|
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 |
On March 06 2022 01:40 WombaT wrote:
Regardless of how close, or not things came, it’s the fact that Trump could very conceivably be the nominee next time around.
Irrespective of things like criminal censure, he should be at least a political pariah, wholly unelectable. Which is demonstrably not the case.
It’s not like candidate Trump wasn’t problematic as all hell, but I could see how some of rhetoric definitely would appeal to certain groups of people, in legitimate ways on occasion.
It’s been 6 years of incompetence and moral bankruptcy in equal measure and well, people seem fine with it. But they also don’t want to be criticised for being fine with it, which is the rather odd part.
One can be a conservative and not vote Trump, or indeed reluctantly vote Trump in a lesser of no evils scenario, and also say, not defend his ‘stop the steal’ crusade.
Such things are eminently possible
I agree with everything you've said, and I think I'm even more worried about the fact that Trump has set a precedent that such behavior is acceptable - and even condoned - as a leader of the Republican party. Even if Trump loses the primary, he'd be losing to Ron DeSantis. Would a President DeSantis really be that much better? I honestly have no idea; he could even be worse than Trump. And then even when those two are gone, there's another one, and then another one. Their party is full of MTGs and Boeberts and other crazy, vile politicians. I don't know if playing whack-a-mole or cutting the head off a hydra is a more apt analogy, but I'm really worried about how it's not just about Trump anymore. Being Trump-like is how you win most Republican primaries.
|
On March 05 2022 13:40 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2022 12:59 Doc.Rivers wrote:
I dare say that Trump stayed within the bounds of the law. Thus why the DOJ has not charged him, despite charging 700 others. He filed lawsuits, as opposed to calling in the national guard or the military. Neutral judges rejected those lawsuits. Even if Pence had acted out on January 6th, the states would presumably have just sent the electors back to dc. Or the Supreme court would have stepped in. Mostly what Trump did was to leave things up to judges. Then the crowd got out of hand on Jan 6th. But there is a reason the DOJ, after a thorough investigation and more than a year, has not charged Trump. Mate, you gotta stop shrugging off the events. Trump spent weeks lying to not just his supporters but the entire country about a stolen election. Like why even downplay this at all? There's a thousand thousand reasons why Trump deserves the gutter, why pontificate the technicalities? The DOJ can't prosecute someone on pure lunacy, that's not an argument
I would not say that I shrugged off the events, but I did say that Trump probably didn't do anything illegal. You cite his lying about a very serious issue, but that's just not enough. People need to ask themselves why thr garland DOJ has not charged Trump. It's not because the DOJ is staffed by Republican partisans who have been brainwashed by fox news.
|
On March 06 2022 03:27 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2022 13:40 Husyelt wrote:On March 05 2022 12:59 Doc.Rivers wrote:
I dare say that Trump stayed within the bounds of the law. Thus why the DOJ has not charged him, despite charging 700 others. He filed lawsuits, as opposed to calling in the national guard or the military. Neutral judges rejected those lawsuits. Even if Pence had acted out on January 6th, the states would presumably have just sent the electors back to dc. Or the Supreme court would have stepped in. Mostly what Trump did was to leave things up to judges. Then the crowd got out of hand on Jan 6th. But there is a reason the DOJ, after a thorough investigation and more than a year, has not charged Trump. Mate, you gotta stop shrugging off the events. Trump spent weeks lying to not just his supporters but the entire country about a stolen election. Like why even downplay this at all? There's a thousand thousand reasons why Trump deserves the gutter, why pontificate the technicalities? The DOJ can't prosecute someone on pure lunacy, that's not an argument I would not say that I shrugged off the events, but I did say that Trump probably didn't do anything illegal. You cite his lying about a very serious issue, but that's just not enough. People need to ask themselves why thr garland DOJ has not charged Trump. It's not because the DOJ is staffed by Republican partisans who have been brainwashed by fox news.
Trump did several things that were illegal, starting with the fact that Trump literally called states he lost and asked their leaders for enough free, non-existent votes to flip those states. He literally tried rigging the election.
The question isn't whether or not Trump did anything illegal; it's well-documented that he did, and we're way past that question. The relevant questions are things like "Why isn't he being charged for the illegal things he did" or "How much more illegal crap would Trump have needed to do, before being finally charged?"
|
One thing that’s great is all the whataboutism we used to see whenever someone would criticize Russia is completely out the window at this point. There is zero fuzziness around the idea of “who is better for the world? USA or Russia?” despite what edgelords on Twitter tried to push. There were times where there was enough fuzziness that their terrible little rants felt like they were slightly credible. It’s dead in the dirt. I am just so glad that politics can finally be discussed without having to address “well Russia is actually the good guys”.
|
On March 06 2022 10:59 Mohdoo wrote:
One thing that’s great is all the whataboutism we used to see whenever someone would criticize Russia is completely out the window at this point. There is zero fuzziness around the idea of “who is better for the world? USA or Russia?” despite what edgelords on Twitter tried to push. There were times where there was enough fuzziness that their terrible little rants felt like they were slightly credible. It’s dead in the dirt. I am just so glad that politics can finally be discussed without having to address “well Russia is actually the good guys”.
