|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
More acquitted Clinton because he got impeached over having a blowjob in the WH not instigating a murderous insurrection.
Trump's impeachments were not Witch Hunts but all had legit causes, from instigating a murderous insurrection to pressuring foreign countries into prosecuting the son of his political opponent.
Besides, tell me how many Benghazi investigations we had?
Congress is red because Gerrymanding and unequal representation. If it was sane districts and 1 house member per 30.000 like intended (tho perhaps not practical with current pop numbers) I imagine Republicans would be getting crushed.
Hard to claim Trump is not an existential threat to the US when he caused a murderous insurrection that attempted to overthrow a legitimate election. The fact that it failed doesn't make it any less real.
How did the Dems not manage to work with Trump? Because McConnell controlled the Senate and the House and Presidency don't make policy on their own?
And what was there to further investigate? Trump did it all in public on TV and via Twitter. The evidence is all right there in your face and the face of every Republican when they had to run for their lives.
|
McConnell: "Trump is morally and practically responsible for inciting the attack"
Also McConnell: refuses to hold Trump responsible for attack
|
On February 14 2021 06:28 NewSunshine wrote:
McConnell: "Trump is morally and practically responsible for inciting the attack"
Also McConnell: refuses to hold Trump responsible for attack Same with Kevin McCarthy on the phone trying to plead Trump into stopping the attack as they tried to break into his office and then voting against Impeachment in the House.
Makes you wonder if they have a shred of decency or morals in their bones and how they sleep at night knowing how far they have sold themselves out to a murderous mob.
|
McConnell gives the neatest demonstration I can imagine that Republicans literally don't care about morals. They successfully identify what is morally right and wrong, and refuse to let that affect their decision making in a historic attack on the US capitol.
|
On February 14 2021 06:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 06:28 NewSunshine wrote:
McConnell: "Trump is morally and practically responsible for inciting the attack"
Also McConnell: refuses to hold Trump responsible for attack Same with Kevin McCarthy on the phone trying to plead Trump into stopping the attack as they tried to break into his office and then voting against Impeachment in the House. Makes you wonder if they have a shred of decency or morals in their bones and how they sleep at night knowing how far they have sold themselves out to a murderous mob.
They don't. That's been demonstrated times and times and times again. They have absolutely zero integrity.
|
On February 14 2021 06:26 Gorsameth wrote:
More acquitted Clinton because he got impeached over having a blowjob in the WH not instigating a murderous insurrection.
Trump's impeachments were not Witch Hunts but all had legit causes, from instigating a murderous insurrection to pressuring foreign countries into prosecuting the son of his political opponent.
Besides, tell me how many Benghazi investigations we had?
Congress is red because Gerrymanding and unequal representation. If it was sane districts and 1 house member per 30.000 like intended (tho perhaps not practical with current pop numbers) I imagine Republicans would be getting crushed.
Hard to claim Trump is not an existential threat to the US when he caused a murderous insurrection that attempted to overthrow a legitimate election. The fact that it failed doesn't make it any less real.
How did the Dems not manage to work with Trump? Because McConnell controlled the Senate and the House and Presidency don't make policy on their own?
And what was there to further investigate? Trump did it all in public on TV and via Twitter. The evidence is all right there in your face and the face of every Republican when they had to run for their lives.
He caused it? That's a massive stretch of causality in my book, and it's annoying how simple people often try to make things.
It's like there are at LEAST two modes of thinking that are obvious:
1) Trump knew/thought he was going to legitimately lose, wants to be a despot, and so seeded a plan to over months gradually increase the tension on his supporters and convince them of fraud so that he could incite an insurrection and overthrow the inevitable result
2) Trump recognized he would be at a disadvantage from the mail in process, and was also (correctly) concerned about fraud potential. He then tried to drum up support to ensure the election was properly certified, and when that support failed to materialize he became more convinced the election would be fraudulent and continued to fight (what he perceived as) fraud at all steps of the way.
----------------
In situation #1 it's pretty obvious Trump is inciting insurrection. In situation #2, Trump is correctly (from his PoV anyway) trying to ensure a fair election process, and is only concerned with the raising awareness of the fraud he sees as going on. This is a just and correct thing to do, that happens to have a tail end result of a couple hundred of the absolute looniest of the loonies opportunistically storming the Capitol.
