they feel powerless and unable to make things better for themselves they turn to someone who promises to do it for them. They are willing to cede power in order to get the results they hope for, but rather than seeing this as ceding power they believe they are gaining power.
Some retain faith in a system of checks and balances. They trust that there are limits on what Trump will be able to do in a second term. Some have faith in God and believe Trump is doing God's work. For them theocracy is preferable to democracy. Some have lost all faith in the system and see the only solution to be to destroy it. In an odd reversal of 60's liberalism the state, now controlled by those same liberals, is still the enemy. The major difference is that the Trumpsters have a powerful propaganda machine and have convinced a large segment of the population that the "mainstream media" cannot be trusted or believed. It is the enemy. Believe instead whatever we tell you, for we alone can be trusted. Dictators operate under state sponsored media. Something that up until now we have not had. Why should Trump supporters be worried when they are told repeatedly, day after day, that the "Dems" are destroying our country but Trump will save us?
What did he do that was illegal?
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election/1f1c76972b25c802/full.pdf
18 U.S.C. 371
(Conspiracy to Defraud the United States)
18 U.S.C. 1512 (k)
(Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)
18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(c) (2), 2
(Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding)
18 U.S.C. 241
(Conspiracy Against Rights)
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/georgia-indictment-trump/daed97d37562a76f/full.pdf
VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA RICO (RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS) ACT
O.C.G.A. 16-14-4(c)
SOLICITATION OF VIOLATION OF OATH BY PUBLIC OFFICER
O.C.G.A. 16-4-7& 16-10-1
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT IMPERSONATING A PUBLIC OFFICER
O.C.G.A. 16-4-8& 16-10-23
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FORGERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE
O.C.G.A. 16-4-8 & 16-9-1(b)
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FALSE STATEMENTS AND WRITINGS
O.C.G.A.§§ 16-4-8& 16-10-20
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FILING FALSE DOCUMENTS
O.C.G.A. 16-4-8& 16-10-20.1(b)
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FORGERY IN THE FIRST DEGREE
O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-8 & 16-9-1(b)
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FALSE STATEMENTS AND WRITINGS
O.C.G.A. §§ 16-4-8& 16-10-20
FILING FALSE DOCUMENTS
O.C.G.A. 16-10-20.1 b
SOLICITATION OF VIOLATION OF OATH BY PUBLIC OFFICER
O.C.G.A. 16-4-7 & 16-10-1
FALSE STATEMENTS AND WRITINGS
O.C.G.A. 16-10-20
SOLICITATION OF VIOLATION OF OATH BY PUBLIC OFFICER
O.C.G.A. 16-4-7 & 16-10-1
FALSE STATEMENTS AND WRITINGS
O.C.G.A. 16-10-20
I’m aware of what he is being charged with, most of which has been brought by people who have campaigned on putting him in jail. I just want to know what he did that was illegal.
(I've only lived in the US ? half a year, mostly business related and in the past, if that's what you mean.)
It’s explained in the indictments.
Changing the law is part and parcel of democracy, just as is contesting elections through legal means. What's not part and parcel is trying to overturn an election through election fraud after all legal avenues have been exhausted.
EDIT ... Hmm this ? works in the direction of exonerating the Kremlin in 2014 because "conspiracy" :D
Quoting Mar 3, 2023
Quoting Mar 3, 2023
For sure the people in Washington are evil, and the people in Brussels are ignorant. But my intention was never to exonerate Russia, rather to make clear that the West is just as bad as they, and that all this narrative spin is just window dressing for a cynical game that is about power and nothing else.
Quoting Tzeentch
Neither evil nor ignorant:
Quoting Revolution of Dignity (Wikipedia)
More copy/paste that pertains to the comment:
Quoting Dec 26, 2023
Quoting Dec 26, 2023
Questionable in terms of evil/ignorant:
Quoting Dec 26, 2023
Prejudice overriding example to the contrary. :/
Trump is convicted. The predictable response: “The judge was corrupt— or the jury was stacked against him,” etc. It doesn’t end.
There reaches a point where a person is no longer amenable to reason or evidence. Look no further than election denial, climate denial, 2nd amendment enthusiasts, flat earthers, etc. Doesn’t matter — there will always be some excuse to go on believing what you wanted to believe in the first place.
The following excerpt from a Robert Cialdini book seems relevant, both to your observation and to various threads going on about morality, and discussion of promises.
https://medium.com/@charlesleon/consistency-and-commitment-9f2f9d38e188
That’s a tough one. So many intelligent people make this argument— some good friends of mine (in “real life”) — that I’m trying to be more sympathetic towards it while also holding the feeling that I’m being asked to deny reality, which is frustrating. I’ve probed pretty hard and still haven’t been given convincing answers— but I’m definitely open to them.
If I thought that voting third party (I really like Cornel West, for example) would make a big difference, even in the long run, I’d do so and encourage others as well.
Both parties are indeed beholden to special interests, mostly corporate — Wall Street, big oil, Pharma, insurance, etc — but there are still ideological and policy differences, which are becoming more and more vast. Go down the line and it’s obvious. Climate change. Guns. Abortion. Voting rights.
I think the mistake is overthinking elections. It’s buying into the idea that this is our main power, and so we have to endlessly debate how to leverage it. But when you look at local politics, where practical things get done (zoning boards, school boards, budget committees), it’s more about which administration will hinder your goals.
If the choice is Trump or Biden, which it will be, it’s obvious to me who’s worse— and it does no good pretending that a vote for anyone else is much more than giving the worst candidate more of a chance, which is counterproductive to say the least. Unless you’re in a safe state, it’s just kind of silly to vote third party or not vote at all. What you’re doing is acting against your professed interests.
But I digress.
Lol. According to the NY Post. Thank god they get things right.
Your lot censored the NY post in the lead up to an election because they were so scared of the truth. Good look.
My view is the exact opposite. Too many people underthink the consequences of their vote and who is elected.
But I agree with most of what you wrote.
What "truth" was there to be afraid of? The NY Post article was available, and I read it at the time. It made Hunter look terrible, but he wasn't running.
Exactly. There was no point in censoring it. But besides the crack smoking and hookers, his laptop showed that from 2013 through 2018 Hunter Biden brought in about $11 million via his roles as an attorney and a board member with a Ukrainian firm accused of bribery and his work with a Chinese businessman now accused of fraud.
Thanks for proving my point. Your assessment of “truth” is worthless, as you prove with each passing day.
That’s also true. But I had a specific group in mind— the kind that thinks a lot about this stuff, but to a fault.
That’s right— Hunter Biden is better than you. Your analysis is something we wipe off our shoes.
In unrelated news, please rant more about how the election was stolen…
It would be interesting to discuss what was actually done, why it was done, and what mistakes (if any) were made. However, it contained no information relevant to the election - so the complaint seems vacuous.
It is relevant because Joe Biden knew about it all and lied to everyone that he did. He lied about it in the debates. Had that info not been censored, and had we not been kept in the dark about Biden's involvement, we might have made a more informed choice.
Him dining with Burisma executives, for example, and this while he was heading U.S. anti-corruption initiatives in Ukraine. Hunter was jet-setting around the world on Air Force 2 while the deals were going on. Devon Archer testified that Biden was on at least 20 speaker phone calls with Hunter and his foreign associates. Biden's assertions that he never discussed Hunter's business dealings, or that they never profited off the Biden name, all turned out to be false.
No no — it benefits our team, therefore it’s important and suddenly we care about lying and “immoral” behavior (hookers bad; porn stars, fine). Etc
Testimony has also confirmed, as have multiple news outlets and forensic analysis, that the laptop was legit, contradicting what has been said by so-called intelligence experts, the whitehouse, and Biden himself. That’s some dirty dirt.
Are you saying this because you actually believe this, or are you saying it merely for rhetorical purposes?
The laptop was dirt on Hunter, and contained nothing that impugned Joe's integrity. That his campaign would seek to minimize the relevance of that dirt during the campaign should be expected. Similarly, one would expect the Trump campaign to do as much with this dirt as they could - and they did. Does greater access to dirt really lead to more informed voting, as you suggested?
Nothing the former intelligence officers said was false. They merely expressed a judgement, and acknowledged that they didn't know if it was legit or not.
Biden denied involvement with Hunter's business. You may choose to consider a dinner appearance as business involvement, and label this a lie, but it's a pretty innocuous involvement. Why should this affect anyone's vote? It seems disingenous for you to suggest it relevant, since you excuse thousands of falsehoods that have streamed from Trump - many of which are pertinent to his qualifications to be President.
Oh don’t you mean
Quoting NOS4A2
Funny how it’s okay to trust them…sometimes. If they’re part of our team, or helping our team in some fashion, this is the criterion for truth. It’s how we know it’s legit. That news, and those experts, are fine.
At least within the cult.
I’m not sure why you’d defend misinformation and censorship of that sort unless it’s because you want to dismiss and minimize the information therein. Is there some other reason I’m unaware of?
What many people don't seem to realize is that this, too, is democracy. The problem isn't Trump, isn't Orban, it's the very phenomenon of democracy itself. In a democracy, people defend their own interests. And this inevitably leads to tensions. A common way of coping with those tensions is to try to discredit the others.
Let's just hope it doesn't take (much of) the rest of the world with it.
Things like this are often said, but I need something more to become convinced of this. From what I've seen of Trumpistas and the like, they aren't "buying into" what "their leader" says. They haven't been "deceived" by a "demagogue". It's simply how they are already.
Saying that they're "buying into" what "their leader" says etc. seems to be primarily a rhetorical move by their critics. But if it's more than just a rhetorical move, if the critics actually believe that, then it seems it's because the alternative (and what it implies about human nature) is too scary. It seems to be easier to propose that people are basically good, but weak; than to consider the possibility that people are basically evil and strong.
I suppose it’s a good thing though, in case anyone “on the fence” looks on. But isn’t it strange?
You've conflated actions by social media organizations, the BIden campaign, and former intelligence officials.There's no evidence of any conspiracy, despite the misinformation spread by MAGA media and Congressmen.
Whether or not social media organizations should limit access to suspected disinformation is debatable. But the Biden campaign didn't tell anyone what to do.
I've already given you the facts about the former intelligence officers letter, but you choose to ignore the details.
Trump was spreading disinformation ABOUT the laptop,including false accusations that Biden's efforts to fire Shokin were related to the "revelations" on the laptop. Does this concern you? If not, why would it concern you that Biden tried to diminish the relevance?
I like to be as informed as possible. I read the NY Post story when it came out, and felt there was a sufficiently good chance the laptop contents were true, and felt it important to consider the implications if it were.The letter from the former intelligence officers indicated they didn't know if it was true, so it was a non-factor. The only thing I learned from the laptop materials was what a lowlife Hunter had been, and what a concerned father Joe was. There was nothing that indicated Joe had done anything wrong. I'm pretty confident that anyone who understood the full facts would have agreed. You haven't even pointed to anything that should be a concern to anyone, so I question your posturing about misinformation. It looks like you're simply upset that the right-wing spin on the laptop didn't dominate the public debate at the time. Sure, if those half-truths had been reported by all news outlets similarly to the spin by FOX, OANN, and NEWSMAX, it might have turned some fringe Biden voters off - but that would have been more a product of misinformation, not of full facts.
I'd go further and call this crap a cultural or human thing. Democracy has always contained the possibility of its own undoing, it just takes a majority vote of someone non- or anti-democratic.
In part this is true.Those who voted for him because of his anti-abortion stance already held that view. Those who are anti-gay or anti-trans did not become that way because of Trump. Those who are anti-regulation in many cases did not become that way because of Trump. Those who are racist and white supremacists did not become that way because of Trump. In all these cases he simply fed their fears and added accelerant.
Those who believe he is a good business manager bought into a false image and are ignorant of his "small loan" from his father (one million dollars plus) his business failures, his cheating, his stiffing contractors, his misrepresentations, and his "business strategy of repeated bankruptcies.
He covers his failure to deliver on promises by making further promises.
Quoting baker
Both are distortions. Some people are basically good and others are not. Some are strong or weak in some ways but not others. There is no correlation between being weak or strong and good or bad.
I haven’t conflated anything. Serious analysis of the drive itself and the contents therein contradicted everything they claimed about it. That’s just a fact.
We found out from the laptop that Joe Biden met with Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi In 2015, something the Whitehouse has repeatedly lied about. We learned that Biden’s denials he knew anything about his son’s business dealings was a complete lie. Hell, it turns out he was in there like a dirty shirt.
Such a good father was the elder Biden that he let his son accompany him to China in 2013, and days later Hunter is appointed director of a new investment boutique backed by CCP money.
The disinfo and censorship of this info was less a conspiracy as it was a confluence of stupidity, just like the Russia hoax. They actually believed it was Russian disinfo, just like they believed Russian bots won Trump the election and Trump himself was a Russian agent. They’re still trapped in that moral panic. But it was former disgruntled CIA director John Brennan who delivered the letter to a politico writer known for pushing the Russian hoax, and the writer served it up on a propaganda platter for unsuspecting Americans getting ready to vote. It was even passed around on here in order to discredit the laptop. And Secretary Blinken and members of the Biden campaign have their fingerprints all over it.
This may be above board for you but to many it reeks of corruption, collusion, election interference, and fraud.
This is crazy that we even have to ask these questions. Trump has caused himself so many legal troubles, and I've never seen anything like it from another POTUS. Nixon wasn't anywhere close to this. And with Trump, a lot of it looks like a combination of clever scheming and sloppy bumbling.
Yes.
Quoting GRWelsh
I suspect any sentence will be suspended until after his term, and then if it's a federal conviction he will pardon himself. Who knows how the Supreme Court will rule on that.
Nemo judex in causa sua... These examples are from Wikipedia: The maxim has been invoked by the United States Supreme Court in various cases, such as the 1798 case Calder v. Bull ("a law that makes a man a Judge in his own cause [...] is against all reason and justice") and the 1974 case Arnett v. Kennedy ("we might start with a first principle: '[N]o man shall be a judge in his own cause.' Bonham's Case, 8 Co. 114a, 118a, 77 Eng. Rep. 646, 652 (1610)").
Well, what's supposed to happen is that if the President tried to do this then the upstanding members of Congress would impeach him and remove him from office.
Your vague reference to "they" suggests you are conflating actions by a variety of people and organizations. Point to an individual who knowingly stated a clear falsehood.
Quoting NOS4A2
Biden has consistently said he never discussed business with Hunter or his associates, and his attendance at a dinner doesn't contradict this. Joe did dodge questions about the laptop, such as in the debate with Trump when he referred to the letter by former intelligence officers, but his comment was factual - even though it was misleading. Are you so naive as to think being misleading is a novel thing for political candidates?
Quoting NOS4A2
This was public knowledge, not some revelation from the laptop. We're discussing the 2020 NY Post story about the laptop and the contents of the laptop, not your general opinion of Biden.
Quoting NOS4A2
Sure, there was stupidity in the handling of the story, including the way Giuliani gave exclusive access to only one right-wing outlet. The inability for other outlets to verify the information was a factor in the story not being reported widely. The other factor you overlook is Russia's history of assisting Trump, and Trump's taking maximum advantage of that assistance.
The Russian investigation was not a "hoax", because it was initiated as a result of a clear crime (Russians stealing information from DNC servers). A Trump campaign had knowledge of the crime before the emails were made public, and he lied about it. Additional lies were told by other campaign officials during the investigation - it would have been derelict to ignore this. Russian active measures to help Trump were well known during the 2020 campaign, and this was a major factor in wariness of media outlets at reporting it, and in the judgement of the former intelligence officers. It's pretty ironic that Russia's assistance in 2016 backfired on Trump's desire to spread irrelevant dirt in 2020.
Quoting NOS4A2
None of the signatories of the letter lied. The letter said they were "suspicious of Russian involvement", that it was "consistent with Russian objectives", and "We do not know whether these press reports are accurate". Of course the Biden campaign would use this analysis to maximum advantage, just like the Trump campaign would try to maximize the NY Post story to their maximum advantage.
Quoting NOS4A2
Hunter's corruption was well known.
"Election interference"?! Activities BY a campaign can hardly be called "election interference". Campaigns sling mud, and campaigns try to minimize the impact of that mudslinging.
"Fraud"? Be specific as to who you're accusing of fraud. The laptop story was dirt on Hunter Biden that the Trump campaign tried to use against Joe by drawing false inferences from the contents. You lament the failure of this dirty campaign tactic to succeed. The worst action by Joe that it exposed was that he attended an informal dinner with a Burisma associate and that Joe was misleading when asked about it. That's it!
You clearly brush away Trump's public embrace of assistance by Russia in his 2016 campaign, and direct, intentional lies by Trump and members of his campaign. Your excuse: you dismiss the entirety of the events (including the very real election interference ny Russia) as "hoax", because Trump tells you so. Then you treat campaign efforts to minimize the impact of the the laptop as something insidious, and falsely claim it entailed election interference.
The so-called intelligence experts, the whitehouse, and Biden himself, as I've already said. There is nothing vague about it.
Julian Assange denied the emails came from Russia. Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike admitted under oath that there was no evidence the information was exfiltrated. The US government dropped the case against the Internet Research Agency. It was a bunch of hokum, a hoax, and you're still falling for it.
The author of the letter, Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, asking John Brennan to sign the letter in an email said that he wanted to give Joe Biden a talking point in the debate.
"Trying to give the campaign, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on the issue."
https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-05/MorellBrennanEMailOct2020.pdf
Given this activity in light of their fake concern that "each of us believes deeply that American citizens should determine the outcome of elections", it appears they lied. It was clearly a political operation used to influence the election, to help the Biden campaign and cripple Trump. I'm interested to hear how you'll spin it.
Everything you just said is vague. What lie did the inteligence experts tell? "The White House" was the Trump administration at the time. What specific lie did Biden tell at the time? Provide quote and point to evidence that shows he knowingly made a false statement.
Quoting NOS4A2
You are not well informed.
Assange denying it was Russia doesn't make it so. The leak was traced to phishing email sent by the GRU, and were posted first by the Russian Intelligence persona of Guccifer 2.0, at DCLeaks, a website created by the GRU.
Shawn Henry testified to Rubio's committee that they'd determined the DNC hacks were by Russian Intelligence. 12 employees of the Internet Research Agency were indicted, GRU officer Yevgeny Prigoshin was indicted. He's not being pursued because he's dead.
The only hoax was Trump's fiction of a "Russia Hoax".
Quoting NOS4A2
You forgot to give me the evidence Brennan & Morrell knew the NY Post story was true at the time. What's wrong with providing talking points for a debate?
Quoting NOS4A2
What makes you think their concern is fake? It's established Russia interfered in 2016, and that their efforts had been continuing.