I loved watching Tucker Carlson do a 180 and pretend he never supported Russia.
|
I wonder if the people inside the FOX News sphere (that is, the people who watch it regularly. Who have it on in the background) even noticed. I suspect it's a "we have always been at war with Eastasia" situation.
|
On March 07 2022 08:39 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2022 10:59 Mohdoo wrote:
One thing that’s great is all the whataboutism we used to see whenever someone would criticize Russia is completely out the window at this point. There is zero fuzziness around the idea of “who is better for the world? USA or Russia?” despite what edgelords on Twitter tried to push. There were times where there was enough fuzziness that their terrible little rants felt like they were slightly credible. It’s dead in the dirt. I am just so glad that politics can finally be discussed without having to address “well Russia is actually the good guys”. I loved watching Tucker Carlson do a 180 and pretend he never supported Russia.
Tucker is the the literal replacements for They Live, or Society. He's not a person with opinions, it is playing it's part and will do another 180 turn if the cable news demands it. He's not a real human being, he is just another... thing. Long live the new flesh, eh Tucker?
|
On March 06 2022 03:27 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2022 13:40 Husyelt wrote:On March 05 2022 12:59 Doc.Rivers wrote:
I dare say that Trump stayed within the bounds of the law. Thus why the DOJ has not charged him, despite charging 700 others. He filed lawsuits, as opposed to calling in the national guard or the military. Neutral judges rejected those lawsuits. Even if Pence had acted out on January 6th, the states would presumably have just sent the electors back to dc. Or the Supreme court would have stepped in. Mostly what Trump did was to leave things up to judges. Then the crowd got out of hand on Jan 6th. But there is a reason the DOJ, after a thorough investigation and more than a year, has not charged Trump. Mate, you gotta stop shrugging off the events. Trump spent weeks lying to not just his supporters but the entire country about a stolen election. Like why even downplay this at all? There's a thousand thousand reasons why Trump deserves the gutter, why pontificate the technicalities? The DOJ can't prosecute someone on pure lunacy, that's not an argument I would not say that I shrugged off the events, but I did say that Trump probably didn't do anything illegal. You cite his lying about a very serious issue, but that's just not enough. People need to ask themselves why thr garland DOJ has not charged Trump. It's not because the DOJ is staffed by Republican partisans who have been brainwashed by fox news.
The Jan 6th mob was chasing one black officer down the other direction of a hallway from getting to congress people there to certify the election. Even if Trump had nothing to do with it, they were there for him and he was incredibly lax in stopping them. The smallest amount of competency on either the mob's part, or supposed interaction with a head of state, would have been all that was needed for a absolute tragedy.
|
I don't think the mob was going to start slaughtering politicians if they came into contact. At the least the mob would have brought weapons if that was true.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah a couple people built a gallows for show, one guy brought bear spray, a couple people had stun guns, others had flagpoles. Still it was more of an unruly mob than an ISIS terror cell. When they actually made it to politicians, they got very quickly stopped by the people who were armed (the police).
|
You don't want to brush it aside and then do it anyway.
If secret service shooting and therebykill killing an insurrectionist who was trying to get to the Congresspeople is not enough of a sign for danger to life for you, I really don't know what is.
And also: just no
On March 08 2022 07:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Yeah a couple people built a gallows for show, one guy brought bear spray, a couple people had stun guns, others had flagpoles. Still it was more of an unruly mob than an ISIS terror cell. When they actually made it to politicians, they got very quickly stopped by the people who were armed (the police).
This post just shows how disingenuous you appear to me (or simply unaware of facts, that works too).
|
On March 08 2022 07:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Yeah a couple people built a gallows for show, one guy brought bear spray, a couple people had stun guns, others had flagpoles. Still it was more of an unruly mob than an ISIS terror cell. When they actually made it to politicians, they got very quickly stopped by the people who were armed (the police).