----------------
There is no way to know Trump's actual intentions. Whether #1 or #2 depends almost entirely on your a priori assumptions of Trump's thought process. I will say that for me, #1 rings not just wrong, but utterly absurd.
That said, whether Trump was wrong under #2 is a complex discussion about intentions v outcomes, and basically is asking:
How does one decide what is too far, in an attempt to promote a cause they think is correct/just/noble
He certainly stirred up enough dissent and frustration that the conditions were possible...but at the end of the day a couple hundred people stormed the Capital, out of 330 million (maybe 100 million if you want to go with only right wing). 1 in 300,000 people going violent is an incredibly small fraction of the population, easily small enough to be considered as fringe outliers.
Trump said stuff that obviously was going to rile people up. It's less clear if it was obvious his commentary would rile people up to such an extent the most extreme of them would engage in violence and insurrection.
Then you have to ask, even if it was obvious, at what point does it go from being okay to promote something you believe to be correct/just/good, when you're aware that it's contentious and a charged topic of any kind, and that strong rhetoric will lead to the potential for dramatic, potentially violent action?
That's quite a series of questions, none of which have obvious answers, some of which do not have an answer, that need to have been gone through before one arrives at the conclusions about Trump that you did.
That said, Trump deserved to be removed from office or at a minimum not be elected again, but not for the reasons you gave.
-----------
It's worth noting that if the claim is being made that Trump caused the insurrection, then it absolutely follows that various mainstream organizations pushing CRT narratives caused the BLM riots, which were significantly more damaging and violent (and like the capitol charge, most of the violence was perpetuated by fringe outliers). At that point, the only remaining discussion is about how justified the motives for either riot or riot set was.
|
What's far more damning than if he intended or not was him refusing to take action after it had begun. There's no way to spin that decision. At all.
|
United States44201 Posts
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here.
|
On February 14 2021 06:37 NewSunshine wrote:
McConnell gives the neatest demonstration I can imagine that Republicans literally don't care about morals. They successfully identify what is morally right and wrong, and refuse to let that affect their decision making in a historic attack on the US capitol.
Anytime you find yourself talking about a large group of people, especially 40% of a population, and the only way you can understand what they are doing is to say either that "they are bad" OR "they are stupid".....you're probably wrong.
Comments like these are why it's largely a waste of time to discuss politics in most public spaces. If the best you have to explain or understand the actions of conservatives is "they don't care about morals" it's painfully obvious you haven't done even a modicum of research or discussion to try and understand conservative thought or motivations
+ Show Spoiler +
You are, in essence, having a discussion about the imaginary incentives and goals of conservatives, rather than the actual ones. Such discussion is neither productive nor interesting.
|
On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here.
I haven't followed it closely because it's not really interesting in any way, but if that is genuinely how they argued....then yes, that's quite absurd.
On February 14 2021 07:04 Nevuk wrote:
What's far more damning than if he intended or not was him refusing to take action after it had begun. There's no way to spin that decision. At all.
Also didn't really follow closely because a couple hundred people out of the entire population of the nation storming the Capitol after months of being literally told from various media sources that the election was rigged by evil liberals who want to destroy the country was an overwhelming statement on how peaceful this country remains.
But yes, if he took no action I agree that's a failure on his end. I seem to recall him asking for demonstrators to be peaceful, but I'm not especially confident of that.
|
Geez the next republican president is going to be scary, with trump getting away with a failed coup the next one has basically a blank check to do what they want. All with there fantasy of this imagined voter fraud it is not long where they just decide they want to pick a winner. Already seen them try with Arizona.
|
The Republicans hiding behind the bullshit claim that impeaching a former President is unconstitutional is them having their cake and eating it too. They can distance themselves from and condemn the actions of Trump and his rabid base without actually alienating and making enemies out of Trump and his base. Anyone who believes this is blind or dishonest as far as I'm converned.
|
Fearing mail in fraud is not correct, nor did Trump fear it because he encouraged mail-in voting in Florida. I'm sure it had nothing to do with Florida generally voting R... /s
Plus he actively tried to disrupt mail in voting through interference in the postal service.
His lawyers were trying to argue they couldn't witness the count, until the judge strait up asked and the lawyer shamefully had to say that they had a non-0 amount of people watching.