You spend too much time reading right wing spin, and not enough time trying to distinguish fact from biased accusation.
He lied about his knowledge regarding his son’s dealings, he used the fabricated talking point in the debates. I’m not well informed so perhaps you can come up with quotes yourself.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/05/hunter-joe-biden-business-testimony-00125056
It was misinformation as developed by former spies, some of whom fumbled the Russia hoax and defrauded the United States electorate. Biden used it to lie in the debates. Media used it to suppress the story.
Their reasons for the letter was to give a talking point to Biden, to help him whim the election as Morell stated. That’s a far cry from the reasons stated in the letter itself.
There are no quotes that depict Joe telling a lie. Sure, he used the talking points for his political benefit, just as Trump used the NYPost story, and made absurd claims about Biden getting Shokin fired to help Hunter.
Re the Politico story, it adds only one minor fact: some unnamed White House spokesman said something that wasn't true by saying there was no informal encounter with Pozharskyi. Let's get this person fired for failing to seek the truth on the matter, or lying - whichever it was. So what?
Quoting NOS4A2
Indeed, the letter was produced for political purposes, and it was used by Joe to dodge questions about the laptop - but he didn't tell a lie. Look at the transcript. . Hardly a unique practice by politicians. I acknowledged this long ago. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that everything in the letter was actually true. Here's a link to the letter. Being wrong does not mean telling a lie.
As I said several posts ago, there is absolutely nothing in the laptop that implicates Joe Biden of a crime or of doing anything contrary to the interests of the United States. The laptop was dirt, and was used as a basis for spreading false information about him - somehow, you overlook that point amidst your ranting about misinformation. It was mudslinging, irrelevant to Biden's qualifications to be President. You're just pissed that the campaign successfully dodged the mud. So please stop pretending to have some moral high ground.
That third challenge is hilarious.
Oh, that is sweet!
https://www.pressherald.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2023/12/Trump-Challenge-Paul-Gordon-20231208.pdf
:rofl:
Brilliant.
Funny all the same.
They must be pretty frightened to go to such lengths to keep their opponent off the ballot. The judicial malfeasance explains why few of the election fraud claims were heard—they themselves were in on the steal. And so it continues.
Any time I encounter someone who claims Trump won the 2020 election, I always want the details. If he won, how many votes did he win by? How many electoral votes did Trump get and how many did Biden get? From what I can tell, the typical Trump supporter who likes to blurt out "Trump won!" because "it pisses off the liberals" cannot answer these simple questions. I don't see how one can make the claim that Trump won if one cannot answer these questions. I would have liked to have seen more journalists press Trump on this claim that he won with these specific questions. Of course, he doesn't have the answers, either, since he started claiming he won on election night before all of the votes were even counted ("Stop the count!"). But it is worth repeatedly exposing the claim to victory for what it is: something entirely lacking in evidence, reason or hard numbers. In other words, a Big Lie.
Trump is so unhinged that he recently claimed winning all 50 states in the 2020 election.
I feel bad for anyone who is intelligent and still trying to support Trump's insane claims. Imagine the tortured reasoning and twisted logic one must engage in to justify supporting such an obvious liar.
I don't think he actually believes that. It's all a grift to stoke up his delusional supporters.
Tens of thousands — millions — of fraudulent votes. Easy enough to check out if one actually takes the (predicted) claims of a degenerate con man seriously.
If it is trolling, it is brilliant trolling, because it is pointing out that you can't have it both ways. That's true! You cannot, out of one side of your mouth, claim that Trump won two presidential elections -- and then, out of the other side of your mouth, claim he is still eligible to run again in since he was only elected once. Which is it? Was he elected once or twice?
Today, when I heard about how Biden and Trump are so close in the polls, I thought about who is responsible for putting us in this situation. Trump deserves a lot of the blame, for being a malevolent sore loser and a liar. But all of you Trump supporters deserve even more of the blame for enabling him. A sane society would repudiate Trump as a sore loser and say "It's time to move on and admit you lost. Grow up!" But, we live in a time of great cowardice. I am reading the book ENOUGH by Cassidy Hutchinson. That young woman shamed many Republican men, some over twice her age, by showing more courage than they have and doing what they should have done. I'm talking about people like Mark Meadows, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz. How embarrassing for Republican men to be shown up by a young woman like that.
I’m afraid Trump was not sworn in, so the notion is ridiculous, though I can see how such pretzel logic will work wonders on pretzel-shaped brains.
It just goes to show the lengths they are willing to go and the contortions they are willing to commit themselves to in order to disguise their malfeasance. The sad part is they are abusing their power, disenfranchising voters, corrupting their office, and throwing doubt on what they have always claimed were free and fair elections.
The 22nd Amendment says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say "No person shall be sworn in to the office of the President more than twice".
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes it's ridiculous. Do you honestly not recognize it as being tongue-in-cheek?
But the constitution also says:
"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Did Trump say somewhere he was elected to the office of president?
Trump claims he won all 50 states in the 2020 election
Oh, he said "I won this election". Therefor he says and believes he was elected to the office of the President twice, therefor he should be kept off the ballot. Pretzel logic.
Again, it was tongue-in-cheek. Do you honestly not understand this? Are you that incapable of inferring the intention behind someone's words? Can you only ever take words at literal, face value?
No, I wouldn't doubt it. The "tongue-in-cheek" attitude on such a grave and unprecedented matter gives more evidence to the malice and delusion of their intention. They don't like that Trump contested the election, that much is clear.
They don't like that he tried to illegally prevent the legitimate transfer of power.
If that's what you want to call contesting an election, that's fine, but then it all comes off as bogus as they illegally prevent a legitimate campaign, disenfranchise voters, violate due process and other rights.
If he's ineligible under the 14th Amendment then it isn't illegal and isn't a legitimate campaign.
He is eligible under Article II Section 1, which explicitly uses the word "president". The 14th doesn't mention presidents. Second, there is no indication of any insurrection, or that he engaged in it. The Senate acquitted him of such charges long ago. Lastly, this lady isn't a lawyer and used youtube videos for her case. It's just tragic nonsense all around.
It mentions "officer of the United States" and the President is an officer of the United States.
Quoting NOS4A2
The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees.
Quoting NOS4A2
Under Maine law it is the Secretary of State who must make any initial rulings on a candidate's eligibility. She is simply following the established legal process. The next step is for an appeal to be made to the Superior Court.
There is no indication the president is considered an Officer in the constitution. He is the Commander in Chief. The constitution says he appoints officers. The wording of the 14th insurrection clause clearly points to those who take the oath under Article 6. The president takes a different oath. Everyone else takes a different oath, and only their oath adopts the wording found in Article 6 and the 14th.
Then they do so against the constitution. Senate has already acquitted him of such charges.
She's following her own process, to be sure, and it's marred by political bias and anti-Trumpism.
The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees.
Quoting NOS4A2
I didn't realise that the Senate was the ultimate authority and final arbiter on the matter.
Quoting NOS4A2
They're not her own processes. They're Maine state law:
They're wrong.
It says right there in the constitution.
Well, she's certainly not following the constitution, or else she would not have violated anyone's rights.
They are the ultimate authority and final arbiter on whether or not a President is to be removed from office. They are not the ultimate authority and final arbiter on whether or not someone committed a crime or on whether or not someone is eligible to be President.
The Colorado Supreme Court is under no constitutional or legal obligation to accept the outcome of an impeachment trial as binding precedent.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
He was acquitted. So he is not liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
You're denying the antecedent.
Also see https://www.justice.gov/file/19386/download
This ludicrous assertion demonstrates that the conspiracy theory continues, in minds of the cult members.
He was acquitted of insurrection by the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. He cannot be removed from office and disqualified to enjoy any Office of Honor. You and the Dems in the Colorado Supreme Court are denying this…for what reasons again?
Again, no conspiracy, just a confluence of stupidity.
Being acquitted under Article 1 Section 2 Clause 7 doesn't entail that the 14th Amendment no longer applies. You're reading something into it that just isn't there.
As per the 14th Amendment it takes "a vote of two-thirds of each House" to revoke its imposed ineligibility.
The 14th amendment applies to those listed who engaged in insurrection, neither of which is true in Trump's case. You're reading into something that just isn't there.
The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees.
The Colorado Supreme Court is wrong.
Possibly, and that will be for the Supreme Court to decide. It certainly hasn't already been decided by a Senate minority.
Whether Trump has engaged in insurrection has already been decided by the senate. Acquitted. And the plain language of the constitution tells us what an officer is, those who have previously taken the oath to support the constitution. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see these charades tried in the Supreme Court.
"NEW YORK (AP) — Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s onetime personal lawyer and fixer, says he unwittingly passed along to his attorney bogus artificial intelligence-generated legal case citations he got online before they were submitted to a judge.
Cohen made the admission in a court filing unsealed Friday in Manhattan federal court after a judge earlier this month asked a lawyer to explain how court rulings that do not exist were cited in a motion submitted on Cohen’s behalf. Judge Jesse Furman had also asked what role, if any, Cohen played in drafting the motion.
The AI-generated cases were cited as part of written arguments attorney David M. Schwartz made to try to bring an early end to Cohen’s court supervision after he served more than a year behind bars. Cohen had pleaded guilty in 2018 to tax evasion, campaign finance charges and lying to Congress, saying Trump directed him to arrange the payment of hush money to a porn actor and to a former Playboy model to fend off damage to his 2016 presidential bid."
https://apnews.com/article/michael-cohen-donald-trump-artificial-intelligence-777ace9cc34aa0e56398fd47a1d6b420
The gap is there. The authors of the amendment seem not to have imagined an insurrectionist(s) who would act like they are not one in some places.
With Maine also striking Trump from the ballot, maybe the U.S. Supreme Court will come up with more than a due process objection which you pointed out is quite possible. With States having undergone interference from a national party organization in the electoral vote process, it would be helpful to recognize how that is wrong if it is to be distinguished from insurrection. If the Electoral College is to continue, it needs a basis upon which States can protect themselves from partisan influence.
Quoting NOS4A2
I'm impressed! You are actually admitting members of the Trump cult are stupid! We've gotten through to you!
I think it's becoming clear that in 2024 - one day away! - the entire American Presidential Election process is going to be racked with Trump's forthcoming criminal trials and questions of eligibility, injecting an enormous element of chaos into the electoral process. Of course, any normal person would realise the potential consequences of this and graciously withdraw from the field - but not Trump! The Ego Must Be Served. His bosom buddy Steve Bannon had a memorable phrase for dealing with threats to the Trump supremacy, 'flooding the zone with shit'. It means creating so many distractions and outrages that the media and the electorate can't keep up with any single issue and loose focus. But here the stakes are becoming life-threatening for the democratic process. Let's hope it simply becomes obvious that Trump can never be considered a viable candidate, the sooner the better, because it ought to be abundantly obvious that he is not.
The upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decisions are essential to what degree Trump is considered a 'viable candidate'. The decisions will require a profound change of law if the 'electorate' does not agree. Change of that sort takes a lot of time.
The odd thing about the situation is that there is no overriding context of law on the Federal level to place a judgement made by a State into.
That would be hilarious.
Would a guilty or non-guilty charge become a reality before election gets going? It seems they actually need a proper sentence before they could conclude the decision proper or not, but if the sentencing is after any election machine gets going that might screw up their ability to decide in the matter.
Would be easier for them to actually just ditch him and get another candidate into action, but I'm not sure republicans would dare to lose the maga-fanatics voting base.
Indeed - the trial for the January 6th insurrection was originally scheduled for March 4th. Trump's lawyers are frantically trying to delay it through legal maneuvers but the Department of Justice is pushing very hard to stick as close to that date as possible. It is expected to have a duration of 4-6 weeks. If he's found guilty there will no doubt be an appeal but he will still have been convicted of a felony at that time.
The Republican Party has long since passed the point of no return with Trump. If they'd voted to convict after his second impeachment, he would have been disqualified from office for life, but they all caved in to 'the base'. They've all become totally corrupted by the Trump cult, there is no future for them other than electoral wipeout.
Seems to me Haley might come out of the wreckage a viable candidate. De Santis is a proven looser, Chris Christie a spolier. But whatever happens, you can bet it's going to be ugly.
She is trying to appeal to all sides. I don't think it is a winning strategy.
She said she would pardon Trump. She will not be able to distance herself from him.
Now we get to watch in real time as they interfere so egregiously in the election that it puts a few Russian Facebook ads to shame. This steal is so brazen that it ought to make Putin blush. But they’ve only exposed themselves in the most stupid fashion. They trod all over everything they’ve claimed to hold so sacred. The Russia hoax, the Ukraine hoax, now the insurrection hoax, reveal themselves to be little more than a Potemkin village so their base can feel better about themselves as their Obergruppenführers rip apart whatever was left of their country. It’s beautiful to watch.
You kind of sound like you're on acid.
All true, and highly lamentable. Although whomever is President cannot grant pardons for the election interference case brought in Georgia. But as I keep saying, I'm still convinced Trump's candidacy will collapse under the weight of his legal challenges.
I would say the only exception to this maxim "loyalty is the enemy of honesty" is if what you are loyal to is the truth. One should be loyal to the truth, not to other people, or movements, or political parties. The truth can be ugly, and make enemies for you, but in the end it will win and is the only thing worth being loyal to. That sounds like something Marcus Aurelius would have written... I'm going to have to do some research on that.
No offense, but my eyes just glaze over when I watch you take everything at face value and repeat it. I just lose interest. Your facts are appeals to authority. Deep down you know how obsequious it is.
While I agree with most of what you have said, loyalty to "the truth" is often loyalty to an ideology called "truth". When it and people stand on opposite sides the consequences are inhuman
Yes, that's a good point. Being loyal to the truth may indeed be too lofty of a principle. Jordan Peterson very wisely said, and I am paraphrasing here, that we may not always know the truth, but we know when we're being dishonest -- and we can choose to refrain from doing that. I think that is closer to what I want to get across, here. I would revise what I wrote above to say we should be loyal only to the truth while recognizing that we may indeed not always know what the truth is, so at the very least we can strive to be honest with ourselves and with others.
As one of the few Trump supporters on this forum, you have the opportunity to show that a reasonable person could support Trump. But all you do is to repeat Trump's talking points, and deny facts when they're presented to you.
I think it is often the case that we do not know when we are being dishonest, especially to one's self about our self.
I think that some who have been caught in Trump's web of deceit have moved almost imperceptibly to a position of holding his lies as truth. From small seemingly harmless and insignificant things to greater lies claiming to be the truth. A counterbalance to what the Trump propaganda machine has told them are the big important lies.
The sources you use rely upon what they credit as reliable witnesses to facts. It often sounds like you are working for some of them.
The ready contempt is bountiful there. If what you are doing is different from that, how can a reader of your comments know that?
[i]2023 was the Year of Felony Indictments. :cool:
2024 is the Year of Convictions (& Bankruptcy).[/i] :fire:
*Happy New Fear, MAGAts!*
(Don't drop dead, Donnie, before 20Jan2025.) :sweat:
Not an original thought among them.
You can literally watch the propaganda as it move from one vector to the other.
On the contrary, his, let's call that "specific business practices" are possibly what many people can relate to the most, because they themselves use those practices or wish they could.
I'm talking about what some of Trumps' critics might find more acceptable. It is easier on the ego of those of Trumps' critics to say that Trump has "mislead" or "deceived" people than to consider the possibility that many people already are that way, with or without Trump.
More than this: people are typically not democratic to begin with. They like democracy insofar it means that the political option they favor can win (and for a short enough period of time to avoid bearing responsibility for their actions in any meaningful way). But they resent democracy when it means that they will be ruled by a party they don't like.
Democracy brings out the worst in people. It pits people against eachother. It breeds hostility. It encourages adversarial thinking. It pushes simplistic us vs. them thinking.
For a number of Trump voters, being put in a "basket of deplorables" by H Clinton was a critical factor in their support. But there were others who gladly wore the "I don't care" sweatshirts.
Seeing the contrasting reactions suggests that a coalition of different views amongst the supporters had more to do with the results than critics assuming a common connection that was not there.
Kirshner is an experienced former Federal Prosecutor who has examined the Trump cases (filings, rulings, etc), so it seems a plausible prediction, irrespective of the fact he's biased against Trump. FWIW, he correctly predicted the verdict in the Sexual Predator lawsuit.
By contrast, Trump wrote this on "Truth" Social:
It’s becoming more and more obvious to me why the “Crazed” Democrats are allowing millions and millions of totally unvetted migrants into our once great Country. IT’S SO THEY CAN VOTE, VOTE, VOTE. They are signing them up at a rapid pace, without even knowing who the hell they are. It all makes sense now. Republicans better wake up and do something, before it is too late. Are you listening Mitch McConnell?
I don't see how anyone could deny that THIS is propaganda. It's clearly misleading (at least), and intended to promote and publicize a particular political cause.
Related: Trump paid me to find voter fraud. Then he lied after I found 2020 election wasn't stolen.
He is a threat to democracy.
I didn’t even know who he was. I just recognized his X post occupying someone else’s head. But according to his page he’s a legal analyst on MSNBC, which really isn’t known for fairness and accuracy. And his grift is anti-Trumpism, as far as I can tell. His livelihood depends on an empty head’s thirst for that sweet sweet Trump talk. According to Chomsky’s propaganda model the media employ these kinds of “experts” all the time, but given his career as a federal prosecutor it’s clear he was bred to service power and promote the official line.
NOS4A2 is still correct that biased media also produces propoganda. But all propoganda works only when we embrace it uncritically. Trump's base seems to fail at that.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/02/us/colorado-supreme-court-arrest/index.html
Benkei’s analysis fails the moment it is compared to reality.
Doesn’t being a laughingstock who gets repeatedly embarrassed get tiresome?
:chin: That’s less a question for you than for the forum. Why do people like this go on? What’s the point?
For some negative attention is better than no attention.
Some regard the lack of approval as a sign of superiority. They understand what others do not.
Some get some kind of satisfaction from trolling. This may be a due to one or both of the above.
I enjoy it. I seek argument for its own sake. I get to test my intuitions against some fairly heavy criticism, and so far so good. If I wanted consensus and adulation I'd join Truth Social.
Why does it hurt so much to see a dissenting opinion?
Oh there’s definitely that. Goes nicely with the normal victimization that the right are always peddling.
It doesn’t hurt, but as I said earlier, it would be nice if it wasn’t often insane and in such bad faith. You say you “test your intuitions.” Fine— but how about asking why those are your intuitions to begin with.
