|
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 December 21 2023 10:08 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2023 07:16 StasisField wrote:On December 21 2023 06:11 JimmiC wrote:On December 21 2023 06:09 raynpelikoneet wrote:On December 21 2023 05:52 JimmiC wrote:
I've been thinking about the supreme courts up coming decision on Trump and I think strategically for the Republicans it makes sense for them to rule Trump out. This would allow them to claim that the Supreme court is not in their pocket. It would allow them to run less of a insane candidate and one that will further their parties goals while keeping basically all the Trump voters, since they didn't choose to not have him, the candidate promises can even promise to pardon Trump. This would fire up his base and the general Republicans because those who love Trump are really mad and those who are holding their nose up or not voting now can.
Basically it gives the Reps all the positives Trump gives them without all the baggage. I don't think this would get to Trump voters. I don't understand what you mean. You think if Trump is held off the ballot they won't rally behind the guy blaming the Dems and promising a pardon and scorched earth? I think the GOP voters would rally behind whoever the nom is but independent voters wouldn't vote for the guy whose running on pardoning a traitor to the country. If Trump is convicted in one of his criminal trials or if SCOTUS decides he can be left off ballots, the GOP loses 2024 full stop. I think this is somewhat common misunderstanding. It is just overall impression I got from some random tweets (sorry I dont store them, so unable to provide links), but Trump voters arent Republican voters, they are Trump voters. From what I've seen it seems their issue is that many (if not all) in Republican party are RINO (similarly as BRINO in UK - dunno which came first) and they arent willing to do, or change anything, beside maybe writing strongly worded letter. This touches a bit on discussion I had with Kwark in EU thread and overall GH stance - people think system doesnt work (for them). Some withdraw like GH and some trying to make it work (or break, or express their dismay, or whatever else), for those that didnt withdraw, Trump is kinda like a rallying point - somewhat outsider in political system so they believe him when he promises to change things. It is worth noting that at the same time when Trump show up also Bernie had massive surge. This year Kennedy wasnt doing bad in polls, despite running against sitting president and against party wishes, more so I've seen many Trump voters (again random tweets so cant provide links) claiming that their dream team would be Trump + Kennedy as his running mate - does that seem like people who will vote republicans? Dems do not help themselves having generally Kwark attitude (to be clear: Kwark is among the posters here, which I consider worth paying attention to) "we are better than they are, they are just pathetic idiots" - not exactly votes winning stance. What I am trying to say (and also TLDR) - people go to Trump, because they feel like they have nowhere else to go.
This is just wrong. You can wake up any day of your life and decide that you're not going to go along with trump anymore. You're allowed to change your mind and do something else. The people whos ego and sense of self is so small that they can't acept even the idea that they may have been wrong at any time are not people you have empathy for. GH is slowly just now coming to the realization that even if trump gets elected most people arn't going to change their values fundementally. You can wake up any day and realize "Hey women are people and human beings have value." becoming a better person in an instant.
Bud light sent one can to someone and they went on a historic national tantrum. These are not rational people who have no where else to go these are people who don't want to go anywhere else but with the guy who wants to deport the vermin who is posioning the blood of the nation. The plan to solve immigration with mass roundups, concentration camps, and complete deportations is the only actual policy presented so far. We don't get to have debates anymore about what to do about the economy beacuse republicans refuse to have anything to debate about.
Argentina should be a part of the campaign next year. They want to dollarize and it would cost about $40 billion dollars to do it. It will only work right if there is a deal negotiated between Us and them to make it functional on that scale of an economy. dollarization has worked in nations but only if there is more inflows of dollars than outflows. I genuinely think argetina is a one trillion dollar economy by the end of the decade if it is allowed the stability of the US dollar. Securing its lithium deposits for batteries in exchange for its oil, gas, and said lithium to not ruin its economy is the basis for an incredible relationship. The terms of this deal should be negotiated on the campaign trail to see what real people think about what this means for us and what we are willing to pay to make it happen. Its a deal that can only be negotiated by the state department but being in an election year a finalized deal can't be signed until what is known about the next term. Do you think if someone walked up to trump right now with a globe that he could find argentina on it? Do you think he will be able to for a single second understand this paragraph? A republican brain would see the line of "it would cost about $40 billion to do it" and just say no to the whole thing. Instead a much more valuable use of our time to them is to ask if the new Minnesotan flag is too much like Somalia's flag or debating who gets to be considered a person and who doesn't.