They literally planted bombs in the area. The idea that these violent rioters weren't interested in hurting people is simply false.
|
On March 08 2022 08:11 Artisreal wrote:You don't want to brush it aside and then do it anyway. If secret service shooting and therebykill killing an insurrectionist who was trying to get to the Congresspeople is not enough of a sign for danger to life for you, I really don't know what is. And also: just no Show nested quote +On March 08 2022 07:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Yeah a couple people built a gallows for show, one guy brought bear spray, a couple people had stun guns, others had flagpoles. Still it was more of an unruly mob than an ISIS terror cell. When they actually made it to politicians, they got very quickly stopped by the people who were armed (the police). This post just shows how disingenuous you appear to me (or simply unaware of facts, that works too).
Always fun when people trot out the "bad faith" or "disingenuous" arguments online in order to express strong disagreement. But it is a reasonable conclusion from the available facts that the mob was not there to slaughter politicians and would not have started slaughtering politicians if they came into contact.
|
On March 08 2022 08:58 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2022 08:11 Artisreal wrote:You don't want to brush it aside and then do it anyway. If secret service shooting and therebykill killing an insurrectionist who was trying to get to the Congresspeople is not enough of a sign for danger to life for you, I really don't know what is. And also: just no On March 08 2022 07:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Yeah a couple people built a gallows for show, one guy brought bear spray, a couple people had stun guns, others had flagpoles. Still it was more of an unruly mob than an ISIS terror cell. When they actually made it to politicians, they got very quickly stopped by the people who were armed (the police). This post just shows how disingenuous you appear to me (or simply unaware of facts, that works too). Always fun when people trot out the "bad faith" or "disingenuous" arguments online in order to express strong disagreement. But it is a reasonable conclusion from the available facts that the mob was not there to slaughter politicians and would not have started slaughtering politicians if they came into contact.
Yes, I’m sure they would have just stopped at beating a cop to death. Beating him to death was just for show, right? They totally just wanted to say mean things to the politicians.
|
It wasn't serious, but it was.
If it was they would have been armed, and they were.
More an angry mob than an ISIS terrorist cell, but planted bombs and made elected officials cower in fear due to a political aim.
Based on facts they weren't there to kill, but they did.
This is why people think you're full of hot air on this issue.
|
United States43627 Posts
On March 08 2022 07:26 Doc.Rivers wrote:
I don't think the mob was going to start slaughtering politicians if they came into contact. At the least the mob would have brought weapons if that was true.
They did. You’ve not been paying attention.
|
Northern Ireland26304 Posts
On March 08 2022 08:58 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2022 08:11 Artisreal wrote:You don't want to brush it aside and then do it anyway. If secret service shooting and therebykill killing an insurrectionist who was trying to get to the Congresspeople is not enough of a sign for danger to life for you, I really don't know what is. And also: just no On March 08 2022 07:57 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Yeah a couple people built a gallows for show, one guy brought bear spray, a couple people had stun guns, others had flagpoles. Still it was more of an unruly mob than an ISIS terror cell. When they actually made it to politicians, they got very quickly stopped by the people who were armed (the police). This post just shows how disingenuous you appear to me (or simply unaware of facts, that works too). Always fun when people trot out the "bad faith" or "disingenuous" arguments online in order to express strong disagreement. But it is a reasonable conclusion from the available facts that the mob was not there to slaughter politicians and would not have started slaughtering politicians if they came into contact.
Not every reasonable conclusion needs to be stated.
Be they swept up by the adrenaline, the emotion, as so often happens with mobs, or if there were a pre-meditated intent to cause harm, there was certainly sufficient probable, nay likely risk of considerable physical harm to legislators.
Much as I find them largely reprehensible, misguided, or both, I would consider absolutely the vast majority weren’t going there to kill people.
Whether correct or not, this point you made has no actual link to the possibility that some of them, if they’d got close very much plausibly could have, and IMO would have.
We’ve had a few high-profile assassinations of legislators over here in the U.K. in recent years, by lone wolf types. In a U.K. that, while also trending that way has at least a considerably less toxic political environment, dangerous rhetoric from the media and leadership than that in the United States.
In a wider more poisionous political environment, in the middle of a mob who only turned out because they believed an election was stolen, to the degree they stormed the Capitol environment. With people who had not just lethal weapons, but other delights indicative of some sort of intent like cable ties. Some of whom were chanting delightfully about hanging folks.
In that environment, legislators weren’t in genuine jeopardy?
There’s such a confluence of common-sense breadcrumbs leading to the opposite conclusion that your assessment of cause, effect and risk is beyond questionable, at least as it pertains to this, or you are arguing in bad faith.
I don’t see any other reasonable conclusion I can draw here.
|
As with everything else to do with Trump, many are prone to exaggerate the events of Jan 6th. The allegation that the crowd had intent to kill politicians, or was certain to do so, is one example. They were there to try to stop the certification of electors, not kill people. All of the known facts are consistent with that interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