Why are you defending this con man? Why am I able to admit how much of a lying, corrupt sack of shit Joe Biden is, in agreement with much of what you say — about how the Russian stuff was largely nonsense and didn’t swing the ‘16 election, etc. — fairly obvious things for anyone not too caught up in the tribalism of politics; but you simply cannot admit the equally obvious statements about Donald Trump? Yet you go on pretending to be above it all? Above media propaganda, above groupthink, and so forth. Your relentless defense of this goon undermines your whole brand. It’s just bizarre and pointless. If there are real points to be made, why not make them clearly?
Eh, it’s a new year— figured I’d try to understand it once before mostly ignoring it.
I just can't be bothered to care about his moral life or what comes out of his mouth. What I oppose is the moral panic created in his name. His reactionary opposition, especially of the neocon and establishment variety, have created a folk devil the likes of which we have never seen, and they're sending us directly into tyranny in order to combat it. I'm baffled by people wedding themselves to such a cabal, but so it is and here we are.
That is shallow, frivolous, and unphilosophical. It is the reason why Plato reserves the practice of philosophy for those who are mature enough to approach it seriously. Argument for argument's sake is for sophists and children.
Quoting NOS4A2
This is a good example of the problem. If your intuitions are reflected in your arguments then your inability to see when and how your arguments have failed is the result of arguing for the sake of arguing. It is as if you want to play chess and think that you have not lost when checkmated because you continue to move pieces around.
Because you do not take words and arguments seriously you are not taken seriously.
But this can be argued about Biden too. Do you listen to conservative talk radio or read conservative newspapers editorials — to say nothing of cable news, Twitter, Rumble, podcasts, etc. You’d think the fucking world is ending because of some senile figurehead in the White House. So what? Of course it’s overblown, hyperbolic, sensationalized.
Yes, the left does it too. No question. Even if one believes it’s more extreme on the left, why let that blind us to the reality that it’s tribalism all around?
I don’t give a damn about Trump as a personality. I look at his policies and his influence on millions of Americans who take him seriously— and the results of such policies and rhetoric. The record is simply terrible. Biden isn’t far behind.
But the question stands.
Give it a rest already.
How does one advance his thinking if he refuses to subject his beliefs to the grindstone of argument? He cannot. You become a victim of orthodoxy, a state reserved for dogmatists and religious acolytes—perpetual children. In any case, my rhetoric isn't intended to persuade others or used in the furtherance of some other ploy.
Sophists also overestimated the power of words. It's a shame Plato never dispelled that myth from the get go or Socrates may not have been put to death.
I don't care if I'm taken seriously.
No, I don’t listen to that shit, nor do I watch any television. My propaganda diet is limited to what pops up on my X feed. But I sometimes see the neocons, warmongers, and Bushites in The Atlantic warning of a Trumpian future and find I am in good company. I’m glad the grand ol party has imploded and the neocons are left without a ship to float on. But that they’ve shifted their support to Biden is quite telling, in my opinion.
There is no right or left. It's uniparty all the way down. Trump has single-handedly upset it and its glorious to watch.
The question is: to what end? If the end is arguing for the sake of arguing, then there can be no advance, just endless argument.
It's a method. The end is one's own education and growth, which ought to be endless.
Did you approve of Trump authorizing the killing of Suleimani? Actions like that are straight out of the neocon playbook. It led to an Iranian airstrike on a U.S. air base. No soldiers were killed, but if some had been, we might have been in a shooting war.
Yes I did. The prospect of war was one of the reasons Bush refused to do it. It turns out he was wrong.
So then, it is not arguing for the sake of argument. You often seem to forget this.
The truth is, though, that this does not square with your compulsive defense of Trump.
Yes, I seek argument for its own sake, ie, not for the sake of winning or persuasion. Arguing is an essential activity in one's philosophical upbringing.
My compulsive defense of Trump correlates well with my opposition to his enemies.
You approve of assassinations of other country's generals, yet you have disdain for warmongers? Is that right?
If you seek argument for the sake of your education and growth then you do not seek argument for the sake of argument. Except it is evident that you actually do argue for the sake of arguing. It is then evident that what you do is pointless. Round and round.
Quoting NOS4A2
Of course it does! But he already has more than enough high paid lawyers who do a much better job of defending him than you do. Whether they will all actually get paid is another story.
Yes, I approved of that assassination. It arguably averted war.
I said I seek argument for its own sake, ie, not for the sake of winning or persuasion. Arguing is an essential activity in one's philosophical upbringing. Why do you refuse to quote what I say, stopping mid sentence for whatever reason, and pretend I said something else? We know why: you're a sophist.
This explains your indifference to culture war issues regarding civil rights and the interests of those influencing the makeup of judicial appointees. Those issues have a direct bearing on who has power in communities. Trump has been a very good boy in that regard.
To act as if this was not going on is to misunderstand the support for Trump. Your vision of politics excludes the simple ingredient of perceived self-interest.
Notice I mentioned Twitter. Which has become a huge cesspool itself. A poor diet indeed.
Quoting NOS4A2
Again, I’m not interested in his personality or that he insults everyone who doesn’t kiss his ass— I’m interested in policy. And when it comes to policy, he’s as much part of the uniparty as anyone. Same rhetoric, same personnel, same legislation.
Quoting Mikie
Uniparty? There's a huge difference between them. One of them is leading to cases like this:
Emergency rooms not required to perform life-saving abortions, federal appeals court rules
There are differences, and important ones. Abortion, climate, guns, you name it. But corporate America still dominates both. No labor party or socialist party like other countries, etc.
No. This is what you said. In full:
Quoting NOS4A2
And this is what it was in response to:
Quoting Mikie
Like Trump you say something then say something else to modify it. As if you did not say what you said and said something else all along. And like Trump you attempt to hide behind your words when your actions tell a different story.
Right. But when you predicate these actions on bogus beliefs, it justifies it.
If the election was truly stolen — as these clowns believe because Donald Trump said it and because it’s what they want to hear (and also out of spite, since they’ll claim that democrats did the same thing in 2016) — then it makes sense to throw them all out and start again.
But since there wasn’t a scintilla of truth to that claim, as should have been obvious from the beginning, it really was an attempt to steal. That’s what they were doing. Doesn’t matter if they refuse to let go of their silly delusions.
Likewise the insurrection: people were egged on to “stop the steal,” to stop the certification of the stolen election. Wasn’t simply a riot— people were there, on that day, because the electoral college votes were being counted. That too was based on the same zombie lie.
So again: what will it take to rid people of their delusions? Probably nothing. They’ll go on believing it to the grave. They’ll come up with other reasons for saying it’s true. Like with God. So now it’s “they allowed greater access to mail-in voting” and so forth. See, that counts as a steal. Etc.
Most of these people don’t know or care— they just say it because they think they should, and they don’t want the libs to be right.
I love to see dissenting opinions, when the dissenter fully backs up his opinion with facts.
Legal processes have been followed. The legal bases for removing Trump in both Colorado and Maine are documented. Analysis ought to be based on the merits of the legal arguments, rather than the ad hominem attacks we see. The same will be true when SCOTUS rules. We may agree or disagree with that ultimate decision, but we should all accept it as the final word.
Not only that, but removing people from the ballot is the modus operandi of the two-party duopoly. Look how the DNC railroaded Bernie or RFK Jr.
We’ve seen them use lawfare to get the greens off the ballot in different states.
https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-lawsuits-voting-north-carolina-raleigh-48f1e61c1988c7083edcdc7bb1eace4a
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/08/19/texas-democrats-green-party-november/
Or “No Labels” candidates.
https://cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/30/politics/arizona-democrats-sue-no-labels/index.html
They did it to Ralph Nader.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ralph_Nader_v._Democratic_National_Committee
The GOP does it too, for instance with the Libertarian Party candidates.
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/05/Republicans-libertarians-ballot-remove/
“Democracy” means for them the grip of the Party on the theater of power. Remember this as they invoke “Our Democracy”, because by “Our”, they don’t mean you and me, they mean them.
Complete lies. You’re going to pretend you know what I meant more than I do, and this after you deliberately doctor my quotes to suit your little narrative.
You, Trump, and the mage faithful have rendered the term 'lie' meaningless when you use it. Except when you think you might win points for yourself and the cult of Trump.
Sorry, as already stated, and completely avoided and obfuscated by yourself, I don't argue to win points. That's your projection. I argue for its own sake.
What if he was acquitted of insurrection? Should he still be disqualified for engaging in it, in your opinion?
Granting she has that right, do you think it is right or wrong to disqualify a candidate for a crime he has been acquitted of?
He was acquitted of insurrection in the impeachment process with the Chief Justice presiding.
He was impeached twice, and acquitted twice. But never mind.
Mitch McConnell, who voted for acquittal, said his vote was based on his belief that the Constitution did not permit the Senate to convict an ex-president. ? He noted that Trump "didn't get away with anything yet" because the criminal justice system could still deal with the situation. He added: "January 6th was a disgrace. American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth – because he was angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty. The House accused the former President of, quote, 'incitement.' That is a specific term from the criminal law. Let me put that to the side for one moment and reiterate something I said weeks ago: There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day."
That sounds like wanting to have it both ways -- to "stay loyal" and vote with the majority of Republicans justifying it with a technicality, but also to blame and and condemn Trump rhetorically. To me, the Republican senators who voted to acquit Trump were for the most part cowards who did so out of a political calculation rather than what they truly believed, because on January 6th, 2021, they were running in fear for their lives. Ted Cruz hid in a supply closet and later called it a violent terrorist attack.
Voting results
Article I
(Incitement of insurrection)
Guilty Not guilty
Democratic 48 0
Republican 7 43
Independent 2 0
Totals 57 43
A majority of the Senate thought Trump was guilty -- which included Democrats, Independents and Republicans -- just not a 2/3 supermajority needed to convict. What a shame. That would have prevented so many problems, if Trump had been convicted, because he wouldn't even be a presidential candidate right now or ever again. It would be over.
Interesting quote from Mitch. He votes to acquit on the supposed technicality that the Senate has no jurisdiction given that Trump was no longer President and that it should be a matter for the DOJ. But then @NOS4A2 suggests that because the Senate acquitted then the DOJ no longer has jurisdiction.
It’s a cheat code to get away with any crime. :roll:
That is one of the Constitutional questions that SCOTUS will have to decide on. The question was evaluated by the DOJ's Office of Legal Council, in 2000.Their conclusion was:
"The Constitution permits a former President to be criminally prosecuted for the same offenses for which he was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate while in office."
Their conclusion seems well-reasoned (supported by 45 pages of analysis, considering both sides of the question), and deserving of more weight than the sort of armchair analysis we engage in around here. If you've seen something equally well-reasoned that draws a different conclusion, please share it.
Well, Trump was impeached and acquitted while not office so clearly this doesn’t apply.
:wink:
I cannot follow. That someone has the right to do something does not entail that she is right to do it. It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for something they have not done. In doing so she has violated basic human rights.
I’m not sure what you’re arguing, but he hasn’t been criminally prosecuted, let alone convicted. No one said he cannot be criminally prosecuted. That he hasn’t been criminally prosecuted, let alone convicted, and also that he has been acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process, are two points against the argument that he has engaged in insurrection. So thanks for bringing that up.
You did.
Quoting NOS4A2
I was trying to say he wasn’t liable for the same charges in the impeachment because he wasn’t convicted. The constitution explicitly said “ the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable”. Trump is not “the Party convicted”. At any rate, these are two separate arguments.
And as per the paper that both Relativist and I have referenced:
As I mentioned before, your reading denies the antecedent. That he can be held criminally liable if removed from office isn’t that he can’t be held criminally liable if not removed from office.
So you think that both that both the party convicted and the party acquitted are liable?
Maine's Secretary of State was required by Maine Law to hold a hearing and make a decision on the matter. How can it be considered wrong to follow the law?
Quoting NOS4A2
The question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection was evaluated on the evidence by Colorado Courts. Their Supreme Court noted:
"After permitting President Trump and the Colorado Republican State Central Committee (“CRSCC”; collectively, “Intervenors”) to intervene in the action below, the district court conducted a five-day trial. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three".
This footnote is also relevant:
[i]"President Trump also listed a challenge to the traditional evidentiary standard of
proof for issues arising under the Election Code as a potential question on appeal,
claiming that “[w]hen particularly important individual interests such as a
constitutional right [is] at issue, the proper standard of proof requires more than a
preponderance of the evidence.” As noted above, the district court held that the
Electors proved their challenge by clear and convincing evidence. And because
President Trump chose not to brief this issue, he has abandoned it."[/i]
I'm not sure of this, but I think "abandoning it" means this particular point isn't subject to appeal.
The decision was wrong.
Their evaluation is wrong. He was both acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process and was never charged, nor convicted, under any other insurrection law. So why do you think they are correct?
My point was that she was required by law to make a decision, and she followed the correct process. No one has done anything wrong. Of course, you can disagree with her decision, but it was her decision to make- just as (ultimately) it will be a decision for SCOTUS to make. If you feel she made a reasoning error, then identify it. Bear in mind, this was an administrative hearing and decision, and it will next be taken to court.
Re: Colorado, you said: "Their evaluation is wrong. He was both acquitted of the charge in the impeachment process and was never charged, nor convicted, under any other insurrection law. So why do you think they are correct?"
Whether or not their decision is "correct" will be determined by SCOTUS. But there's nothing prima facie incorrect about basing the disqualification on the trial that found there to be clear and convincing evidence Trump participated in insurrection. I don't see how an impeachment acquittal has any bearing: an acquittal doesn't preclude a criminal indictment for the same acts, and besides - the Senate Trial didn't entail a relevant finding of fact - it merely denied the articles of impeachment.
I think that impeachment and removal from office has nothing to do with a criminal prosecution. The outcome of one has no bearing on the outcome of the other.
Exactly as the DOJ determined in 2000.
Just to save you time.
Sorry for the confusion but a Supreme Court interprets the constitution and law. I made the moral case that it is wrong disqualify Trump, as is obvious by the post and conversation you butted in on. Morality isn’t their expertise as far as I’m aware. Given your fidelity to good faith and reason, perhaps you could quote me in my entirety next time, because for some reason you’ve left out the reasons as to why it was wrong to disqualify Trump from the ballot, and as such, never responded to them. Appealing to authority and appealing to law doesn’t have much force on moral matters, I’m afraid.
If you wish to take another bite, I’ll reiterate. That someone has the right to do something does not entail that she is right to do it. It is immoral and unjust to punish someone for something they have not done. In doing so she has violated basic human rights.
It is not a basic human right to be on the ballot for POTUS. There are criteria spelled out in the constitution. Not having engaged in insurrection is one of those criteria.
So you're saying I can't run for President? Damn that Constitution, how dare it tell me what I can and can't do!
Yeah, it's unfortunate. I'd probably vote for you, considering the likely alternatives.
At this point I'm hoping The Rock runs. Sucks that Schwarzenegger is disqualified.
But due process, right to a fair trial, and free speech are. And justice demands that one ought not be punished for something he didn’t do.
Due process is ongoing.
And punished? He is raising money on his notoriety.
By punished I mean disqualified from the ballot. Do you think someone should be disqualified from the ballot for a crime he has not been proven to commit?
The Constitution lays out the criteria for being disqualified. I already pointed this out.
He incited insurrection. That you are unable to recognize that seems to be a problem you have, but I've spent more than enough time on your sophistry for today.
But he hasn’t even been charged for insurrection, let alone convicted. You’re saying he’s guilty of a crime he hasn’t been charged with or proven guilty of. That’s a problem you have.
I'm an eye witness, and you are a gaslighter.
Quoting NOS4A2
The ability to run for President is a" basic human right"?! Is it therefore immoral to enforce each of the qualifiers (over age 35, native born, max of 2 terms)?
What if the decision makers believe Trump actually participated in an insurrection? Aren't they morally bound to enforce the legal restriction? Do you deny their right to make moral judgements?
[Quote]But due process, right to a fair trial, and free speech are. And justice demands that one ought not be punished for something he didn’t do.[/quote]
A fair trial is required before imprisoning someone. Running for President is a privilege, not a "basic human right".
The Constitutional right to free speech does not imply it is virtuous to lie for self-gain. Do you deny that Trump lied for self-gain?
People tend to commit crimes before being charged and convicted, not after. That's how time works.
And some people commit crimes without being charged and convicted. See, for example, every unsolved murder in history.
The notion that Trump hasn't committed a crime because he hasn't been charged and convicted is fundamentally mistaken.
A privilege granted by whom?
The acquittal by the Senate in the second impeachment trial was wrong. In Mitch McConnell's own words [emphasis added by me in italics] he identified Trump as the cause of the January 6th attack: "American citizens attacked their own government. They used terrorism to try to stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like. Fellow Americans beat and bloodied our own police. They stormed the Senate floor. They tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House. They built a gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth – because he was angry he'd lost an election." The cause of this was Trump -- he said it right there. If this isn't a description of someone inciting an insurrection, I don't know what is. And, they all knew it was violent. On January 6th, Josh Hawley was running through the Capitol like a fast chicken. Ted Cruz was hiding in a supply closet in fear of his life and later called it a violent terrorist attack (Cruz was called out to appear on Tucker Carlson's show to backtrack his words, and if you want to see one of the cringe-inducing pieces of footage ever, check out that clip). On January 6th, 2021, Lindsey Graham said: "Count me out. Enough is enough... If you're a conservative, this is the most offensive concept in the world. That a single person could disenfranchise 155 million people." According to former DC police officer Michael Fanone, Graham told him during the attack "You guys should have shot them [the rioters] all in the head... we gave you guys guns, and you should have used them."
Now it is open to any individual to repudiate the social contract, but in such case they become outlaws; one cannot both repudiate ones' duties and still claim one's rights, and expect the least respect or consideration from others. To be an outlaw from an evil society is a respectable position to take up, but don't expect any consideration from said evil society.
Trump is a whinging outlaw, demanding the respect and protection of the very social community he has disavowed. So fuck him and the moral vacuum of everything he says. And if America votes for such hypocrisy, Fuck America too.
How does one know someone is guilty of a crime if he hasn’t been proven guilty, in your world? Did you see him do it? Is it a gut thing? Is it because an authority says so?
One of the human rights I was speaking about is the presumption of innocence. It doesn’t seem to ring any bells around here.
In other words, people who vote for Trump provide him the privilege to run for president, or am I understanding this wrong?
I did actually, it was on TV. I also heard him do it on various phone calls.
Quoting NOS4A2
Presumption of innocence isn't a human right. Not being jailed without guilt being proven is probably a human right. But nobody here is suggesting that we simply kidnap Trump and throw him in a pit.
I wonder where they learned that? The whole year previously there were riots everywhere, resulting in numerous deaths and billions in dollars in damage. Entire city blocks were either burned to the ground, or even occupied by bandits, because some crook died. The media largely covered for them.