|
On December 21 2023 01:26 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2023 00:11 Introvert wrote:On December 20 2023 19:04 Magic Powers wrote:On December 20 2023 15:56 Introvert wrote:On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). It doesn't have to be bipartisan, I don't know when that will happen again, but esp in political cases the legal arguments need to be airtight. They keep going after Trump with flimsy or outright absurd lawsuits, and for people who claim to care about "democracy" and "norms" they continue to push boundaries. I've harped on this a lot in this thread so idk about repeating it again. I think there's an argument for impeaching Trump after Jan 6 for dereliction of duty, perhaps. But his opponents always pick the worst arguments. So it doesn't matter if the entire court or jury consisted of Republicans, the cases themselves are ridiculous. And don't worry about burning olive branches, I've sparred with Kwark more than enough over the Russiagate retcon dems have done. As the adage goes, "Republicans act like they will never win another election, Democrats act like they will never lose one." On December 20 2023 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time! It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem? When dems interfered in GOP primaries across the country two years ago (and they started before that) people in this thread were defending it as a sound strategic maneuver. I have no doubt that the mass of partisan dem voters actually believe that, say, the NY case (the one that caused Trump's standing in the primary to rise significantly) is legitimate. but the people in power or activists do this stuff know what they are doing. And we haven't even touched on double standards (here I will only mention the name of Hillary Clinton). You can parse individual instances if you like but between every stupid thing they've thrown at Trump pretty much the entire Dem apparatus is implicated. Starting way back in 2016 when they wanted to run against him. if the politicians and lawyers in the party actually believed he was a danger to democracy they would act like it. I don't think I've ever said "X deserves Trump contesting the election because of Y" but there is certainly a tit for tat in other areas. The quote I ended my response to Fleetfeet with is also appropriate here. I'd like to understand the underlined part better. Could you elaborate on what the Dems failed to do that would - in their minds - prevent the deconstruction of democracy? What things would they do if they actually believed the threat was real? What are they (not) doing instead? I'm asking mainly for concrete examples of their failure to act. They focus obsessively on every little thing and flood the zone with noise instead of making their strongest case in a calm and passionate manner. It's more rage than anything. Second, they would moderate in an attempt to "save democracy." Instesd, their posture throughout the Trump years was "Trump is a fascist so you have to vote for us no matter what else we believe." Thst might be a Kwarkian attitude but it wouldn't be a very productive one. Third, they would cease elevating Trump-adjacent pols in an effort to run against them. Clearly, at least to me, such maneuvers are cynical and undermine the urgent threat they profess Trump and his acolytes to be. On December 20 2023 22:44 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 15:56 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). It doesn't have to be bipartisan, I don't know when that will happen again, but esp in political cases the legal arguments need to be airtight. They keep going after Trump with flimsy or outright absurd lawsuits, and for people who claim to care about "democracy" and "norms" they continue to push boundaries. I've harped on this a lot in this thread so idk about repeating it again. I think there's an argument for impeaching Trump after Jan 6 for dereliction of duty, perhaps. But his opponents always pick the worst arguments. So it doesn't matter if the entire court or jury consisted of Republicans, the cases themselves are ridiculous. And don't worry about burning olive branches, I've sparred with Kwark more than enough over the Russiagate retcon dems have done. As the adage goes, "Republicans act like they will never win another election, Democrats act like they will never lose one." On December 20 2023 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time! It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem? When dems interfered in GOP primaries across the country two years ago (and they started before that) people in this thread were defending it as a sound strategic maneuver. I have no doubt that the mass of partisan dem voters actually believe that, say, the NY case (the one that caused Trump's standing in the primary to rise significantly) is legitimate. but the people in power or activists do this stuff know what they are doing. And we haven't even touched on double standards (here I will only mention the name of Hillary Clinton). You can parse individual instances if you like but between every stupid thing they've thrown at Trump pretty much the entire Dem apparatus is implicated. Starting way back in 2016 when they wanted to run against him. if the politicians and lawyers in the party actually believed he was a danger to democracy they would act like it. I don't think I've ever said "X deserves Trump contesting the election because of Y" but there is certainly a tit for tat in other areas. The quote I ended my response to Fleetfeet with is also appropriate here. Yes, I remember when the Dems intentionally elevated Mastriano in the PA governor race. Specifically I believe they ran an ad equating Mastriano to Trump during the primary (presumably so Trump-loving Republicans would vote for him). I know that really upset you, I recognize the grievance in play. What’s that got to do with this though? The DNC isn’t charging Trump with felonies to elevate him because the DNC isn’t a law enforcement agency. Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis and the DOJ aren’t charging Trump as part of some grand scheme to manipulate the Republican presidential primary, they’re doing it because it’s their job to decide what conduct in their jurisdiction rises to the level to merit criminal charges. In Bragg’s case I can see why you’d think he chose poorly, and I appreciate you throwing out a “but her emails” for old times’ sake, but foundationally, you either think Trump should be above the law or he shouldn’t be. If he shouldn’t be, he’s entitled to his day in court like anybody else but it’s transparently obvious some of his actions merit criminal charges. + Show Spoiler [aside] +I dug up the post I was thinking of. It was actually that they were too mean to Mike Flynn, so you didn’t “want to hear complaints about” Trump failing to peacefully transfer power. On November 26 2020 13:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 11:50 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 11:33 Introvert wrote:
Took a thread break, but just have to express my happiness that Flynn was pardoned. Besides Trump himself, he may have been the first and most wronged individual coming out of the Russian Collusion nonsense. At the very least that injustice will not be allowed to stand. He was literally an agent of a foreign government and advancing their interests over American interests as national security advisor? What reality are you from? He’s guilty of a capital offence. They should have hanged him. And even if that story is 100% accurate that has what to do with the farce of trying to first get him on the Logan Act (good idea, Joe Biden!). They were clearly out to get him from the very start. Another reason I don't want to hear complaints about "peaceful transitions of power." The last president hobbled the current one from before he was even sworn in. This is a good day. The fact you would eagerly inflict another Trump term on the entire country as punishment against various media, politicians, and law enforcement agencies you have grievances against is illuminating though. Supporting Trump (especially in his “vermin” and “blood poisoning” phase) is less puzzling if you were already, independently, a believer in collective punishment. Both Bragg and Willis are elected officers and are 100% acting out with political motivations. Sorry, I don't give them the ebenefit of the doubt, esp since I think Bragg campaigned on getting Trump. There is a reason his predecessor declined that case (and Bragg initially didn't want to bring it either once elected, but faced an internal staff revolt). That quote of mine doesn't say what you think it says. Flynn was railroaded, even if he shouldn't have been nat sec advisor. The "resistance" inside the FBI and DOJ used their powers to go after him just for being Trump's guy. So yes, that's reason 254748 why I'm not interested in hearing about dictatorship and fascism from dems. **** As a quick note wrt to Trumps's continued popularity. The issue is a lot of Republicans thought he was a good president and thought life was better under him, so they are going to pick him again. Some might be "own the libs" but for the normal voters it really is that simple. I wish it wasn't, but it is. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, however I find the answer lacking. I was asking for concrete examples, meaning specific things that the Dems did or didn't do. Specific votes, specific policies, either of specific members of the DNC (and perhaps the RNC if necessary) or of the party at large. Recorded actions that can be traced back and understood in the context of history. I'm not asking for a summary of their actions, but for a select few examples that I can then look up and research to see what exactly went down, and how that relates to their express fear of the deconstruction of democracy in the US.
Sorry I'm late on this and it's getting late over here.
The first thing I mentioned I think is demonstrated by the volume of stories that turned out to be false or misleading about the Trump administration. Also, things like the "outrage" when Trump called the cartel traffickers animals. They used the flimsiest things to get worked up about, if Trump were actually a dictator-in-waiting they would have focused on the dicatorial stuff.
Second, the dem party as a whole hasn't moderated a single position on a a major issue, that I can think of. Even though Biden ran as a moderate, he and the party are left of where they were even in 2016 and refuse to offer olive branches to those used to be Dem voters but have found the party moving away from them in recent years. if anyone can think of a single major issue dems have tilted back towards the center on I'd love to be reminded of it. Biden is only "moderate" in the sense that he's not moving left as fast as some in the party.
Third, you could easily, or I could find tomorrow I suppose, the many stories of dems interfering in GOP primaries to elevate MAGA candidates. As ChristianS mentioned, there was the GOV race in PA, as well as some House and Senate races. One race that comes to mind immediately is that of Peter Meijer in MI. Here was a moderate, even-keeled Republican who voted to certify the election, and Dems spent money in the primary to elevate his opposite so they could run against that guy in a close district.
Dems don't act like they think we are sprinting towards totalitarianism so I don't believe it when they say it.
if that's not what you were asking for I apologize
|
GH is slowly just now coming to the realization that even if trump gets elected most people arn't going to change their values fundementally.
Is this supposed to be a reference to my realization that despite Democrats supposedly believing Trump is a megalomaniacal fascist that will destroy US democracy and install himself as a dictator, they would still willingly hand him the nuclear football?
That Democrats entire plan to prevent that is to voteshame and threaten people?