He told the Proud Boys to "Stand down and stand by". And they listened and stood ready and then acted.
Spin it whatever way makes you sleep at night. An outgoing President instigated an attack on the Capitol in an attempt to overturn a lawful election and despite having to run for their lives Republican politicians (and apparently some 70% of R voters) yet stand behind him.
At this point its a matter of time until an actual competent Fascist takes control of the US.
|
|
|
Another simple fact about the second impeachment was that the House, in such a rush to get the articles in before the end of the term, didn't bother to investigate before the trial. Or rather, didn't investigate before askingfor a trial.
This is such a beautiful paradox. First delay the process so it can't reach a conclusion before Trump leaves office, then claim he can't be convicted BECAUSE he had already left office AND criticize the house for moving too quickly.
The only concern is that Trump got 74 million votes, by far the 2nd most any US party has received in any election. In some twisted way, what they did is actually quite democratic...
|
And the thing is if trump had fallowed the Insurgents like he said was in the coup i think he still would of got off. Seen the joke thrown around how trump could shoot someone on the street and get away with it and at this point that is probably true. Sky is the limit at this point.
|
On February 14 2021 07:18 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 07:04 KwarK wrote:
Their arguments were absurd too. Impeachment is an explicitly political rather than criminal affair. The question is whether the politician has failed in the duty to the public, not whether they broke the law. Trump’s lawyers attempted to argue that what Trump did wasn’t criminal but that’s wholly beside the point because nobody was claiming it was. You don’t have a constitutional right not to be impeached for your speech, only to not be arrested for it.
They basically went full “only god can judge” when the constitution explicitly gives them the right to judge here. I haven't followed it closely because it's not really interesting in any way, but if that is genuinely how they argued....then yes, that's quite absurd. Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 07:04 Nevuk wrote:
What's far more damning than if he intended or not was him refusing to take action after it had begun. There's no way to spin that decision. At all. Also didn't really follow closely because a couple hundred people out of the entire population of the nation storming the Capitol after months of being literally told from various media sources that the election was rigged by evil liberals who want to destroy the country was an overwhelming statement on how peaceful this country remains. But yes, if he took no action I agree that's a failure on his end. I seem to recall him asking for demonstrators to be peaceful, but I'm not especially confident of that.
Last thing they added to the record was testimony of a house republican that she witnessed McCarthy calling Trump and begging him to issue a statement to call the insurrectionists off, stating they would listen to him. He refused and said "they care more about the election than you" to McCarthy.
|
On February 14 2021 07:13 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2021 06:37 NewSunshine wrote:
McConnell gives the neatest demonstration I can imagine that Republicans literally don't care about morals. They successfully identify what is morally right and wrong, and refuse to let that affect their decision making in a historic attack on the US capitol. Anytime you find yourself talking about a large group of people, especially 40% of a population, and the only way you can understand what they are doing is to say either that "they are bad" OR "they are stupid".....you're probably wrong. Comments like these are why it's largely a waste of time to discuss politics in most public spaces. If the best you have to explain or understand the actions of conservatives is "they don't care about morals" it's painfully obvious you haven't done even a modicum of research or discussion to try and understand conservative thought or motivations + Show Spoiler +You are, in essence, having a discussion about the imaginary incentives and goals of conservatives, rather than the actual ones. Such discussion is neither productive nor interesting.
...I'm taking about Republicans in Congress. I apologise if that wasn't clear from context, but my previous posts should've clarified that as well. I'm not coming for just anyone on the internet who identifies as a let down conservative or anything. You're reading something in my comment that isn't there.
|
I wish they'd called witnesses not so that Trump would have gotten impeached, but so that we could get some of the MANY outstanding questions issued :
1.Was it really Pence who finally permitted calling up the national guard and not Trump?
2.Did Trump delay calling up the national guard? Many reports indicate yes, but nothing that ties him to the decision.
3. (similar to 2) Why were the national guard initially denied permission to quell the coup attempt? Who gave that order?
4.Why were the capitol police so low on manpower?
5.Why were a at least a couple of police helping the rioters (really, just taking selfies with them)?
6.How did intelligence miss this, or was intelligence found and then ignored?
All of that and anymore were things investigated for 9/11, and I would expect them to be being asked here as well, though I don't know if they have a commission set up on it already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