So really, who cares what the politicians say? I’m glad they were scared, especially Mitch McConnell. They could use some fear in their lives.
How is that a human right? Clearly, it's a legal right - but exclusively in criminal trials. It's not applicable to civil suits, and individuals are free to make judgements - such as your judgement of Biden's actions.
What part of the constitution?
Then you heard him tell rally goers to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard, something that was not cited in the Colorado decision as far as I can tell. And what you didn’t hear was him inciting anyone to insurrection.
It is not only a human right, it is stupid to do otherwise.
You thought that by “human rights” I meant “the ability to run for president”. Silly.
Were you being stupid when you claimed Biden lied about Hunter's laptop? You never showed he personally lied.
Yes I did.
I identified a blizzard of lies. You just didn’t want to hear it.
I said he lied about having no knowledge of his son’s business dealings.
The “fight like hell” canard is stupid because each time he uses the word in that speech he does so metaphorically. For some reason they take this one, and only this one, as literal.
I must have missed it. Did Trump tell them to riot in front of the capitol, break in, and put their feet on Pelosi’s desk?
Now you're making a new claim. Point me to a specific quote.
Exactly, it makes no sense to imply that we shouldn't care about what politicians say. How many politicians in history can we argue are responsible and have guilt for leading their followers into destructive and murderous acts? It's absolutely irrational to assume that a leader and his followers acts does not connect. Such arguments are for apologists who disconnect the link for their favorites and connects them for their enemies. It's propaganda, it's rhetoric of the indoctrinators. It's marketing jargon. It's wartime speeches.
When it comes to Trump I think its very simple. Is he someone that is competent for the complexity of steering a large nation like the US? Through calm waters into storms and safely home? We can make the argument for any politician, but in here specifically about Trump, the answer is clearly and absolutely "no". If politicians like him, even after disasters like the Capitol invasion are still considered valid for election, then there's no actual protection of democracy in place.
Democracy shouldn't be "anything goes", it should have demands of competency, it should have a logic behind candidates as representatives of their voters. Otherwise it will be flooded with demagogues who do any manipulative attempt to shape a democratic outcome by their own will. And that is not democracy, that is just autocracy in disguise. Failure to see when such a system is in place is a direct failure of protecting democracy and people who trivializes that do not care about democracy or are incompetent to care for it.
So I see a man with a knife standing over a dead and bloody body. It would be stupid of me and an abuse of his human rights to presume him guilty and so run away; instead I ought presume him innocent, approach him, and ask him if he'd like a lift home so that he can shower and change his clothes.
Thank God I don't think like you.
You would run away? Jesus. What a good citizen.
No, given the proof the presumption of guilt is warranted. What you wouldn’t do, I hope, is presume some uninvolved party is guilty until proven innocent. But, as we already know, that’s what you do.
Quoting NOS4A2
He doesn't say this in the video, and I heard nothing that can't plausibly be interpreted as true (or believed true by Joe)- which one should do when presuming innocence. If I missed something, identify it.
On a related note: do you agree Comer has failed to presume Joe's innocence throughout his investigation?
Proof without an indictment and conviction? Glad you finally recognise that it's possible.
It’s possible, sure, but entirely missing in this case. Not only does it not make sense to presume someone is guilty for a crime for which he has not been proven guilty, it is a double violation to punish him based on these presumptions.
There definitely seems to be a degeneration in our culture. De-evolution is real, as the band DEVO would say. The American public glorifies crudity and ignorance -- so is it any surprise they love a leader who is like them? I have been reading some of Trump's latest tweets, and they have grammatical and spelling errors, and random capitalizations. They look like they were written by a 7th grader with ADHD. Can you imagine a president or ex-president from 50 years ago, 100 years ago, or any other time in our history, who would write like that? Even if you agree with the tweet -- you have to admit it just looks sloppy, careless, and unprofessional. Each Trump tweet is like a proud celebration of incompetence: "Look, I can tweet without the least bit of proof-reading or care!"
It may seem petty of me to point this out, and indeed it is the least of my concerns about Trump. But he does seem barely literate and to have the emotional maturity of a middle school kid whose favorite thing to do is come up with novel insults and name-calling. You can call him a liar and he doesn't care, but if you say he stinks he flips out. He's like a little kid. But his base seems to love it, because they also are like little kids.
Just watch: NOS4A2 is going to say something like "Trump has been accused of having really bad BO but hasn't been convicted of it"!
NY Times - White House for Sale
Sure tops James Comer trying to criminalise Joe Biden loaning his son funds to by a pickup truck.
Interesting. I've been wondering about this. There was a time when people seemed to want more lofty personalities for high office. But I guess populism in the current era has embraced an aesthetic nadir. It seems to me that we are at a point in history where people in many cultures are sick of intellectuals and fed up with the complexities and ambiguities that seem to be required from public life and citizenship. We don't want to be lectured at by technocrats and professors and politically correct celebrities. So there's a kind of counterreformation. A retreat back to old certainties and comfortable prejudices and leaders who give us permission to be unsophisticated, regressive and proud to be so.
I wouldn't be giving Trump a second glance if it were not for the imbecile who is president now and the way he opened the borders of our country and allowed hundreds of thousands to migrate here non legally. I suspect the reasoning was to flood municipalities with people who would probably vote Democratic at whatever levels they could. Cities, counties, perhaps states. This might shift the House into Democratic hands. Non-civilians voting in national elections is problematic.
The irony is that the big Democratic sanctuary cities are losing high income tax payers to be replaced with homeless and welfare subjects.
Don't pay any attention to me. I'm old and doddering, the third stage of the Riddle of the Sphinx.
Those cities are challenged by the influx of poor people. On what basis should they be seen as replacing people?
I get the idea. How does that actually happen in a place like NYC?
Did those leaving have all the money?
That is not central to the claim you have made about wealth.
I accept that you are done with this but have to ask,
Where did they go?
Are there alternatives? Could they be, you know, machine-gunned as they cross the Rio Grande? Seems to me part of US law that America is obliged to offer humane treatment to those who cross its borders. Here's a gift link to a NY Times analysis of the dynamics of illegal immigration. (I very much doubt that it would have been any different under a Republican president, as the article shows, the drivers are systemic, global, and a long time in the making.)
A point to consider is that any undocumented immigrant that arrives in the US or Europe or Australia obtains something that they generally will not have in their country of origin, namely human rights. And a country such as the US that recognises human rights, is obliged to accord these rights to undocumented migrants. To automatically send them back to their country of origin, which in many cases won't even accept them, is to deny their basic human rights, which, for better or worse, the US won't do.
Texas, S. Carolina, etc. as far as I recall. Cheaper to live in those states among other amenities.
Quoting Wayfarer
Your suggestion, not mine. :gasp: I did not realize you have a dark side! I would try to prevent them entering the US by humane means. Perhaps ship them to Australia. My wife spent a year in your country and liked it there.
It was a sarcastic remark, of course, to make a rhetorical point - just how is it to be prevented? Australia did indeed implement harsh measures to 'stop the boats' which became a political slogan in the early oughties, never mind there were far greater numbers of visa overstayers than ever came by boat. But then, Australia is an island, and it's a long way from Africa and Central America.
I suppose what I'm saying is, I don't think the Biden administration bears particular blame for the movement of undocumented immigrants. Sure, it's happening on his watch, and in that sense, he's responsible, but as the NY Times points out, flaws in immigration policy straddles the partisan divide, and Congress has never been able to agree on any kind of solution. There's plenty of blame to go around.
You are correct. Blame is not his alone. But he did call upon those fleeing their oppressive governments to "Surge the borders" of the US.
And they have.
I fact checked this:
Claim: Some conservative commentators and media outlets have made this claim, often citing a speech Biden gave in 2019 where he said, "We can't build a wall high enough to keep out the yearning for freedom." They argue that this statement encourages people to migrate to the US illegally.
Context: Biden's speech was about the need for comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already living in the US. He was not specifically addressing people fleeing oppressive governments. Additionally, the full quote from Biden is: "We can't build a wall high enough to keep out the yearning for freedom. We can't hide behind a wall and pretend the world doesn't exist. We can't focus on the fear of the other instead of the promise of the one." This suggests that Biden is advocating for a more welcoming and inclusive approach to immigration, rather than encouraging illegal border crossings.
Fact-checking organizations including PolitiFact have rated the claim that Biden urged people to surge the border as "Mostly False." They note that Biden's comments were taken out of context and that he has not advocated for illegal immigration.
I'm dissappointed that you are mislead by these types of claims, as you're one of the wiser and more level-headed contributors on this forum.
So this is your mode of interpretation? Every time the word "fight" is used it is metaphorical, and not meant to conjure up any notions of physical aggression. And if the word "peacefully" happened to be uttered this was meant to quell any such mistaken notions of physical aggression aroused by repeated use of the "fight" word.
OK, I see very clearly why Trump followers like yourself, are so gullible. You have no capacity to see the true intentions behind deceptive speech.
A reasonable person could go to a transcript of his speech, pick out one of the twenty-odd times he uses the word “fight”, and show how he is being literal, that he’s talking about actually fighting, like everyone who quotes “fight like hell” wants you to believe. But you wouldn’t do that, would you? That’s why all you credulous Russia hoaxers learned to spread so much disinformation, because you can’t help to follow and spread what’s given to you, and for no other reason that it is given to you.
All you need to do to see if the speech is considered incitement is to apply the so-called “Brandenburg Test”. Is he advocating the use of lawless action? No. But if he was, it would still be protected unless it was likely to incite or produce such action.
So the theory fails on all grounds, and negated by a well-known and easily applied principle that anyone can apply. That’s why the denial of basic free speech rights is the central motive of those who claim he’s guilty of inciting insurrection.
Here are the two elements of the Brandenburg Test:
The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND
The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.
The attempt to prevent certification of the election is lawless action. In the January 6th speech he said:
At that point what could they have done in a peaceful manner to prevent Biden from becoming President?
How were these "patriots", these "warriors" to respond to this:
By walking down Pennsylvania Avenue?
And which illegal activity did he advocate?
Once again:
Quoting Fooloso4
How does one fight like hell by peacefully walking down Pennsylvania Avenue? Trump may be stupid but he is shrewd enough to not spell it out any further.
That’s just not true. What he advocated was to march to the capital and cheer on the senators and congressmen.
What is just not true? All the quotes are from the speech. He said:
He said:
He called them "patriots", these "warriors".
He said at the end of the speech:
It’s not true that he advocated any crime, whether they are the ones you mentioned or insurrection. It’s why you won’t quote any advocacy of any crime, because you can’t.
For the third time:
Quoting Fooloso4
That is what he sent them there to do.
When he said:
that is a call for action to prevent it from happening. Walking down the street and cheering on the senators and congressmen does not prevent certification.
For the last time, he never advocated anything of the sort. It’s why you won’t quote him advocating anything. What you can quote him advocating is people march to the capital building and cheer on the congressmen.
What did he mean when he said "we can't let that happen"?
We can’t certify a fraudulent election. Do you think this is the advocacy of a crime?
He wasn’t asking his supporters to prevent some hypothetical fraudulent election. He was asking them to prevent the actual election, which wasn’t fraudulent. You don’t get to get away with a crime by falsely claiming that what you’re doing isn’t a crime.
It’s clear from his speech what he was advocating his supporters to do and what the actions of Congress he wanted them to cheer on. It’s all in there.
The standard fallback position. There is no evidence of a fraudulent election. Trump's own people told him that.
His legal attempts to overturn the election all failed. As did his previous illegal attempts.
Are you now admitting that when he said "we cannot let that happen" he was in fact advocating that they do something to prevent certification?
But that’s what he said in the preceding sentences to the one you quoted.
And yes, he wanted Congress to makes a stink about certification just as the Democrats in Congress did to the certification of Trump in 2016.
The election wasn't fraudulent. Trump was told this by White House Counsel, DOJ Leadership, and had received the findings of 2 independent research agencies that confirmed there was no widespread fraud - findings Trump never shared. You must truly have a low opinion of Trump's intelligence if you think he actually believed the election was stolen despite all the information he was given. At best, he was guilty of willful ignorance.
Quoting NOS4A2
That's silly. He wanted much more than this: he wanted Pence to block the certification.
Why should I care who told him what? You tell me I’m wrong all the time, and I still don’t believe what you think I ought to.
Because your position implies Trump was willfully ignorant. That's relevant to the crimes he's charged with and to his ability to serve as President.
Refusing to believe something isn’t a principle of any crime I’ve ever heard of.
He lied to them and you and the rest of the Trumpsters believed it. But he knew he had lost the election.
Quoting NOS4A2
But he did not simply want Congress to a make a stink. He wanted his patriotic warriors to prevent certification of the results of a legitimate election. Even if he is unable to believe the results the attempt to prevent certification after all legal options have failed is a crime.
Regarding the law:
[I]"The doctrine of willful blindness is well established in criminal law. Many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. The traditional rationale for this doctrine is that defendants who behave in this manner are just as culpable as those who have actual knowledge."[/i]
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/10-6.ZO.html
Do you think Trump was encouraging them to march up to the Capitol to cheer on the Republican Congressmen from the street? Outside on the steps of the Capitol? Inside the chambers where Congress was actually convening? Where, exactly, were they supposed to do all of this peaceful cheering?
You’ve found me another reason why law in general and the legal profession in particular are stupid. Another reason why you should refrain from appealing it.
Nonetheless, Appeals to authority and the claims of state bureaucrats and council are not the evidence of critical facts. And there has to be a crime.
In the area cleared for the protest.
Regarding the legal issue: by holding people accountable for willful ignorance, it encourages one to avoid it where matters of law are at hand- especially when it negatively impacts people. People were hurt, and the nation has suffered, from Trump's untruths- and it's morally correct to hold him accountable irrespective of whether he intentionally lied, or was willfully ignorant.
Assuming Trump truly believed he won, the morally optimal approach would have been to pusue all legal paths, but to concede when these legal paths failed. That would show respect for the Constitution. This was what Gore did in 2000. Instead, Trump showed disrespect for the Constitution and rule of law.
Quoting NOS4A2
You seem to be opposed to rule of law. I can't say I'm surprised.
The law strives for impartial, reasoned judgement, even if it doesn't always get it right. It's still far more reliable than any alternatives. Undermining the rule of law is thus morally reprehensible- it gives primacy to a personal, biased judgement.
Quoting NOS4A2
This seems incoherent. He's been charged with crimes, and ideally he'll have the opportunity to defeat the prosecution's case. What "appeal to authority"? Are you referring to legal precedent? State bureaucrats? Who are you referring to? The eyewitnesses? Or are you just insisting we all consider him virtuous until proven guilty? (That would be extremely hypocritical, coming from someone who's complained of Biden's "litany of lies" - but who can't identify any specific lie).
His fitness for president has already been proven. That lie was refuted every day he was in office.
No, not a single person was hurt because of “Trump’s untruths”. The nation suffered because there was four years of hoaxes, and many are trapped in a moral panic the likes of which have never been seen.
I’ve already identified Biden’s lies. Your willful ignorance on the matter suggests you’re not one to talk. It was a “blizzard of lies”.
Insurrectionists preventing certification of the results of a legitimate election.
How does any past actions erase the fact that Trump was irrational in his judgement of the election result? You've chosen to excuse his falsehood by assuming he truly believed he won, but then refuse to recognize the negative implication this has on Trump's intellectual capacity. You'd be better off calling it a shrewd lie.
Quoting NOS4A2
People went to prison as a result of Trump's election falsehoods. Police were physically injured; Babbit was killed. Trust in the election system and rule of law is at an all time low, and division at an all time high. Only an anarchist would applaud this.
Yes, Trump's "Russia hoax" hoax is a factor - one of his own making. The Russia investigation was legitimate, albeit that some mistakes were made. Trump should have celebrated the process since it exhonerated him of conspiring with Russia (we'll never know how much his obstruction played a role in this, but it's moot now). Instead, he undermined confidence in the system, and fanned the flames of conspiracy theorists.
Thanks for the compliment. But listen carefully here: "Surge the Border"
Do you really think those wanting to immigrate pay much attention to "context"?
That’s not up to me, or the courts. That’s up to Congress, as only they have the power to enforce the provisions of the article.
But given that the 14th amendment was during the era of reconstruction and refers to the war debts of the insurrection of the confederate states, it’s clearly referring to the kind of insurrection like the civil war. So the clause would refer to those who engaged in the Battle of Fort Sumter, for instance, or those who fought for the Confederacy.
Babbit was murdered. She was a slight, unarmed woman executed in the capitol building because she jumped through the wrong window. No warning, no takedowns, no less-than-lethal-force, just straight up shot by some goon and left to bleed out. Of course, the goon was promoted, and rioters sent to the gulag in one of the largest federal prosecutions in American history. A travesty of justice all around.
Yes, a huge amount of attention. They know if they get into American jurisdiction that they will be assigned a place in the system for the duration of processing, often years. If Congress could agree on changing the conditions it would change their attitude. That’s what the Australian government managed to do with bipartisan support. But there’s zero chance of any bi-partisanship in respect of the American situation, because the Republican Party’s only interest is in exploiting the issue for partisan reasons,
Rhetoric like "if we don't fight we won't have a country anymore," after months of "the election is being stolen," holding a huge rally the moment the votes were being certified. Doesn't take a genius to figure out what was going to happen. If he hadn't lied about a stolen election, if he hadn't whipped his loyal cult following into a frenzy and scheduled a rally, if he hadn't encouraged people to march to the capitol building, none of it would have happened.
He should have been convicted already. A part of me thinks that it shouldn't really matter that they'll be an uproar if he's convicted. Another part says, "Fuck it -- let him be." If the country wants to re-elect this asshole, it'll just empower a bigger backlash.
As I told you several days ago, the Constitution doesn't say that Congress has exclusive right- that is an inference you are making. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment is self-executing (some legal scholars agree)., and pointed (among other things)to the fact that SCOTUS has previously ruled that other sections of the 14th are self-executing, and thus inferred this one would also. A dissenting opinion disagreed. So it appears that intelligent, knowledgeable people can disagree on this point. The only opinion that will ultimately matter is that of SCOTUS. When they do, it will make new law.
That's a ludicrous characterization. She was among a group of people breaking a window that barred entry to a corridor members of Congress had recently passed through, in their escape from a mob that had already injured policemen. Babbit was climbing through that broken window when she was shot. Her presence in the Capitol was illegal, breaking that window was illegal, and the cop exercised his personal judgement while doing his duty.
Babbit was in DC because Trump had riled her up with lies and said to come. Sad that she died because of the lies.
.