Or maybe that their plan to take power back from a megalomaniacal fascist that destroyed US democracy + Show Spoiler +(should the polls, Democrats, and odds be right and Trump wins)
|
Biden is in denial anyway. In my opinion it looks like there are two ways in which Trump doesn't become president again:
1. He gets disqualified, locked up, assassinated, or otherwise legally or physically prevented from becoming president
2. Biden doesn't run again, and a better candidate runs against Trump instead.
|
On December 21 2023 15:29 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2023 01:26 Magic Powers wrote:On December 21 2023 00:11 Introvert wrote:On December 20 2023 19:04 Magic Powers wrote:On December 20 2023 15:56 Introvert wrote:On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). It doesn't have to be bipartisan, I don't know when that will happen again, but esp in political cases the legal arguments need to be airtight. They keep going after Trump with flimsy or outright absurd lawsuits, and for people who claim to care about "democracy" and "norms" they continue to push boundaries. I've harped on this a lot in this thread so idk about repeating it again. I think there's an argument for impeaching Trump after Jan 6 for dereliction of duty, perhaps. But his opponents always pick the worst arguments. So it doesn't matter if the entire court or jury consisted of Republicans, the cases themselves are ridiculous. And don't worry about burning olive branches, I've sparred with Kwark more than enough over the Russiagate retcon dems have done. As the adage goes, "Republicans act like they will never win another election, Democrats act like they will never lose one." On December 20 2023 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time! It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem? When dems interfered in GOP primaries across the country two years ago (and they started before that) people in this thread were defending it as a sound strategic maneuver. I have no doubt that the mass of partisan dem voters actually believe that, say, the NY case (the one that caused Trump's standing in the primary to rise significantly) is legitimate. but the people in power or activists do this stuff know what they are doing. And we haven't even touched on double standards (here I will only mention the name of Hillary Clinton). You can parse individual instances if you like but between every stupid thing they've thrown at Trump pretty much the entire Dem apparatus is implicated. Starting way back in 2016 when they wanted to run against him. if the politicians and lawyers in the party actually believed he was a danger to democracy they would act like it. I don't think I've ever said "X deserves Trump contesting the election because of Y" but there is certainly a tit for tat in other areas. The quote I ended my response to Fleetfeet with is also appropriate here. I'd like to understand the underlined part better. Could you elaborate on what the Dems failed to do that would - in their minds - prevent the deconstruction of democracy? What things would they do if they actually believed the threat was real? What are they (not) doing instead? I'm asking mainly for concrete examples of their failure to act. They focus obsessively on every little thing and flood the zone with noise instead of making their strongest case in a calm and passionate manner. It's more rage than anything. Second, they would moderate in an attempt to "save democracy." Instesd, their posture throughout the Trump years was "Trump is a fascist so you have to vote for us no matter what else we believe." Thst might be a Kwarkian attitude but it wouldn't be a very productive one. Third, they would cease elevating Trump-adjacent pols in an effort to run against them. Clearly, at least to me, such maneuvers are cynical and undermine the urgent threat they profess Trump and his acolytes to be. On December 20 2023 22:44 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 15:56 Introvert wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2023 10:24 Fleetfeet wrote:
What would a legal proceeding against Trump have to look like for it to come across as a bi-partisan effort? Like I assume any rational actor would conclude that Trump has done some shady shit and proceedings against him do have at least some merit, so what would it take for you (Introvert) to understand the proceedings as bipartisan and just?
For clarity, I haven't followed this and do expect that the Dems and Reps are going to leverage and twist these events however they can. That's how US politics works. I wouldn't expect that the current proceedings are completely clean of Dem pressure, but I do think that pressure is largey irrelevant to the proceedings. We've seen tons of threatened legal-political pressure via 'Biden's laptop' or 'Russiagate' or whatever, which has consistently seemed to show justice working as intended (no evidence - no consequence). It doesn't have to be bipartisan, I don't know when that will happen again, but esp in political cases the legal arguments need to be airtight. They keep going after Trump with flimsy or outright absurd lawsuits, and for people who claim to care about "democracy" and "norms" they continue to push boundaries. I've harped on this a lot in this thread so idk about repeating it again. I think there's an argument for impeaching Trump after Jan 6 for dereliction of duty, perhaps. But his opponents always pick the worst arguments. So it doesn't matter if the entire court or jury consisted of Republicans, the cases themselves are ridiculous. And don't worry about burning olive branches, I've sparred with Kwark more than enough over the Russiagate retcon dems have done. As the adage goes, "Republicans act like they will never win another election, Democrats act like they will never lose one." On December 20 2023 13:09 ChristianS wrote:On December 20 2023 09:53 Introvert wrote:
Unless the Supreme Court undoes this ASAP, it also makes the GOP nomination a forgone conclusion (it almost was already). Every time Dems try some ridiculous lawfare it works t Trump's benefit in the primary. Heck, even just the talking point is worth gold. I do admit tho if they try all this crap and he ends up winning the presidency again I will take at least some joy in that, the dems who did their best to make sure he was the nominee again deserve nothing more than to lose to him. Something you’ve got in common with sevencck a few pages ago is treating all opposing forces as a single monolithic entity. Who disqualified Trump from the CO ballot? “Dems.” Who charged him with a litany of felonies? “Dems.” Who hyped a Trump-Russia connection, or sued him for defamation, or blocked his travel ban? “Dems.” In your case I guess lumping all these different actors into one entity is necessary to support the “payback” logic you keep falling back on; I vaguely recall in ~December 2020 you were saying Dems “deserve” Trump contesting the election as payback for being too mean to Carter Page or something. Today Trump says immigrants are poisoning the blood of the country or that he’ll be a dictator on Day One, and like clockwork Intro is here to say, well, good! This is justified punishment for [rolls D100, consults table] Al Gore claiming he invented the internet or [rolls again] the Ground Zero Mosque. You’ve been collecting grievances for years, you’re gonna be able to find *something* to blame any transgression on for a good long time! It’s almost certainly true that the Republican primary is sewn up. It has been for months imo. But like, if a DA indicts Trump for criminal mismanagement of classified information because, well, he criminally mismanaged classified information, and Republicans consider that the ultimate overriding reason to definitely make him president… well, it doesn’t seem like the DA is the problem here? People are voting for a criminal fascist, in large part because they’re excited he’s promising to punish all the people they hate. That’s… bad? Why is that not the problem? When dems interfered in GOP primaries across the country two years ago (and they started before that) people in this thread were defending it as a sound strategic maneuver. I have no doubt that the mass of partisan dem voters actually believe that, say, the NY case (the one that caused Trump's standing in the primary to rise significantly) is legitimate. but the people in power or activists do this stuff know what they are doing. And we haven't even touched on double standards (here I will only mention the name of Hillary Clinton). You can parse individual instances if you like but between every stupid thing they've thrown at Trump pretty much the entire Dem apparatus is implicated. Starting way back in 2016 when they wanted to run against him. if the politicians and lawyers in the party actually believed he was a danger to democracy they would act like it. I don't think I've ever said "X deserves Trump contesting the election because of Y" but there is certainly a tit for tat in other areas. The quote I ended my response to Fleetfeet with is also appropriate here. Yes, I remember when the Dems intentionally elevated Mastriano in the PA governor race. Specifically I believe they ran an ad equating Mastriano to Trump during the primary (presumably so Trump-loving Republicans would vote for him). I know that really upset you, I recognize the grievance in play. What’s that got to do with this though? The DNC isn’t charging Trump with felonies to elevate him because the DNC isn’t a law enforcement agency. Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis and the DOJ aren’t charging Trump as part of some grand scheme to manipulate the Republican presidential primary, they’re doing it because it’s their job to decide what conduct in their jurisdiction rises to the level to merit criminal charges. In Bragg’s case I can see why you’d think he chose poorly, and I appreciate you throwing out a “but her emails” for old times’ sake, but foundationally, you either think Trump should be above the law or he shouldn’t be. If he shouldn’t be, he’s entitled to his day in court like anybody else but it’s transparently obvious some of his actions merit criminal charges. + Show Spoiler [aside] +I dug up the post I was thinking of. It was actually that they were too mean to Mike Flynn, so you didn’t “want to hear complaints about” Trump failing to peacefully transfer power. On November 26 2020 13:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2020 11:50 KwarK wrote:On November 26 2020 11:33 Introvert wrote:
Took a thread break, but just have to express my happiness that Flynn was pardoned. Besides Trump himself, he may have been the first and most wronged individual coming out of the Russian Collusion nonsense. At the very least that injustice will not be allowed to stand. He was literally an agent of a foreign government and advancing their interests over American interests as national security advisor? What reality are you from? He’s guilty of a capital offence. They should have hanged him. And even if that story is 100% accurate that has what to do with the farce of trying to first get him on the Logan Act (good idea, Joe Biden!). They were clearly out to get him from the very start. Another reason I don't want to hear complaints about "peaceful transitions of power." The last president hobbled the current one from before he was even sworn in. This is a good day. The fact you would eagerly inflict another Trump term on the entire country as punishment against various media, politicians, and law enforcement agencies you have grievances against is illuminating though. Supporting Trump (especially in his “vermin” and “blood poisoning” phase) is less puzzling if you were already, independently, a believer in collective punishment. Both Bragg and Willis are elected officers and are 100% acting out with political motivations. Sorry, I don't give them the ebenefit of the doubt, esp since I think Bragg campaigned on getting Trump. There is a reason his predecessor declined that case (and Bragg initially didn't want to bring it either once elected, but faced an internal staff revolt). That quote of mine doesn't say what you think it says. Flynn was railroaded, even if he shouldn't have been nat sec advisor. The "resistance" inside the FBI and DOJ used their powers to go after him just for being Trump's guy. So yes, that's reason 254748 why I'm not interested in hearing about dictatorship and fascism from dems. **** As a quick note wrt to Trumps's continued popularity. The issue is a lot of Republicans thought he was a good president and thought life was better under him, so they are going to pick him again. Some might be "own the libs" but for the normal voters it really is that simple. I wish it wasn't, but it is. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, however I find the answer lacking. I was asking for concrete examples, meaning specific things that the Dems did or didn't do. Specific votes, specific policies, either of specific members of the DNC (and perhaps the RNC if necessary) or of the party at large. Recorded actions that can be traced back and understood in the context of history. I'm not asking for a summary of their actions, but for a select few examples that I can then look up and research to see what exactly went down, and how that relates to their express fear of the deconstruction of democracy in the US. Sorry I'm late on this and it's getting late over here. The first thing I mentioned I think is demonstrated by the volume of stories that turned out to be false or misleading about the Trump administration. Also, things like the "outrage" when Trump called the cartel traffickers animals. They used the flimsiest things to get worked up about, if Trump were actually a dictator-in-waiting they would have focused on the dicatorial stuff. Second, the dem party as a whole hasn't moderated a single position on a a major issue, that I can think of. Even though Biden ran as a moderate, he and the party are left of where they were even in 2016 and refuse to offer olive branches to those used to be Dem voters but have found the party moving away from them in recent years. if anyone can think of a single major issue dems have tilted back towards the center on I'd love to be reminded of it. Biden is only "moderate" in the sense that he's not moving left as fast as some in the party. Third, you could easily, or I could find tomorrow I suppose, the many stories of dems interfering in GOP primaries to elevate MAGA candidates. As ChristianS mentioned, there was the GOV race in PA, as well as some House and Senate races. One race that comes to mind immediately is that of Peter Meijer in MI. Here was a moderate, even-keeled Republican who voted to certify the election, and Dems spent money in the primary to elevate his opposite so they could run against that guy in a close district. Dems don't act like they think we are sprinting towards totalitarianism so I don't believe it when they say it. if that's not what you were asking for I apologize
I think this is a very good response, thank you. I can use this as a jumping off point to research more about the opposition to Trump.
I also remember how Dem voters were upset that Sanders was kicked out of the race in favor of H. Clinton. Many have argued that he was way more popular and that he could've mopped the floor with Trump. Clinton failed them. And thus the DNC altogether failed the country because they conspired against Sanders. Of course this contains speculation as the true outcome of Trump vs Sanders can never be known. But there was certainly a lot of disappointment present among Democrat voters because of how the DNC handled the race.
Something to note that I think people in this thread might not be too aware of: a fair number of conservative voters rallied behind Trump not necessarily because they thought he was the best candidate to represent their interests, but rather because they had it in their mind that Clinton had to be defeated at all costs. They thought she was crazy, out of her mind. During those days I was following the conversations among various right-wingers, and this was how some of them viewed it. Of course Trump voters were mostly staunch supporters, but it should not be understated how important the anti-Clinton crowd was for Trump's success. In this way "anyone but him" also applied to conservatives in the form of "anyone but her".
Although it should also be said that Trump had a huge advantage of being a famous TV personality and a lot of money to his name. He also appeared at many more rallies than Clinton did, and this also contributed a great deal to his victory.
|
United States24449 Posts
For what it's worth, Tuberville's genius move to block military promotions (other than individual votes which are infeasible) until the Pentagon reversed an unrelated policy seems to be entirely over, now. He didn't get anything he wanted, although the lingering consequences of the 11 months of holds will be felt for a long time.
|
|
|
On December 21 2023 15:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote + GH is slowly just now coming to the realization that even if trump gets elected most people arn't going to change their values fundementally. Is this supposed to be a reference to my realization that despite Democrats supposedly believing Trump is a megalomaniacal fascist that will destroy US democracy and install himself as a dictator, they would still willingly hand him the nuclear football? That Democrats entire plan to prevent that is to voteshame and threaten people? Or maybe that their plan to take power back from a megalomaniacal fascist that destroyed US democracy + Show Spoiler +(should the polls, Democrats, and odds be right and Trump wins) and installed himself as dictator, is to beat him using the democratic system they assure us he will have destroyed (especially if he's a "day one dictator")?
Yep, because that's called having a belief in something. If you're too afraid of your convictions being wrong that'll you'll violate them to save them, than you never believed in it.
What are you going to do now that you realize that you were talking to people who actually believed what they were saying?