Twenty-odd times? Wow. It seems the mentioned time, "fight like hell", suffices for what you ask. Why not accept it?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/supreme-court-trump-colorado-14th-amendment-insurrectionist-clause?cid=ios_app
They’re going to issue a broad ruling stating that he cannot be removed with blah blah blah. It’s foregone. They’ll find some reason — doesn’t matter what the reason.
Let him run and lose again. Fine by me.
Trump is not charged with insurrection in that case. The statement given is:
Quoting Jack Smith
As the question of eligibility has been raised by States in their different processes of determination, there has not been a Federal set of laws established that States have to recognize when judging upon facts. When the 14nth Amendment was written, the insurrectionists were not hiding from the charge but proudly spoke of their service to the Confederacy.
Now you have the people who made the 1/6 action happen shaking pom-poms for the day or denying responsibility for it depending upon which room they happen to be in.
The wind blows through the empty diorama, causing the rope of Mike Pence's gallows to swing and twist alone.
Bought and sold was the idea that we witnessed an insurrection, an attack, as if by a military force on January 6th.. But that portrayal resembles more the countless riots and protests of the preceding year, especially wherever they laid siege to federal and state property, up until and including the occupation of entire city blocks in what rioters and the obsequious press called “autonomous zones”. Despite this and the resulting damage caused, those were just “mostly-peaceful protests”.
We’ve forgotten that in 2020 a mob descended on the Whitehouse, leading to the secret service to take the president to a bunker, a place reserved in case of breaches, bombings, and terrorist attacks. In that event, the president’s whereabouts were leaked to the press and reported as if unconcerned that the nation’s democratically-elected leader could be located and harmed. Of course, they laughed at and mocked the president for it, and drew support for the belligerent parties.
The response of the government to those events was nothing in comparison to the response to January 6th. Like the riots of the previous years, police were indeed injured in the J6 fray, but the establishment mandarins deviated from their typical portrayal and instead gave capitol police a heroes status that those injured in the 2020 riots could never find. Promotions and the medals of honor were never forthcoming.
That’s to say nothing of Jan 6th protesters. Even though they never assaulted any private property, never looted local businesses, never committed any arson, nor killed anyone (a streak that cannot be found among the rioters of 2020), federal stormtroopers would waste no time and resources in sending them to the gulag. Rather, the anger of those on Jan. 6th was directed to the benighted elites in Congress, who hid like cowards behind their benches instead of facing their constituents. One of the rioters grabbed a lectern and another dared to put his feet on Pelosi’s desk. Someone dared to build a miniature gallows, an effigy upon which no one could possibly be hanged. A broken window, a kicked in door, and other milquetoast vandalisms would occur. And look, a guy holding a confederate flag. These and other images would be an assault on their brand of democracy.
When Biden was sworn in his inauguration was surrounded by tanks and razor wire, a fitting image for the new fascism. Had Trump done anything like that after the attack on the whitehouse his opponents would be incensed, of course, but unlike the Biden administration the Reichstag moment never occurred to Trump. The January 6th riot, as inconsequential as it was in comparison to the riots of 2020, never had the support of the obsequious press, who counted it as worse than the civil war, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and 9/11.
As AG Garland noted in a recent press conference, they have charged 1250 individuals and obtained over 890 convictions in connection with the event. It is the largest criminal investigation in American history, and all the charges and convictions just so happen to fall upon the regime’s political opponents, including the biggest threat to their power, Donald Trump.
This post contains a number of lies, and I have both flagged it and reported it to the other mods. It beats me why we put up with a constant stream of Trump-related misinformation from you. None of these people are victims of political persecution, they have been indicted and found guily of serious crimes. Seven people died on January 6th 2021, and private property and electoral officers private officers were ransacked and destroyed, contrary to your nonsense.
Let's see about that. Today Trump is saying that 'his people' on the SCOTUS bench ought to play nice, or else there will be trouble. So now threatening Supreme Court Justices with violence is fair game for the Republican Party, apparently. (You know that many other judicial officers involved in Trump-related cases are routinely subjected to violent threats and obscene social media, right? That this is now par for the course for the apparently-leading 'Presidential Candidate'?)
As this election year hits full stride, Trump's backers are putting serious money, through PACs and sympathetic media outlets, into whitewashing the events of January 6th 2021. They are attempting to downplay the severity of the attack on the Capitol, claiming it was a peaceful protest or that the violence was instigated by left-wing agitators. These claims have been widely disputed by fact-checkers and investigative journalists, but a growing proportion of Republican voters continue to believe that the event was staged by Democrats/antifa/the Left to demonise Trump or that it was a peaceful protest, or that protests by the Black Lives Matter movement were worse.
Social media and other online platforms (including this forum) are being used to spread disinformation about January 6th. Right-wing media outlets amplify disinformation and promote revisionist narratives about January 6th.
It's crucial to approach this topic with a critical eye and to rely on reputable sources for information.
The January 6th Committee investigating the attack on the Capitol: https://january6th.house.gov/
Fact-checking organizations such as PolitiFact and Snopes: https://www.politifact.com/, https://www.snopes.com/
Reputable news organizations such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NPR: https://www.nytimes.com/, https://www.washingtonpost.com/, https://www.npr.org/
And remember a wise saying by Democrat statesman and politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan: Everyone has a right to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.
It is a fact that Donald J Trump lost the last election and failed in 60 lawsuits to have the result overturned.
It is a fact that, in the words of the January 6th Committee, Trump called the mob, motivated the mob, and lit the match that resulted in the disgraceful, deadly mob attack on the US Capital on Jan 6th 2021. It was not a peaceful protest or a false flag event, but instigated and encouraged by Donald J Trump, who is due to face court for his involvement in these events in the next several months.
Hope this is all sufficiently clear. It will be repeated as often as is necessary in this thread.
Quite clear, my friend. And mostly I agree. It makes me wish this Fellow were eligible. I'd vote for him.
First person I've ever seen in American politics that dares to speak the naked truth.
But that might be too confrontational to some?
Quoting Tzeentch
Kind of sad that all one can find to choose between for president are dynasties of wealth and privilege and old movie stars.
The US populace badly needs education on the nature of narcissism. What amazes me is how anyone who had worked in the White House for more than a month, didn't recognize Trump as a dangerous narcissist.
Couldn’t get him for what he did do, so they try to get him for what he didn’t do.
Would a reasonable person go on criticizing Trump the way so many of his critics do, on and on and on?
This is from the film "The Ides of March" (2011), two campaign managers from the Democratic Party talking to eachother:
[i]DUFFY
None of this is about the
democratic process Steve, It's
about getting your guy into office.
Simple as that.
STEPHEN
This is the sort of shit the
Republicans pull.
DUFFY
You're right, this is exactly what
the Republicans do, and it's about
time we learned from them. They're
meaner, tougher and more
disciplined than we are. I've been
in this business for twenty five
years and I've seen way too many
Democrats bite the dust because
they wouldn't get down in the mud
with the fucking elephants.[/i]
Quoting Wayfarer
Wrong approach. If force and "facts" worked, don't you think we'd have seen results by now?
As long as Trump's critics play into his game, he's got the upper hand. Republicans and rightwingers of various flavors have one thing in common: the desire to rule. And they are not ashamed of it, they do not feel guilty about it. As long as their critics can't come up with a similar desire to rule, their efforts will be in vain. Because politics is about ruling people.
No, they "need" education on the authority and validity of psychology.
Quoting Relativist
If his actions "undermined confidence in the system" then there wasn't any worthwhile confidence in the system before to begin with.
"The system" is a whole bunch of people acting in various ways. Some activities are conducive to a healthy political discourse, others aren't. To pretend the system itself has some inherent resistance to undermining actions is folly, because it makes people lazy. We can certainly design systems to make it more difficult to fuck it up but that requires people actively designing it and then to continue to guard the parameters in which the system was designed to operate. Crap behaviour needs to be pointed out and condemned.
That is an authoritarian political philosophy.
It's not possible to defeat authoritarians with kumbayah.
And you _are_ up against authoritarians.
I don't intend to. I intend to keep posting facts about the case.
Sure, better education in psychology in general would be good. But the authority? No.
Psychology should be seen as a bunch of what people at times found to be the inferences to the best explanation. However given the broader scientific perspective, it needs to be understood that psychology needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It's just the best we have for now.
The problem is that you (plural) don't know whom you're up against and you don't even care to find out what it would take to win against them.
This "posting of facts" is what exactly? A way to please yourself? To ease your conscience?
That's not good enough. Do you really think you can convince a bunch of authoritarians with this kind of liberal relativism??
Not in the short term. But with a longer term perspective, and via ongoing discussion I have had success pointing others to what a better informed perspective looks like.
Are you saying that you lack such experiences yourself?
Do you believe the 2020 election was stolen?
What would it take to win against them?
Ecce homo.
Of course the standard should apply equally! If Biden supports an insurrection, he should be also be barred. The problem, of course, is that Ashcroft (and others) are trying to treat policy disagreements as insurrection.
I previously predicted that SCOTUS would not put forth a definition of "insurrection". I'll amend that slightly: if they DO rule in Colorado's favor (which I think possible, but unlikely) they will need to define the term to prevent such nonsense as Ashcroft threatens.
I don't know if the "He’s actually a very smart man" is a reason I shouldn't believe the rest of it. :lol:
Trumper Carlson has taken to saying that the strength of the US economy is due to the Feds 'spinning' it, rather than because Biden's economic policies are effective. They will go to any length, these people.
BREAKING: Filing alleges ‘improper’ relationship between Fulton DA, top Trump prosecutor
Fani Willis hired alleged romantic partner as special prosecutor, court motion says
https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-filing-alleges-improper-relationship-between-fulton-da-top-trump-prosecutor/A2N2OWCM7FFWJBQH2ORAK2BKMQ/
If all this turns out to be true it's just another instance of corruption in Trump's opponents and the justice system.
Nevertheless, all grist to the mill, which is certainly churning at top speed.
Are you suggesting an abuse of power like this:?
I have thought about this statement for several days and it strikes me as a perfect parody of what some people think.
Are you completely cynical and pulling on people's reactions or do you have any skin in the game? Do you want something for yourself and yours or are simply amusing yourself?
I’m just passing the time.
Does dissent from The Narrative frighten you? Because I haven’t seen try to impugn anyone else’s motives.
So, no skin in the game.
Quoting NOS4A2
Very funny, in view of all the assumptions you have made about motives. I appreciate the clear answers.
No, but outright lies are irksome, and Trump's narrative is constructed almost entirely from them. Take this for example:
Quoting NOS4A2
Five people died as a direct consequence of their actions, and more than 150 were injured. The attackers pillaged and desecrated the private offices of congressional staff.
The attack bears no comparision to the 'Black Lives Matter' protests you're referring to, as none of them amounted to an assault on the Capitol. You continue to propagate falsehoods being diseeminated by various Trump-allied media outlets. That is irksome.
Henceforth I intend to fact-check anything you write in this thread.
This is difficult. No, they are not analogous, but the BLM protests caused MORE damage and 19 people died.
(the links are the same page, but address the two issues separately on it)
Hmm.. As noted, they are not analogous, but they both intended to upend institutional power systems, they both resulted from essentially conspiratorial thinking fanned by politicians (who actually took part, for BLM), to take power FOR those politicians.. including burning courthouses and they both resulted in net-negatives for the USA in huge ways. There is a good argument that the BLM protests were far worse.
I think the other thing to note is that anyone speaking this way is partaking in the culture war. In that case, I think the comparison IS apt. They represent polar opposite demographics, and the mechanisms were very similar.
It's no attempt to ignore Jan 6 and its implications and resulting effects on society. But the comparison is not as ill-apt as you seem to posit.
They were civil disobedience. And I don't accept that there is a 'moral equivalence' between those protests, and the Trump insurrection. That is part of the spin that MAGA has put on it to try and whitewash the insurrection. So it's not 'a good argument', but a value judgement, that I don't believe has merit.
No, not at all, they aren't equivalent. The BLM protests are morally worse on your account by way of resulting in more damage, more death and more net-negative for society.
Quoting Wayfarer This hits me as viscerally ironic... You're defending death and destruction because its on the side you agree with? Both are civil disobedience, so im not sure what empirical difference you intend to use to make the moral difference obvious.
The facts remain. Yes, rioters died. I said they didn’t kill anyone.
The riot I was speaking about in particular was the assault on the whitehouse, and the occupation of entire city blocks by rioters, something that resembles an insurrection far more than a 3 hour riot at the capitol building.
So it appears you should check your own facts.
Which one? Super-unclear if you're cryptically referring to something other htan Jan 6.
The passage I quoted from you began:
Quoting NOS4A2
The end of May 2020. It’s when they burned down that famous church and defaced multiple monuments as they attacked the Whitehouse. The president had to be taken to the underground bunker it got so bad. Curfews, arsons, looting, all that good stuff.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Washington,_D.C.
And?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests_in_Washington,_D.C.#:~:text=Washington%2C%20D.C.%2C%20the%20capital%20of,Floyd%20riots%20in%20Washington%2C%20D.C.
He hopes you will do that to further fuck with you. He has accepted that it is just a game for him:
Quoting NOS4A2
I copy and pasted the link. No clue.
Not only that, but the protesters got a huge settlement from the DOJ, just another example of the two-tiered justice system.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna24325
Paine’s projections reveal that everything he does to pass the time is a game.
You admitted it yourself.
The "I know i am but what are you" is straight from Pee Wee Herman.
You’ve never done anything besides playing games to pass the time?
Which I'd agree with. I see "BLM riots X Jan 6" as a coin with heads on both sides. They relevant demos hate each other, and act accordingly. It only makes sense they would be comparable and equally illegitimate, undesirable and clearly dangerous.
I live in a place and have lived in places where the result of the game is consequential. You appear to reside in a bunker where all the results are equally important or not.
To whom are you directing this remark?
I can appreciate your view. But Had the rioters on Jan 6th pointed their ire at the public or on private businesses, and looted wherever they went, destroying the livelihoods of regular Americans, I would be more even handed.
But can you not see that a direct attack on the Whitehouse (literally storming it, occupying political offices and stealing government intel - lets leave aside whether Trump wanted that) is absolutely a serious, serious problem that raises it to a similar level of undesirability?
@Wayfarer Oh come on, the sandbox is fun!! LOL. No. I agree with you. The insults aren't good.
Nosferatu has been playing it for years to satisfy his pleasure and he just admitted that was the case.
He is your bitch.
Time to spend more time reading and shaping materials.
[Edited at mod's request]
I’m afraid I can’t. As stupid and belligerent as the affair might have been, the political class has been largely insulated from the pathologies they have unleashed on the country. For a few hours on January 6th they weren’t.
Fair enough. I guess i'll take you describing Jan 6 as pathological as a win though lol. To note: that's exactly how BLM proponents feel.
:up:
So if he were to resign before being impeached? He'd get away with it? Because, at least according to Mitch, former Presidents can't be impeached.
Or, hell, what if he has Seal Team Six kill off Congress? Then he can't be impeached even as President.
Essentially the argument is, if the president slowly encourages anti-constitutional / democratic practices, they are immune if the legislative branch gives it a pass. The irony being, when the legislative branch uses as its excuse (for those who might not have appreciated the attempt), "This is for the courts to figure out". Whereby the courts point back to the legislature AFTER they already acquitted him. Bravo.
It’s such an outlandish scenario that would never happen, but if it did, It would no doubt lead to a constitutional crisis.
At least their wild thought experiment runs parallel to a more realistic scenario. What if the president sent the DOJ or some AG to prosecute his political opponents in the lead up to an election?
At any rate, none of it applies in Trump’s case. The constitution provides a mechanism to sort it out, and he was acquitted through this mechanism.
Or a real scenario: what if the President tried to prevent the legitimate certification of a Presidential election that he lost?
Quoting NOS4A2
The Constitution provides a mechanism to fire a President. He wasn't fired. It doesn't then follow that he can't later be criminally prosecuted.
It was all above board. I say this because it is exactly what some Dems did in 2016. The only difference is that House members in 2021 had the backing of a Senator, as per the rules.
They have the power to try and convict of high crimes and misdemeanors. The firing is just the punishment for that process. He was acquitted.
They have the power to fire a President if he commits a crime. They don't have the power to try and convict an actual criminal case which is why he wouldn't have been jailed if found guilty by the Senate.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yes, and the only punishment. But someone who does things like kill or steal military secrets should be punished by more than just being fired. They ought be criminally prosecuted and jailed if found guilty.
Quoting NOS4A2
From being fired, yes. That doesn't preclude subsequent criminal prosecution.
Trump hates democracy, he hates America and wants to destroy it and replace it with an authoritarian state. Trump loves only Trump. He had the empathy of a lizard while watching the violence unfold on January 6th, 2021. His own people have testified to this.
Don't support him.
Right, impeachment is not a criminal trial. It's a unique process. Trying impeachment involves both the judicial and legislative branches. The Senate tries, the Chief Justice presides. If convicted he "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law". And through this process he has been acquitted.
They should be criminally prosecuted, and probably would if they were convicted of those crimes in the Senate. They should not be criminally prosecuted if they were acquitted.
It doesn't include it either. What precludes it is the double jeopardy clause of the 5th.
Quoting NOS4A2
This would be a contradiction though, since double jeopardy applies whether or not you've been convicted.
This is the position of Trump's attorney, but I'm pretty confident it will fail, but more importantly- I feel strongly that we should all hope it does fail.
We should hope it fails, because it would permit a President to commit any crime that a small number of Senators are willing to countenance.
As per the Constitution, if convicted he "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” and so clearly double jeopardy doesn’t apply, precisely because impeachment and removal from office isn’t a criminal matter.
Your suggestion is that double jeopardy only applies if acquitted. As I’ve mentioned before, this is denying the antecedent. It’s a straightforward formal fallacy. That he can be prosecuted if convicted isn’t that he can’t be prosecuted if acquitted. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers” are only liable if convicted.
I hope it passes because a salty prosecutor could indict the presidents he doesn’t like, and it would render useless a check on the executive and judicial branch. Impeachment is far better measure because it leaves the power to convict and acquit their leaders in the hands of the representatives of the people, such as it is.
Do you really believe this or is it just rhetoric?
If you waste any time listening to Trump's stream-of-consciousness ramblings, you will quickly discern that it contains a multitude of contradictions, deceptions and lies.
It's such a shame this thread still exists, I honestly thought after the jan 6th atrocity and his election wipeouts it would be all consigned to the past. Someone has to come up with the wooden stake. Hopefully soon.
But it's in the hands of a jury to convict. Efforts are made to select jurors that will impartially judge the facts. Senators can be expected to be biased, and as I said - their biases could permit crimes to be committed by the President that would never be judged by a jury.
[Quote]...and it would render useless a check on the executive and judicial branch. [/quote]
It does no such thing. The potential to hold a President criminally liable for his crimes has no effect on the power of impeachment.
[Quote]Impeachment is far better measure because it leaves the power to convict and acquit their leaders in the hands of the representatives of the people, such as it is.[/quote]
Being a representative of the people means there's an incentive to base one's impeachment (or removal) vote on the wishes of constituents, rather than on the facts of the case. That's not even consistent with the 6th Amendment.
Absolutely not.
But despite his harsh criticism, McConnell voted to acquit Trump. He based his decision on a legal argument that the Senate lacked the constitutional authority to convict a former president. He contended that impeachment is meant to remove officials from office, not punish them after they have left office. But he added "The former President is still liable for everything he did while he was in office. Didn't get away with anything yet. Yet."
It's kind of a 'heads I win, tails you loose' proposal from Trump.
And I'm still utterly convinced that Trump's candidacy will collapse before the Republican Convention in July in Milwaukee.
You agree with his factual understanding of the current political and social climate then.
At no point did he say he would enjoy doing so, naturally he did not say he wouldn't, let alone the idea he would or wanted to have. He simply called a spade a spade and, at least in this particular scenario, happened to have told the truth.
People don't like the ugly reality of our own nature being revealed to them, we like well manicured lawns, white picket fences, adorable canines, matching iPhone covers, and our freshly made deli sandwiches cut in delectable slices with a fancy cocktail sword skewering each. So much so those who actually wish to change the status quo, at least be a barrier and source of proliferation toward neutralization of the social ills that plague, not us but someone else (therefore not an immediate concern), are often ignored as if their message of awareness was as good as the degeneracy itself. We would rather shoot the messenger, before we would accept a message directed at oneself we find too intimately revealing or personal for one's concocted sense of morals and standards, guidelines that deep down we know we would break at the first hint of losing said vanities and "givens" we have enjoyed since time immemorial, provided it is reasonably likely we would still gain the upper hand and come out on top.
This is neither a critique or praise of Trump nor one of his supporters, critics, or those in between. Simply a reminder that this is the world we live in, and ignoring the grim if not revolting realities that come with existence, only benefits those who wish to proliferate and propagate them further.
Do you not agree?
BTW, it's a shame you never read The Different Drum. It provides a lot of perspective good for a forum moderator to have.
You mean M. Scott Peck? I did read Road Less Travelled in the 90's, one of my favourites.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yeah, we've discussed it before. The Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, as the name might suggest, has a lot of relevance to the workings of a community such as TPF.
I could get someone saying it's not always sucessful, but there's no question that the effort is made and the result is better than seating a jury that is knowingly biased.
In a criminal case, both sides will actively attempt to choose jurors they deem favourable, or exclude jurors the deem unfavourable during voir dire.
I think, if you're under the impression that council representing a side in a case want impartial jury members, you've not considered the job they are being paid to do.. Win.
These attempts consist of strikes, so they aren't selecting favorable jurors, they are only eliminating unfavorable ones. This process of competing interests leads to a set of jurors less likely to favor either side.
Judges also identify reasons to eliminate jurors for reasons associated with partiality or prejudice. It's their duty to protect a defendant's 6th amendment rights. Convictions have been overturned on appeal when prejudice by jurors has been identified.
Quoting Relativist
I would refer (though, this is extremely low-brow stuff in terms of the convo we're having) the opening scenes of The Devil's Advocate for a fictional take on how lawyers tend to voir dire. It is a scurrilous process at worst, and cynical at best. Maybe i'm the cynical one :rofl: I deal with these things almost daily and am somewhat disillusioned by the idea that lawyers can't fuck with the process. They are, after all, all humans.
Thats definitely true - they're allowed to do it in the open!
45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a ‘Christian Nation’
[sup]— Gregory A Smith, Michael Rotolo, Patricia Tevington · Pew Research Center · Oct 27, 2022[/sup]
A Christian Nation? Understanding the Threat of Christian Nationalism to American Democracy and Culture
[sup]— Melissa Deckman et al · PRRI / Brookings · Feb 8, 2023[/sup]
Christ, Country, and Conspiracies? Christian Nationalism, Biblical Literalism, and Belief in Conspiracy Theories
[sup]— Brooklyn Walker, Abigail Vegter · Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion · May 8, 2023[/sup]
Quoting Brooklyn Walker · Jun 11, 2023
(emphases mine)
Those figures seem like more than an insignificant fringe (to me). Lowering the numbers to, say, 15-20% of (possibly incorrigible) US voters still give a fair bloc of Clown supporters. Not sure what to expect if the Clown doesn't make it to the ballots, I guess it depends on who does?
So he’s likely screwed. But I have a feeling he’ll worm his way out of this somehow.
The implication being that, were there no law against it.... :yikes:
(source)
Oh, if only that nitwit president had not invited the world to surge the border. Guess Robert Gates is right. Sad state of affairs. Maybe Michelle will rescue our country.
Those that can might like a listen to The Coming Storm podcast. A review here.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/jan/08/the-coming-storm-review-gabriel-gatehouse-bbc-qanon-conspiracy-movement-now-where-were-we-podcast-barry-cryer-bob-gemma-cairney-gets-classical
Trump is beyond furious at this case. In Trump's thinking, he IS the law, and if he fudged his figures and lied about the values of his properties, they're not lies, but simply clever business practises. If, as expected, Justice Engeron essentially cancels the Trump's right to conduct business in New York, he's basically going to cancel the whole Trump organisation. Obviously Trump will appeal straight away, and I guess that the cancellations and fines will be suspended pending that appeal. But in business terms, this really is a knife to the throat of the Trump Organisation. As far as Trump is concerned, it's a political conspiracy contrived by a political DA and enacted by an irritating minor court functionary, with no basis in what he considers fact. Beyond furious.
Iowa Caucuses will be the first indication, results should be clear mid next week.
"In order to succeed, always project an image of success."
It's not about YOU, the ordinary American and what will be good for you and your family, it's all about HIM and what he thinks can get him back the White House. Pathetic.
Trump hates America. Trump loves Trump, and that's it.
The only two world leaders that Trump routinely expresses admiration for a Kim Jong Un and Vladimir Putin, quite obviously because they exercise the kind of power that he lusts for.
Right— so where does that go? The NY Supreme Court, ultimately? (Or the equivalent— I think NY has a different setup.)
"The allegations, if true, may not derail the prosecution, but multiple lawyers tell CNN that the appearance of a conflict of interest could hurt Willis’ chances of securing a conviction before a jury.
The judge overseeing the case said on Friday that he planned to hold a hearing on the allegations in early February."
Here’s why romance between prosecutors is irrelevant to a criminal prosecution.
First, contrary to the Trump lawyer’s argument, there is no “conflict of interest” presented by two prosecutors having a romantic relationship. That’s because they are on the same side of the case. If a prosecutor and a defense attorney were a romantic item, then the defendant might argue that their defense counsel was conflicted because the relationship might cause the defense attorney to fail to zealously represent the client by going easy on their friends-with-benefits opponent.
To get around this problem, defendant Roman argues that the conflict arises from the allegation that the special prosecutor—Nathan Wade—spends money on vacations with Willis, and that Willis therefore improperly “profits” from the prosecution. The problem with this argument is the fact that Willis is already paid to prosecute the case, so there is no “profit” in any prosecution for her.
Any theory that Wade spent money on Willis derived entirely from his salary as a special prosecutor would require proof that—but for his special prosecutor salary—Wade could not afford to spend any money on his supposed dates with Willis. That’s hardly a convincing proposition on its face, and one that would be particularly to prove at any evidentiary hearing.
But as The New York Times reported, one law and ethics professor—Clark D. Cunningham of Georgia State University—opined that Roman’s motion should have included “sworn affidavits by witnesses with personal knowledge or authenticated documents,” so the lack of any such proof makes it appear likely that any hearing would produce nada.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution—which first reported the story—quotes a professor emeritus ethics professor, Stephen Gillers, as saying if the allegations are true then “Willis was conflicted in the investigation and prosecution of the case” for lack of required “independent professional judgment.” But the professor goes on to clarify “that does not mean that her decisions were in fact improperly motivated,” but that the relationship could cause the public and state to lack confidence in her independent judgment.” Public confidence, however, is not a piece of evidence in criminal trials—because we don’t conduct prosecutions based on public opinion polling.[/quote]
Furthermore, even if the case were to be taken out of Willis' hands, it could be re-assigned to another Prosecutor, as there seems to be abundant evidence of criminal wrong-doing. Remember the famous 'I just need to find 11 thousand odd votes' in the defendant's own voice?
They did get him for what he did do that was illegal. They are also going to get him for what he did not do; keep his oath of office. He could not do both.
Here’s a better quote because we don’t want to accidentally spread a little misinformation.
And of course, as is evidenced by the transcript, he’s looking for fraudulent ballots, the ones that were shredded, and so on. That’s entirely within his purview because he is expected to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. So I don’t know why his opponents took that silly line for their propaganda.
It would have been a better angle to go after him for what he did do wrong, which was to offer the Secretary of State the opportunity to absolve anyone of criminal guilt by saying it might have been all a mistake, and that he just wanted to find enough fraud in order to win. That could be construed as criminal.
Still embracing those fraud myths, I see.
No, it wan't in the President's official purview, because elections are managed at the State level. He had a personal interest, and would naturally be interested, but he had no legal role in the process of vote tabulation and certification at the State level. He had the right to litigate. He did, and he lost. Then he tried to illegally pressure Georgia officials, who had faithfully executed Georgia election law.
You and I discussed the call before, and you seemed to think the State had some obligation to prove to Trump that the vote was correct. They had no such obligation. When I pointed this out, you stopped responding. As usual.
You seem to think wrong. I was speaking about election crimes, not election management.
Election crimes? become federal cases when:
Given that he was the victim of the biggest scam in American history, the Russia hoax, of course he had a personal interest in the following election, as did many of his constituents, millions and millions of them in fact. Might they try to steal it a second time? Either way, they got away with it, installed their puppet, a complete husk of a human being who in his half-century of living off the tax-payer’s dollar has never created a damn a thing in his life. At least with this election it’s all out there for anyone to see. The only fun part is to watch how hard you deny it and follow along.
:rofl:
I’d love to see you dispute that. But I know you’ve swallowed whole something else.
Your defense of Trump depends on assuming he's irrational and incompetent, neither of which get him off the hook for crimes, and both of which demonstate unfitness for office.
Quoting NOS4A2
As you know, the only hoax was the one perpetrated by Trump. It is appropriate to investigate crimes, and crimes were committed, including crimes by Trump during the investigation. Barr blocked charging Trump with those crimes, but they were well documented by Mueller.
I don’t dispute satire.
Hardly anything is more American than never to admit defeat, to remain confident and hold one's head high, no matter what is going on.
How many Americans actually believe that political elections are about what is good for the people?
It seems to me that people, Americans and others, generally view any level of government officials, including the president of a country, as simply yet another job, something one does for one's own sake. The rest is just rhetoric; it's about proving that one can talk the talk. It never was about walking it.
Such an American sentiment. It's why so many Americans love him.
You're confusing two very different things. No one is disputing that it is an admirable quality to refuse to give up or remain steadfast in the face of adversity, even when you are losing. But that's different than refusing to admit that you lost, which is not an admirable quality.
Quoting baker
Sure, most politicians are doing what they do out of self-interest to some extent, but their job is to do what is good for the American people. Trump is just flat out saying that he wishes ill on the American people in order to have a good outcome for himself. There isn't any way to twist that around to be defensible, just by virtue of being cynical. "Oh, we love him because he hates us and is honest about it!" Yeah, right...
I don't see how you can conclude from this statement that he's looking for fraudulent ballots. If he were truly looking for fraudulent ballots then he could have said something like this:
"My information says that there was significant fraud in the election. AlI want is to verify that the election was legitimate and any fraudulent ballots tossed. I believe I won, but if all fraudulent ballots are thrown out and I still lost, then at least I will know I lost legitimately and not through fraud."
The fact that he says (erroneously) that he won and he does not need all supposedly fraudulent ballots thrown out, just enough to give him a victory? That's the give away.
- - - - - - -
As a humorous aside, Trump's statement is incoherent. "One more than we have"? Huh? That would literally mean he wanted Raffensberger to find 1 additional vote. What he meant to say was "that would be one more vote than Biden."
It's a lesson learned from advertisers, that incoherent statements cannot be shown to be false. or inciting, or threatening, or irresponsible - because they say nothing. It happens a lot, and it's deliberate, learned and practiced, and every time you hear it from a politician, you can be sure they are a crook, because no serious politician is inarticulate or linguistically incompetent.
Exactly. And Trump has found an effective way to talk about these things and to take advantage of the politically correct culture that is so prevalent in the US.
I still have a problem with people trying to say not being an insensitive douche is some sort of political culture. It's simply not being an insensitive childish douche. There's no politics involved in the quality of human character. You can go overboard, sure. But the question remains the same, do we want to be governed by hotheaded, crass, uncaring children or measured, polite intellectuals? Which do you think would really be most on the average "lesser" persons side?
What annoys me is annoying dickheads who justify their needless existence and burden on others by saying "oh you just need thicker thin, there's something wrong you". No, there is not. You are simply an annoying dickhead and burden to enlightened, civil society the world would be much better off without. End of discussion.
(Not toward you or Trump just my general sentiments on the back and forth/two sides or in my view "abuse" of the term "political correctness")
At the end of the day, people are dense. "Cheap taste and short memories", a favorite quote of mine. They feel if someone is either yelling or being rude, imprecise, and insensitive they must be telling the truth or somehow of a more trustworthy character. Definitely over someone of the opposite demeanor or tone of language. Psychological projection perhaps. People eat it up. Every time. Way of the world. The mans no dummy that's for sure. Now at what cost? Only time will tell.
I don’t see how you can conclude from my quote that I was speaking about that particular statement alone. Clearly I wrote, and thankfully you quoted—something of a rarity around here—“of course, as is evidenced by the transcript, he’s looking for fraudulent ballots, the ones that were shredded, and so on.” Not as evidenced by the statement, but by the transcript.
Admitting that you've lost is unamerican.
Read again. Indubitably, many people like Trump because he is what they want to be.
I'm talking about political correctness, the American parody of common decency.
The question is, rather, Do we want to be governed at all?
Neither.
And, better the devil you know. I think that in the eyes of most lesser persons, "the measured, polite intellectuals" are more suspicious and less trustworthy than crass populists.
One has to wonder, though, why such dickheads not only survive, but thrive, and in considerable numbers. There, clearly, must be some evolutionary advantage to being that way, or else this trait would not have developed and persisted.
It's still not clear that they "eat it up". More likely, they simply are that way themselves. But also, there is more detail to this. They don't automatically believe someone just because that person is yelling etc. It also needs to be a particular person, saying particular things. I know this all too well from personal experience. It seems it has more to do with taking sides: people generally accept any kind of behavior from someone on whose side they are, and they are hypercritical of those they are against.
Absolutely, what I've been saying all along. So many of his critics underestimate him (and those like him), which could have disastrous consequences.
I'm not sure, but playing the good boy/good girl and expecting them to play good boys/good girls certainly isn't working. They just laugh it off.
No.
Fears grow that Trump will use the military in ‘dictatorial ways’ if he returns to the White House
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-military-fears-rcna129159
Shadowy cabals of special interest groups are already forming. The rhetoric and activity is all grooming for election interference, cheating, a coup, or worse. They’ll destroy “our democracy” in order to save it.
How so? What is particularly 'American' about never admitting you lost? Think about the absurdities it would lead to. No political candidate would ever concede an election. No professional athlete or sports team would ever concede they lost a game or match. No one would ever pay up on a bet, because they'd refuse to admit they lost the bet. Society couldn't function like this. What you are describing is being a sore loser or being deluded.
I'm unsure this is reasonable in any sense.
Your subjective assessment of 'being annoyed' or offended means literally nothing helpful here. Even collective versions mean almost nothing. We are well aware of plenty of collective social claims that are either entire untrue, or in fact ARE people overreacting. There isn't such a simple way to deal with this.
Well of course not, that's an out-of-context clipping of a larger sentiment, which was also an opinion, one that we both know is shared by the majority. I'm not sure what your point is.
I'm simply saying being loud and annoying is loud and annoying. Not a political view or lack thereof. Saying that not being loud, annoying, and offensive to, since you seem to be playing dumb for some reason, a majority and largely agreed upon standard of social morals, is some sort of hindrance to society while being offensive and irritating people is some qualification of strength. It's not.
It is not subjective, in the terms of quantitatively-measurable politics and society, that is to say it is the will of the people and even yourself. If you like abuse and unneeded suffering, burden, or difficulty, you are a "masochist", which is the cousin of a sadist, and an even closer cousin of a predator or undesirable member of society, which legally makes you a threat to others especially children. I know you're not. So please stop pretending logic is anything less than what it is for the sheer sake of chiming in.
No idea why you've felt the need to say im 'playing dumb'. I think you've made a dumb point.
There is no 'largely agreed upon' standard for annoyance or loudness, particularly when it comes to issues that, to different people in different directionss, allows for some annoyance and loudness.
I have no idea what your attitude even is, let alone can i make sense of you. You made a silly point that speaks to your biases. I just pointed it out.
It seems you're relying on my disagreeing with you as an indication that im wrong. Wow.
Purposeless degradation or defilement of one's character. It's a literal legal concept, thousands of years old. Slander.
If I come up to you and your family and say, "you're ugly and stupid" than punch you in the face, that would either offend or seem unneeded to the majority of people. That's a fact, jack. You know this. Brashness and "toxicity" go hand in hand. You could disagree with every fiber of your being of a person's life choices, but that doesn't mean calling them a disparaging name is any sort of reasonable means to go about correcting what you deem as a social ill.
Do you like being insulted? What about harmed? Again, needlessly and without purpose. I would wager you do not. And if you do, that places you as an outlier and outcast of society. "Reasonability" is subjective, and if people wish to cast or call what the average, healthy individual wishes to avoid in the light of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" that is quite in line with logic and rationale.
A child knows what pain is. So, hopefully, should an adult. So, though not quite an ad homonym, it is not "my" subjective assessment, but again, I do not understand why you do not accept this, an objective, thoroughly proven sentiment and therefore more or less reality.
Oh, you're talking about physical assault. Nice. You missed my point, or I missed yours (both, it seems) and im bored now. I think your point is weak and doesn't address the problem that there is no broad agreement about annoyance or offense under a certain legal threshold. Whatever man..