We were also talking about race a few pages ago you want to weigh in on that or no?
|
I do think people are being a little overly fatalistic about Biden’s chances. Like, he’s behind in polls, and that’s bad, but it’s not that big a gap either, and especially when we’re talking about Trump, everyone will surely remember it’s possible to win an election even from fairly big polling deficits. This is especially true for extremely early polling like this, which historically isn’t even all that well correlated with final general election results.
That said I understand the pessimism. In the normal flow of presidential elections, you’d expect Biden to have a significant incumbent advantage. As the election gets closer and voters start paying more attention, it would be up to the challenger to explain who he is and why they shouldn’t be okay with just continuing the status quo. Instead the fascist is already ahead, and as voters tune in the president is going to have to explain why they shouldn’t be okay with replacing him with the fascist.
But I also think part of the problem is the difference in timescale between how long it takes for historical events to play out, and how long it takes to analyze and process the situation. It’s a bit like if your doctor just told you they saw a concerning dark spot on a scan, and they’re gonna send you for additional blood testing, biopsies, etc. – but, unfortunately, you won’t get results for another month. It’s gonna be a rough month, right? You’ve got a lot of time to Google symptoms, and think about what your symptoms have been, and start looking into morbidity rates and imagining what you’d look like without hair, and what you’d still want to do with your life if you only had a year left, and some of that might be healthy if the testing actually turns up something bad. The dark spot might be nothing, and your symptoms might be something completely unrelated, but what are you supposed to do, just try not to think about it?
We’re in a moment of extremely high uncertainty in the short term, and pretty bad prognosis in the medium-long term, so it’s really stressful to not know what’s gonna happen. But unfortunately I don’t think it’s really possible to know what’s gonna happen.
|
United States41383 Posts
On December 21 2023 15:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote + GH is slowly just now coming to the realization that even if trump gets elected most people arn't going to change their values fundementally. Is this supposed to be a reference to my realization that despite Democrats supposedly believing Trump is a megalomaniacal fascist that will destroy US democracy and install himself as a dictator, they would still willingly hand him the nuclear football? That Democrats entire plan to prevent that is to voteshame and threaten people? Or maybe that their plan to take power back from a megalomaniacal fascist that destroyed US democracy + Show Spoiler +(should the polls, Democrats, and odds be right and Trump wins) and installed himself as dictator, is to beat him using the democratic system they assure us he will have destroyed (especially if he's a "day one dictator")?
You’re doing it again. “X is bad, X may happen, therefore Dems are complicit”. It’s as dumb as ever.
How do you personally plan to stop Trump receiving the nuclear football? Intercept the pass? Run to the end zone? Other football words?
The plan of voting for Biden seems a lot more likely to work than your socialist revolution role play.
|
On December 21 2023 19:48 gobbledydook wrote:
Biden is in denial anyway. In my opinion it looks like there are two ways in which Trump doesn't become president again:
1. He gets disqualified, locked up, assassinated, or otherwise legally or physically prevented from becoming president
2. Biden doesn't run again, and a better candidate runs against Trump instead.
You don't think Biden is capable of beating Trump again? Why not?
|
Thinking Biden can't beat Trump isn't a statement about Dems, its a statement about how utterly moronic a majority of Americans are (perceived to be)
|
Biden can totally beat Trump, I think its even likely if something happens to give him a little burst of support around election time. Gas prices getting to pre-pandemic levels, something meaningful to QoL for people alongside people's general distaste of Trump.
Ill beat the turnout drum again, as long as turnout isn't depressed I think Biden will win.
Dunno how scabbed over people's feelings are about Trump, his nazi ass comments lately might help keep turnout from being depressed if he keeps making them though.
|
On December 21 2023 22:05 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2023 15:35 GreenHorizons wrote: GH is slowly just now coming to the realization that even if trump gets elected most people arn't going to change their values fundementally. Is this supposed to be a reference to my realization that despite Democrats supposedly believing Trump is a megalomaniacal fascist that will destroy US democracy and install himself as a dictator, they would still willingly hand him the nuclear football? That Democrats entire plan to prevent that is to voteshame and threaten people? Or maybe that their plan to take power back from a megalomaniacal fascist that destroyed US democracy + Show Spoiler +(should the polls, Democrats, and odds be right and Trump wins) and installed himself as dictator, is to beat him using the democratic system they assure us he will have destroyed (especially if he's a "day one dictator")? Yep, because that's called having a belief in something. If you're too afraid of your convictions being wrong that'll you'll violate them to save them, than you never believed in it. What are you going to do now that you realize that you were talking to people who actually believed what they were saying? We were also talking about race a few pages ago you want to weigh in on that or no?