See this is the problem with (not TPF, or discourse wherever it may occur, but rather) modern debate writ-large. We go off on personal tangents, warranted in each one's own mind in the moment of rebuttal.
Let's backtrack a moment. If you could reduce or rather simplify the entire sentiment, as you first ascertained it to be, into a single sentence. For me, that single sentence was, to the best of my ability, based on your reply "Being crass or purposely offensive, for no other reason just to do so, then calling someone who believes society and humanity itself is better off without crass and (pay attention, KEY WORD here is: PURPOSELESS) insensitive demeanor and resulting sensitivity is a malady or "burden on society" while those who believe the opposite are assets to it" is in your words "unsure if [...] reasonable".
That's all I disagree with. And I can point to documentation, legal, social, and otherwise, that support my sentiment. Can you?
Here is a frame of good versus evil. Within this frame there is no possible answer. How can a fair player win against a cheater? They cannot, they will always lose to the aces up the sleeve. And the conclusion then is that the good guys have to cheat like the bad guys do. The old gold of "They go low, we go high" does not work, it is fool's gold.
Therefore the first step towards a solution must be to reject the comfortable fantasy that "we" are the good guys, and "they" are the problem. Because clearly, for a large minority of America, it is the other way about. Clearly, for these people the game is already rigged so they always lose and they don't want to play by "our" rules any more.
And that is the plain truth, that the game has been rigged from the beginning, to favour the few, the establishment. This has been somewhat hidden because with strong growth in the economy few have to be losing even in a rigged game. As long as the deplorables get their bread and circuses, they won't notice anything.
There's no shortage of circuses, but the bread is running short. That is the problem.
There is an observable fact that we, by and large, disagree on what that threshold is. You cannot point to the law. It is transgressed every day, and there are entire movements (even out of Universities - point here being its institutional in nature) to upend the legal restrictions on 'annoyance' and 'loudness'.
The limits of protest, are one prime example where your type of sentiments just aren't palatable to most, and at the extremely worst are entirely unenforceable.
Some laws require arrest at the notion of 'causing offense' (Harmful Digital Communications Act here in NZ and a similar analogue in the UK as examples). But the concept of 'causing offence' is so wildly variable im not understanding how you can rely on the law, other than to discuss hte law.
My sentiment comes down to "What you consider offensive is not a good benchmark" and that all-too-often people think someone being offended is evidence of someone wronging them/whomever is offended.
I understand you may be stipulating that the behaviour youre talking about transgresses those legal benchmarks. I don't not appreciate that. It's just that's not what I was attempting to approach.
If a notion of goodness is such that the proposed goodness can be exploited, abused, punished, then this is not goodness at all.
If the goal of the game is to win, then why act in ways that hinder winning?
Or else, they're onto something. What good is a goodneness that is weak?
American culture (like so many others) is internally inconsistent, containing mutually exclusive tenets.
[quote=Lao Tzu]A man is born gentle and weak.
At his death he is hard and stiff.
Green plants are tender and filled with sap.
At their death they are withered and dry.
Therefore the stiff and unbending is the disciple of death.
The gentle and yielding is the disciple of life.
[/quote]
That's true, but it doesn't explain what you said earlier about it being un-American to admit you lost. Why is that un-American, as opposed to un-Canadian, or un-Russian, or un-any-other-culture? I think this is just being a sore loser in any culture. It can't be a virtue in any culture because it undermines having a functioning society for the reasons I gave earlier. In summary:
Most contests don't last forever. They have an ending, with a winner and a loser. You campaign for a while, then the election occurs, you count the votes and a winner is declared. You can't have two winners, and you can't have your own facts when things don't go your way. That's the problem with Trump and Trump-enablers. They won't accept the loss and move on.
So at the Republican Convention in July in Milwaukee, is it credible that the Republican Party will finalise the nomination of someone who has been found guilty of interfering with the peaceful transfer of power? An action which has already resulted in the desecration of the Capitol and hundreds of jail terms? Even though, and incredibly, there’s no clause in the Constitution which disqualifies a candidate for having had such a conviction, how is that not going to amount to a constitutional crisis? ‘Republicans Nominate Secessionist Felon for President’. How’s that going to work out? I mean, I have no idea, but I can’t see Trump ‘cruising to victory’.
I don't think it will matter. They see the trial as some bullshit political witch-hunt and a significant percentage of voters don't seem to care, so I think full steam ahead Team Trump. I think the game of decency in politics (which was alwasy wafer thin) has evaporated.
I may not matter to the rusted-on Trumpistas, but it will still be objectively critical. And as far as the politics goes - will it be a winning strategy?
And actually I think that kind of shrug is just the kind of poisonous miasma that Trump emits. Facts don't matter, right? It's only what people like that matters.
It's just what it looks like.
Quoting Wayfarer
The polls are looking favorable for Trump, so it may well work.
Incidentally, I have met quite a few pro Trump Australians and they are not bogans (rednecks), but generally thoughtful about politics. In their mind civic life and government has become mired in political correctness and is rotten to the core and they really dig the idea of a vulgar mob boss figure like Trump kicking the system about for 4 years. You're right that this inherent cynicism about the status quo is what helps give Trump power. But we live in a cynical age, a fact which a successful candidate can probably harness, so I wonder how useful it is to push back against the zeitgeist. Your Don Quixote avatar may be apropos...
I said reading this thread will be entertaining. Perhaps you meant to reply to someone who mentioned any of that?
Hmm. Yes, but I don't think that's his fault per se. It's the fault of everyone being so intensely divided and willing to lose huge parts of their humanity in service of an opinion - which is certainly taking opportunity in.
As much as he lies, he's lied about a huge amount too so I find it hard to take it more seriously than any other situation of media-driven horseshit in politics. But, to be clear this post (to you) outlines my position on Trump.
The only positive thing that will come out of a Trump presidency, if he goes too far, would be that the sleepy apathetic regular people who doesn't care about politics will wake up and smell the ashes. After such a clusterfuck I think there would be a radical change to the core of the US system that puts higher demands on the competency of any future presidential candidates. Maybe even strengthening the ability to remove presidents who abuse their power. At the moment, all the steps to remove a president hinges on their own followers to vote against him, which isn't gonna happen with fanatics and people who only cares about their own power.
It's ironic that with the historical banishment of those who followed a king, all in the name of freedom, the nation ended up in a rather autocratic position; swear on the bible, live in a white castle, have servants and a king's guard. Maybe we should just call the US out for being the pseudo-monarchy that it is and reshape its democracy to protect it better against those who would and could tear it down into a proper autocratic society.
Everything he's done since coming down the escalator is a step too far. A thousand times already, it's been 'that's it, now he's done it, there's no coming back from this.' And yet, here we are.
I think "going too far" needs to go further before people wake up. When people start to feel the fascist boot up their ass, they're gonna dust off that anti-fascist mentality everyone had during the early 40's.
Just as you say, nothing is done by what has already happen, so he can go far if he like, but if he starts to dismantle the ability for other presidents or the Democrats, or even others in the Republican party to be voted into power after him, then that is gonna be bloody. At this point, due to his own words, I'm not ruling out civil war; if the military is even willing to march on his orders. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone in his own security took action while he's down oinking into- and devouring a pile of Big Macs. There are too many people in the US who wouldn't accept such abuse of power.
On the other side though, if Biden wins I wouldn't rule out militias believing they're God's army under Trump's banner to make some form of attack.. The powder keg is lit and the only thing that would stop it is if Trump chokes on his Big Mac falling on the fuse.
It's going to be some kind of mess, this won't be clean in any form.
The people loved it. They swallowed every word, and they voted for him.
I can’t quite understand why this is. but I don’t find it entertaining. Depressing, would be one word, and scary, another.
Putin says past U.S. elections were rigged
[sup]— Maxim Rodionov, Mark Trevelyan, Kevin Liffey · Reuters · Jan 16, 2024[/sup]
Pukin has Trump's back. Well, maybe not exactly.
Because they are just words, they have no meaning to these people. They hear a strongman saying strong things about stuff they have no education about or are too stupid to understand. It's herd mentality, groupthink psychology, fanatics. It is the same thing as in any other cult; the meaning of the words, the consequences of it doesn't matter; it is the promise of power; it is the promise of becoming the new kings of the world after they've lived in the backwater of the "experts" and "educated" people's rule.
These people dream of Trump leading them to a promised land, a kingdom in which they're the elite and not those other ones you see on TV all day.
When can we call these idiots actual morons? It's been years of people trying to balance things and say that we need to listen to these followers of Trump, hear their perspective on life and understand their situation. But when you listen to them, when you listen to Trump speaking to them, it's clear that they are downright utterly stupid people who basically joined a massive cult.
No reason beating around the bush, it's stupid people who are bitter and angry against smarter people for getting more attention. Spoiled adults who behave like screaming children in stores when not getting more candy for their fat asses, and their God is Trump, a representative of themselves, just as stupid, but able to storm the white castle of power.
Not all. There are some on this forum who have put significant time into educating our fellow citizens, since well before Trump came down the escalator. It seems to me, that painting things in such black and white terms is likely to incline people to a fatalism you don't want to see.
Quoting unenlightened
Quoting Wayfarer
And every time you say such things, a fence-sitter is closer to slipping off into Trump camp.
We're talking about Americans here, in particular.
On the contrary. If what you say were true, Biden couldn't be sworn in as president. Yet he was. And so on.
If a contestant doesn't admit that he's lost, then, in the best case scenario, he's just forcibly removed from the stage. Becoming the winner doesn't require a concession from the loser(s).
What you're describing is far, far removed from reality. People don't admit to defeat all the time, and life goes on.
Yes I was generalising about the overall effect of US society as a whole, which has produced trump supporters in millions. I accept there are decent people, but the democratic government and the society as a whole has produced Trump and his acolytes by the million, not a few exceptional odd-balls.
The implication of the existence of millions of deplorables in a society is that there is something deplorable about the society as a whole.
I don't think it matters, it seems that nothing matters. They won't listen to reason or criticism, they're captured by Trump's narcissistic "embrace" regardless.
Very well, given the US disenfranchizement laws, the number of disenfranchized people in the US, and those collaterally affected by such disenfranchizement.
Voting rights are essential to democracy, yet the US is a country where those rights can be lost very quickly, via imprisonment. The US has the largest prison population in the world!
It should be very easy for an American to relate to a felon.
I'm talking about fence-sitters.
It doesn't look like you're trying to understand people's attitudes, you're far too eager to judge.
Contempt, contempt, contempt. They're full of contempt, you're full of contempt. So which one of you should one side with? Is your contempt better than theirs?
You can witness fallacy at work. Guilt by association, fallacy of composition, and a whole host of social categorization biases leading to the typical stereotypes. If this is the quality of reason and criticism then it’s no wonder no one wants to hear it.
My guess is it is not born out of any knowledge or experience or insight, but passed along from one pliant head to the next in the form of moral enterprise. It’s why you can claim people dream of Trump leading them to a promised land, a kingdom in which they're the elite and not those other ones you see on TV all day, without being able to show an actual sample of this being the case. It’s difficult to tell if this is actually true or the result of a fevered imagination.
It's easier on your ego to think that ...
Such is democracy.
The irony is that various right-wing political options have a better understanding of democracy than anyone else. They understand that democracy is a dog-eat-dog fight and they don't pretend it's anything but that.
It's not all that ironic. Decades ago my father used to say that in a democracy the right have the easiest arguments. Mainly because these positions are often emotional (nationalism, race, freedom, faith, way of life) whereas the left often requires people to understand abstracts (social justice, structural poverty, identity politics, collective responsibility). The left will often struggle to prevail against simplistic answers which lubricate themselves in social Darwinism or 'might is right' and guns. It's hardly surprising that the right have so much traction when they have often been much better and more entertaining in the bar room fights of democracy, while the left, rather than rolling up their sleeves, often seems preoccupied with dissertations on inclusion. Or something like that.
More fool them.
Quoting baker
I'll pick the side that is *not* cheering on a mendacious narcissist wannabe dictator.
But was there such a behavior though? Weren't there enough good hearted people who cared for all people and wanted to help, just to get a shotgun to the face and screamed to get off their property? That there were enough people who tried to make things better for all, especially low-income low-educated people?
Isn't it the false promises of neoliberal capitalists on the right side of politics who promised these people the garden of eden; only to flush it with factory chemicals, doubt, fear and rage?
And then they turn their backs on- and want to fight those who actually stood on their side, making them suffer and in the end just utter back to them: "ok, then rot in your filth you morons".
We can blame culture, but part of the great irony is that the people in power around Trump, as well as himself, does not care for these people other than to feed their narcissistic blood flow, cash flow and voter booths.
After all this time, how much longer should the people who actually care for these Trump supporters as human beings have to wait for these Trump supporters to realize which side actually fundamentally supports them? Because they get so much hate and so much shit all the time while trying to reach out that at some point... enough is enough.
Quoting baker
Anyone who's on the fence towards such a side does not seem to have the capacity to understand reason. So it doesn't matter what you do, they are attracted to the childish bullshit that Trump spews out. It is clear by these recent years that it's a cult behavior; reason doesn't work, facts doesn't work. The only thing that works is if they realize the suffering they stand for, if they see it head on, if it produces a cognitive dissonance; in the same way as cult members realize what state of mind they're in. Listen to cult survivors and how they reason, what made them realize their faulty ways. Someone waking up from the Trump cult will echo the same reasoning.
Quoting baker
No, it is true. They follow cult behavior to the letter. Treating anything a leader says as truth, as something to applaud without any attempt to rationally understand what it all meant is part of a cult mentality. Why do all these QAnon and conspiracy people intersect so well into the Maga culture? They follow the same cult mentality; the same psychology.
I don't care about my "ego", I care about making honest observations of what is going on.
Quoting baker
Yeah, a sloppy version of it. Democracy needs care and systems to protect it. Because the result of a sloppy democracy is civil war. If someone gets voted in to dismantle a democracy, crowning themselves king; then the other half who didn't want that, will show that they did not want that. So protecting democracy and protecting it from such destructive forces as well as keeping the peace require better care for that democracy.
Democratic tolerance can only function until the intolerant becomes tolerated. After that you don't have any democracy anymore.
Quoting baker
You're talking about demagogues, not democratic people. They don't understand democracy, they understand the abuse of democracy by acting as demagogues, that's what a dog-eat-dog concept entails. By any means; fool the people, take the power. And if that power leads to anti-democratic actions, then what democracy really exists in their minds other than autocratic power?
What's even more scary is how sloppy people treat democracy. It's the same as how sloppy they treat freedom of speech. The constant appeal to them in broad, vague and simplified terms as some defense against actions aimed to supersede their actual purpose. And the so called educated just fumble their words trying to point it out to these people, it's absurd.
No, democracy is what it is and that kind of mentality is not democracy at all. That only proves that they do not understand democracy or they do not care and just use the public's low education of what it means in order to take power.
Quoting Wayfarer
...and I don't understand how people have trouble with this reasoning. There are plenty of other Republicans who're not like Trump, who can respect democracy, produce stability and act for the people and not for themselves. But it seems like Republicans are stuck trying to appeal to the lowest denominator, the easiest to fool voter. How long do they think that's gonna hold? When will that house of cards fall down? We could say the same of the democrats, but Biden, even at his extreme age, still holds the country together, through global turmoil, economic collapse. Still, get some new younger blood into the game, some stable proper candidates that can act like actual politicians.
The US is a laughing stock in the world, but we can't laugh because the implications could be dead serious.
As I said a couple of pages back, there are two extremely serious felony trials looming, the Jan 6th and the Classified Documents trials. If the first of these does result in a guilty verdict, how is it possible that at the Nominating Convention in Milwaukee in July, the Republican Party selects a candidate who has been criminally convicted of trying to interfere with the last election? How is it even conceivable?
By the way, I don't accept that Biden is feeble or senile or incapable. I do accept that he projects very poorly on the podium but considering the stuff he's having to deal with, and magnitude of the problems he and the world are dealing with, any number of which could literally be world-ending, I think he's doing a quite exceptional job.
Wild....
Because the proper protections aren't in place. Maybe the US has never been in a situation like this in which someone who may implement anti-democratic policies gain power. I think the US and its people have been living in a fantasy in which they believe that such a thing will never happen in their own nation. That's something that happens in those other "backwards" countries, but not in the US because that's a nation of Godly blessed got damn freedom! If the US survives this overgrown manchild and finds some stability, I think that both the Democrats and Republicans need to implement a more rigid defense against this bullshit. Maybe look to more functioning democracies and stop believing they're the best and greatest nation in the world. Time to try out some humility and introspection and clean out the halls of power from power leeches and lobbyists, install safeguards that make it impossible for people who value themselves over their own people and the world to gain power.
Quoting Wayfarer
I'm not arguing against that, as I said, he's steering the half-sinking ship through a storm of global turmoil and economic hurricanes. But the risk is in his health, what if he suddenly dies, suddenly seriously fail in mental capacity. There has to be some actions taken right now on both sides to find some younger candidates to build up for the next 2028 election. It takes time to build up trust in candidates among the voters, so get some stable, non-bullshit, young people up there. And Republicans need to ditch trying to capture the Maga people's votes, even if they risk losing. Many other candidates feel like pseudo-Trumps, as if they just want to reach those voters. But that's not gonna hold, they need to focus on voters outside of that cult, and for that they need a proper candidate and not pushing forward other clowns.
And in this, consists a claim that is entirely incomprehensible to anyone who disagrees.
Unsure it's smart for anyone to be determining entire life-long projects based on that type of thing (not aimed at you, Wayfarer - just a ocmment on why most of this discourse is laughable to me).
It's not incomprehensible, if you take the time to analyse the figures. There has been measurable progress on environmental legislation, economic growth, jobs growth, controlling inflation, and many other metrics, beyond the froth that pops up in newsfeeds. It is objectively true that the one major piece of legistlation passed in the Trump presidency was for tax cuts that benefitted the wealthy and massively increased government indebtedness.
This appears to be an unsympathetic source trying to be balanced.
Also, My point was, and this is undeniable: It is incomprehensible to the other side. The mere fact that Biden has said such utter, and complete shit as accusing blacks who vote for Trump of not being black wouuld lead to this. I'm not saying their right, or across the issues.
But I'll leave it there, as you yourself said the other day:
Quoting AmadeusD
Interestingly, the vast majority of his legislative wins he never mentioned publicly (such as historically high funding of HBCUs and other minority community funding, signing millions of sq mi into natural reserves etc.. but, in a large sense, what you've said is entirelty true and adds (particularly), in light of the above, to my take you've quoted there. He's a total knob.
Nice agitprop.
I don't engage with ridiculous nonsense. Sorry mate :)
You have done your part, no need to apologize.
You recited a well-established talking point. I am just a person noticing the repetition.
I like the pre-loaded ad hominem of your question. Yes, I am beating my wife.
On whose part?
You can find some fellow travelers here.
How is this an unsympathetic source?
The Author is Marc Thiessen, a conservative pundit and, among other things, apologist for torture.
Well yes it is. I'm not going to disagree with the story, but I am disagreeing with the moral of the story.
The great and the good are responsible for the man in the street, and they are responsible for the man in the street's education. A society that produces a mass of people who can be led astray by false promises of a few bad men has FAILED. This is the bottom line of a democracy, that it has to produce people that value democracy otherwise it will become an autocracy.
So it behooves "decent Americans" to look to their own failings and the failings of the whole society, because their stewardship has led to neoliberal capitalists and deplorables and Trump.
Biden 44% Trump 43% (yougove, 10th Jan)
Biden 41% Trump 43% (morning consult, 14th Jan)
Biden 37% Trump 45% (The Atlanta Journal)
I think Biden was way ahead in the polls prior to the last elections, wasn't he?
I actually think Trump is running for POTUS again to get out of his legal troubles... And also to heal his ego from losing to Biden. Simply by running for POTUS he can play the "They're weaponizing the DoJ against a political opponent" card, and people eat it up. And if he wins, I'm betting he thinks he can make all of these legal troubles go away by surrounding himself with cronies who do whatever he wants.
This will send the hard-leftists into a tail-spin. Felonies are racist.
This appears to be the relevant law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3143 :
[i]... the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and who has filed an appeal or a petition for a writ of certiorari, be detained, unless the judicial officer finds—
(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142(b) or (c) of this title; and
(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in—
(i) reversal,
(ii) an order for a new trial,
(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or
(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.
If the judicial officer makes such findings, such judicial officer shall order the release of the person in accordance with section 3142(b) or (c) of this title, except that in the circumstance described in subparagraph (B)(iv) of this paragraph, the judicial officer shall order the detention terminated at the expiration of the likely reduced sentence[/i].
I've been asking that question here too. Imagine the nominating convention in Milwaukee in July, if Trump has been convicted over the January 6th charges. Readers may recall there was a rebellion at the 2016 convention by the Stop Trump contingent. It failed at the time, but what will happen this time? What would it mean for one of the two major political parties in the US to support the nomination of someone convicted for attempting to prevent the transfer of power? How could that be anything other than a constitutional crisis?
Me, I don't think it will come to that. But it's not out of the question.
It's true that everyone who thinks Biden's done a bad job is not likely to comprehend why anyone would think he did a good job. However, it's certainly comprehensible to anyone who examines the record.
Personally, I consider Trump the worst President in history, but I can comprehend the things his supporters find appealing.
He announced his campaign months before the first indictment.
I do not think they would comprehend these things, and I also rest on the fact that both your position on theirs is probably not accurate.
Also, I got no notification for this. Hope that doesn't continue...
August 22, 2022 - Mar-a-Lago search warrant executed
November 15, 2022 - announced candidacy.
He had indicated earlier that he had already made up his mind, that it was only a question of when he’d announce. A month later they raid Mar-a-lago.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/donald-trump-2024-decision.html
He was, and the funny thing is that I think alot of the current polls show a generic democrat leading by the same amount that Biden did in 2020. It's not that Trump is particularly strong, it's just that the Democrats are insisting on running someone who's just as weak, which would be baffling in retrospect if they end up losing this year because the path to victory seems pretty clear at this point.
Its already baffling. That anyone thinks running Biden is a good move is beyond blind.
The odd thing about this election is that if either side decided to just run a generic representative of their own party then they'd certainly win. Anyone else but Trump would certainly win against Biden and anyone but Biden would certainly win against Trump. But instead we're getting the rematch nobody wanted.
How anyone thinks that the guy behind this outrage is a fit and proper person for the candidacy beggars belief.
Quoting AmadeusD
Please clarify both these statements. I have no idea what you're saying.
1. The first half is relevant to the below - the latter half is my saying I don't think either your position, or theirs, is accurate to the actual state of affairs; and
2. I was making fun of Trump's supporters - I do not think they would comprehend what's at hand
Still not clear, but I'd like to understand what you believe I'm getting wrong.
[Quote]2. I was making fun of Trump's supporters - I do not think they would comprehend what's at hand[/quote]
I'm an optimist. I like to think that there are some Trump supporters who could grasp why some would be pleased with Biden's accomplishments- even though they disagree.
Well, both sides seems to think their guy is the guy, and the other guys is baffling inept. I happen to think both are. So, I could take any 'view' from either side and say i think it's inaccurate. Its not a particularly important point.
Quoting Relativist
Do you think the same is true in reverse? Are you able to grasp Trump's accomplishments?
Let me first clarify what I meant. I think intelligent Trump supporters could potentially grasp that certain things that Biden's done would be considered positive accomplishments by Biden supporters (or by liberals). That doesn't mean these Trump supporters would agree these are positive accomplishments.
And indeed, in reverse,I have some understanding of Trump deeds that would please Trump supporters. First and foremost: his judicial appointments -particularly SCOTUS, which resulted in the Dodd decision.
It's a very different question regarding what I regard as a positive accomplishment of Trump's, or Trump supporter's view of Biden's. But I'll bite on Trump: 1.USMCA improved upon NAFTA. 2. He forced the exit from Afghanistan. That's all that comes to mind, but there could be more, but the damage he did is (IMO) overwhelming.
Don't envy the Americans when they are having to choose between Trump and Biden... and an option of a middle finger vote with voting somebody else.
Well, a generic democrat would have done better against Trump than Hillary Clinton. But the democrats simply ignored how annoying and hated Hillary was among the Republicans. And how disliked the Clintons in general were.
Wasn't it then finally her time, right?
Quoting ssu
Yeah that seems to be the problem with the Democrats which is that they seem to love to ignore their base of supporters. The GOP have the opposite problem which is that they let the MAGA supporters dictate everything. And that is why we have Trump v. Biden again.
Basically Trumpism saved in a way the Republican party: it reinforced the idea that somehow the two political parties themselves can be changed through the primaries. The leadership didn't want Trump, but he was elected. So hooray for democracy!
As I said (perhaps on another thread), there indeed are many traditional conservatives in the GOP, but Trumpism simply silences these voices.
That's the problem with populism: it can take over a traditional political actually both either on the left of on the right.
One could argue that Boris Johnson was a somewhat similar populist politician that overtook a traditional party, even if Johnson is quite different from Trump. Yet we see now just how the Conservative party in the UK has changed.
True, but he knew there were choppy waters ahead for him legally. Some of that stuff had been swirling around for years... Paying hush money to Stormy Daniels using campaign funds... Property devaluation fraud in NY... The fall out and discovery from the 2020 election tampering and January 6th attack wasn't going away.. and he'd retained classified documents after repeatedly being asked to return them. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do turn...
As a Trump supporter, you really should consider how much of this Trump brought on himself. How much of this could have been easily avoided? Seriously, ask yourself that before jumping to the conclusion that he's being politically persecuted. He could have paid Stormy Daniels with cash from his own personal account. He could have given identical property valuations to the banks and the government. He could have conceded the 2020 election after his lawsuits failed, and not told his followers that the election was stolen and not invite them to a "Stop the Steal" rally on 1/6/2021. He could have given back all of the classified documents he took to Mar-A-Lago when he was first asked for them.
The vast majority will have no problem making a choice between these two. A small percent will be disenchanted and either cast a vote for a non-viable candidate or not vote.
It’s just not the case that he brought it on himself. Many of the people indicting him campaigned on doing so. They brought it on him, and not because they were searching for justice or any nonsense like that, but because he decided to run again. He’s being sued in civil cases for alleged crimes from the 90’s and 2000’s. It’s just a shame that the flimsiness, novelty, and unprecedented status of all their cases only attests to the grasping nature of their efforts, and finally how desperate they all are.
Observe the case of Charles Littlejohn, who was just convicted of stealing Trump’s taxes and leaking them to the press. Apparently he started his job for the sole purpose of stealing and leaking Trump’s taxes. I wonder who convinced him to do that? These kinds of people are not above violating the law, human rights, nor any notion of justice because they believe they are stopping some existential threat. They are trapped in a moral panic, like Pizzagate, but far more prevalent, far-reaching, and consequential. They are the existential threat. They are threatening democracy.
But to those of us who remain unconvinced, their schemes continue to read like the conspiracy theories of the same people who believed he was a Russian spy, or that a 3-hour riot was a violent insurrection and worse than Pearl Harbor. You can actually trace the word “insurrection” from Joe Biden all the way down, just as you can the Russian hoax from the Clinton campaign.
How are they threatening democracy exactly?
Removing their opponents from the ballot, indicting their opponents during an election, altering voting laws beneath the noses of the voter, flooding the country with illegals, criminalizing the ability to contest an election, for example.
Right. I thought you were arguing that releasing someone's (actual) tax return was a danger to democracy. Which would be weird because whatever else it is, it is truthful information.
Stealing someone’s taxes and releasing it to a partisan press is a huge violation of privacy. Thankfully the charade dispelled a host of myths that were regnant at the time.
If 60% is high, then OK.
Of course, there's still time to go.
Not at all. It's plebeian mentality.
Quoting Wayfarer
There should be more of a difference between on the one hand, Trump and co., and on the other hand, their critics.
Straight out of a right-winger's playbook. I can turn on our local right-wing tv station or listen to the right-winger opposition in our parliament, and it's the same kind of talk, the same arguments, just the names are different.
What are you talking about? How is any of that right-wing? How is caring for democracy against the right-wing manipulation and power plays of demagogues even remotely similar to a right-wing playbook? I would say the same thing about Democrats, but since they've not displayed the same level of total ignorance of facts, knowledge and stability that the Republican party has displayed these recent years; the criticism needs to be aimed where it's currently needed to be aimed. Where's the competency on display in the Republican party? Like, just look at how they treated the house speaker situation last year. They act like spoiled children, constantly just doing whatever they can to keep fucking up things until they become the center of attention. The behavioral rot has spread from Trump and infected the entire party. I could make a long argument against the problems among the Democrats, because they're acting incompetent as well, but the level at which the Republican party operates today is just a laughing stock for all us in more functioning democracies in the world.
Whenever there's embarrassing turmoil in the Swedish, Nordic or even the EU government and I turn to read up on what's going on in US politics I'm stunned at the differences in competence. We view our politicians as incompetent, but in comparison to the US political scene we're like an utopia compared to a Mad Max film.
Caring for democracy is to get rid of the demagogues and the entire US system is built upon the actions of demagogues. Elections in the US are about appearances, not policies. It's about abstract values like "family" and "God", not philosophically sound moral principles. It's a theatre aimed at fooling the people to believe they have a good father or mother caring for them from their white house throne. It's an autocratic system in which an economic elite make shakespearian power plays for the throne and the servants in congress to play manipulation games while laws are controlled by a supreme court where enough deaths on one side can make the entire foundation of law fundamentally unbalanced.
Anyone who looks at the US system as some pinnacle of democracy needs to get their heads checked.
Also, Trump struggles to say the word ‘climate’ and reveals he recently took a cognitive test
Everytime I see a mention of Trump, I am reminded of several Buddhists who are his avid fans. It's a peculiar combination of being fluent in an arcane religion devoted to the complete cessation of suffering, and to do so in an obscure ancient language, and yet be steeped in such populism as Trump's. I can't quite make sense of it.
I don't know how consciously you were using the sources you cited. I was assuming that you were.
I was mostly reacting to cynical amusement about a place where you do not live.
Now that is interesting. Do you have any theories why he appeals to them?
making wild assumptions, counter to that which i've actually stated and proceeding on the same basis a first-year political student who's found Twitter would do. I just can't take that type of snip-ish hang-wringing seriously, sorry.
No need to apologize. Taking your measure.
Another notch on the belt, i guess.
I was just trying to find out how seriously you meant the remark about race.
If you have a serious question, direct me to it.
Quoting AmadeusD
This is what you said. If you wanted to know what set me off, this is it.
What a bizarre exchange. You almost had me for a minute.
i don't know if you are naive or being completely sophistical.
Noted. I refer to exact statements made by you and they are not worth defending.
If you have a question, direct me to it. Otherwise, I don't care for this prevaricative nonsense.
You don't defend your previous comments. Why should anyone ask you questions?
If you have a question, lay it on me. Otherwise, all of these posts make no sense and provide merely further examples of your nonsense. Dude, I have no idea what the heck you're trying to do. I've indulged you quite enough here, so one final time..
Ask me a question about something i've said, or don't. If the next interaction isn't a question, i revert to my previous assumption you're not to be taken seriously. Make your move.
I quoted your words. You have proven that you do not care about them.
For some reason, after four direct attempts to ask you what the F you actually want, you've just, once again, shown your inability to be taken seriously.
That's fine. I had assumed this was the case.
I'll be open to a question, if you can muster up the courage to struggle to the end of a complete thought :)
Your participation here follows a pattern we have seen before. An inordinate number of vague and insubstantial low quality contentious posts critical of almost everything including other members in the short period of time you have been here. Most flame out after shooting their wad and leaving a mess.
Dial it back, "mate".
I wonder what they’re trying to hide?
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-committee-jan-6-deleted-encrypted-117-files-was-required-share-house-gop-sources.amp
You have a subscription to Fox News?
Nope.
Read the exchange. The vagueness is not mine - Paine was slinging shit. I asked for a question - He continued to be obtuse. Not my circus.
Place your concern where it belongs.
I gave you four examples of how Trump brought his legal troubles upon himself and how he could have avoided them, and you didn't refute any of them. Instead, you made claims about the motivations of the people indicting him and then changed the subject to other discussion topics. I will re-emphasize the four examples I gave, and how Trump brought these troubles upon himself, and how he could have avoided them. My points stand. The motivations of the people indicting him don't matter as much as whether there is evidence he committed crimes. By contrast, the GOP members of Congress have a strong motivation to impeach Joe Biden and so are looking for evidence but can't find it. How embarrassing.
Then how did you read the article that you linked to?
I was refuting the claim that Trump brought it all on himself, which is absurd because one can never bring charges on himself. Prosecutors bring charges. The prosecutor’s motivations along with the frivolousness and novelty of the charges reveal the political motives.
I clicked on a link and read the article. Maybe you’re at your Fox News limit.
Maybe you're too embarrassed to admit your subscription. You should be.
What subscription?
In the link you posted, this is what it says:
Join Fox News for access to this content
Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account!
Perhaps you forgot that you're a subscriber.
I don’t see any of that. I don’t know what to tell you.
If you took the time to read what I said, and don't worry you would still have plenty of time left to spew, you would see that I am not talking about one exchange with one member.
But there is no doubt that this will fall on deaf ears. You like to hear yourself talk too much to hear anything else.
I'll leave you to it.
Can you point out to me examples of my conduct you actually find problematic, rather than making a vague, substance-less attack?? (I also note the absolutely extraordinary irony in that fact. ). Feel free to PM me. I am open to whatever you have to say - What i am not open to is slinging shit in a drive-by on a thread irrelevant to it.
I guess only Americans need to subscribe.
In praxis’ defense I left out the .amp out of the link.
My defense is your apparent untrustworthiness, frankly.
Just follow your imagination. Works every time.
In the past, you've said contradictory things that indicate dishonesty. There's also the fact you're a diehard Trump supporter. I can't see how anyone who values truth could be such a diehard Trump supporter.
Your whole schtick is stoicism but I can only read rank emotion. At any rate, I apologize for sending you off into clown world.
I don't think that you can only see stoic playacting and rank emotion. I think you're merely trolling, badly.
Rather...
A 3-hour riot interrupted the peaceful transfer of power.
Trump was personally directing Pence to publicly place the election results in question by questioning the electoral college results. He was supposed to act confused about what he should do when handed two different slates of electors. There were roughly 150 congressional members that voted against the electoral college results. Some of them were directly involved in the personal transfer of the aforementioned slate of electors. We need to know who knew what and when.
147, to be precise.
The January 6th coup attempt is ongoing.
Objecting to certification was exactly what congressional democrats did in 2017.
To some degree, yes. They did. And they were wrong.
A milquetoast 'standing up' and being immediately sat down by the presider with some force (that presider, was Joe Biden) is not, in any way conceivable the same in kind as an attack on the Capitol.
It was far worse. They tried to frame the democratically-elected president for treason and waged a years-long coup based on Clinton campaign conspiracy theories that reached the highest echelons of the intelligence community and the administrative state. The riot on J6 was just their Reichstag moment.
Oh my. I used to think you were a rational human being.
She’s resorting to insults. But that’s OK. The evidence affords greater weight to my characterization than yours, and history will correct the record.
I do. I’m not making a case; I’m just sharing my beliefs.
Besides, you and I have litigated the evidence and reasoning already, and the consistent appeals to authority have remained entirely unconvincing throughout. One day I would like to hear your own conclusions rather than someone else’s. Let me know if it ever occurs.
You should join a religion forum.
It’s clear that laws were broken on J6. What laws were broken in this coup you mention?
I'm not sure any laws were broken. The CIA, the FBI, the media, the DNC, have the lawful power to defraud the country, to investigate their political opponents, and to submit the entire world to their propaganda and conspiracy theories.
I have to genuinely admire your obstinance in the face of overwhelmingly unfavourable reception. I suppose that's informed by my knowledge that you're talking shite, but hey. I genuinely, not a word of sarcasm, respect your determination.
You must not believe there was any assault, disruption of Congress, or any of the other charges. Most of the defendants pleaded guilty, btw, even the MAGA shaman (guy with the horns) and spiritual people never lie.
Quoting NOS4A2
Don't forget the GOP, with their fake electors shenanigans and whatnot. Wait, that is illegal.
You asked what laws were broken in the coup I mentioned.
Ah, it appears as though you're saying that you weren't sure that any laws were broken on J6, stating in the next line that the DNC, etc have "lawful power." If the DNC, FBI, CIA, and the media have lawful power to defraud the country, investigate their political opponents, and submit the entire world to their propaganda and conspiracy theories, then those actions aren't breaking any laws. But your first sentence is "I'm not sure any laws were broken," and the response is in the same order as my response, with J6 first followed by "coup".
Anyway, just to clear up any remaining misreads and for the official record, you hold that:
1) Laws were broken by rioters on J6.
2) No laws were broken in the years-long coup that you mentioned.
3) You realize that coups are unlawful.
This is oxymoronic. I also disagree it seemed as if he was responding to J6.
Quoting NOS4A2
You asked a question and he answered it with surprising directness.
That’s right. I answered your question. I can’t find that they broke any laws. Hitler never broke any laws either, so appealing to law is a grave stupidity.