A belief in what exactly?
Extinguish any expectation that such people won't pick up Kwark's batons:
On April 25 2019 09:30 KwarK wrote:
That when the day comes it’ll be the people you’re trying to help hitting you with batons because they’re more afraid of becoming you than what you’re trying to save them from. I’m not unsympathetic, I’m disillusioned.
Because ultimately, they're just "looking out for #1" so to speak.
On April 25 2019 10:09 KwarK wrote:
I have no solutions. Get as much as you can as quickly as possible because the crisis GH warns us of is coming and you don’t want to be the first ones fucked.
Basically a lot of the Democrat loyalists would be among the first to report their neighbors to Trump's foreshadowed secret police in hopes of saving themselves. Only to find out that they're either going to formally join Trump's fascism or be crushed by it when they run out of people that oppose it/are directly threatened by it more than them to throw in front of the fascist bus with vain hopes of slowing it down
|
United States41383 Posts
Seems like we should all vote against Trump then. Best way to avoid that scenario.
|
Northern Ireland22439 Posts
On December 22 2023 06:02 KwarK wrote:
Seems like we should all vote against Trump then. Best way to avoid that scenario.
I mean seems fucking simple but apparently not
|
On December 22 2023 02:32 Zambrah wrote:
Biden can totally beat Trump, I think its even likely if something happens to give him a little burst of support around election time. Gas prices getting to pre-pandemic levels, something meaningful to QoL for people alongside people's general distaste of Trump.
Ill beat the turnout drum again, as long as turnout isn't depressed I think Biden will win.
Dunno how scabbed over people's feelings are about Trump, his nazi ass comments lately might help keep turnout from being depressed if he keeps making them though.
14,509 immigrants encountered at the border in 1 day this week, setting a new record. These are the same migrants that the Democratic mayors of Chicago and New York are saying are destroying their cities. Eric Adams blames the Biden administration for the predicament the are in.. Meanwhile you can't even go into a store anymore and get some razor blades off the shelf without asking a store associate to open the locked case they keep them in. Some stores are installing security gates inside of the store due to rampant theft. Homelessness is up. Crime is up. Our once great cities are turning to shit. If you think Biden can win this election with a QoL argument I'm afraid he's SoL.
But hey, gas prices are coming down a bit.
|
On December 22 2023 10:29 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2023 02:32 Zambrah wrote:
Biden can totally beat Trump, I think its even likely if something happens to give him a little burst of support around election time. Gas prices getting to pre-pandemic levels, something meaningful to QoL for people alongside people's general distaste of Trump.
Ill beat the turnout drum again, as long as turnout isn't depressed I think Biden will win.
Dunno how scabbed over people's feelings are about Trump, his nazi ass comments lately might help keep turnout from being depressed if he keeps making them though. 14,509 immigrants encountered at the border in 1 day this week, setting a new record. These are the same migrants that the Democratic mayors of Chicago and New York are saying are destroying their cities. Eric Adams blames the Biden administration for the predicament the are in.. Meanwhile you can't even go into a store anymore and get some razor blades off the shelf without asking a store associate to open the locked case they keep them in. Some stores are installing security gates inside of the store due to rampant theft. Homelessness is up. Crime is up. Our once great cities are turning to shit. If you think Biden can win this election with a QoL argument I'm afraid he's SoL. But hey, gas prices are coming down a bit.
You’re in SF, right? I think your perspective is mostly right. But I do think it’s worth pointing out many of these issues feel much less extreme in other areas. If I remember you living in the SF area correctly, you’re in the epicenter of left wing pendulum reactions to Trump and it is hard for me to argue against it.
Tbh, I think a big part of the issue is a classic dynamic in human psychology: judge yourself by your intentions and judge others by their actions/results.
Look at the meltdown that occurred within the republican party as a reaction to 8 years of Obama. I won’t dwell on how or why they were bursting with resentment, but I think we can all agree they absolutely were. The result was Trump. They were so resentful of democrats that their singular focus was the intentions of Trump, which was essentially giving any component of letting ideology the finger loudly. We also saw places like Florida and Texas serve as the spear of right wing resentment and they did a bunch of clearly stupid shit “for the right reason” in their eyes.
Places like SF and Portland had a similar pendulum swing out of resentment of Trump. They felt so powerless and defeated on a national level that they hyper fixated on their little microcosms they have a ton of power over. They essentially used local politics as a method of venting their frustrations with Trump. And here we are.
People who let their political perspectives become a component of their identity will react defensively when you bring up Florida, Texas, Portland, and SF. Even though all 4 examples are clear cut examples of letting resentment and symbolism go way too far, the folks who identify with the symbolism will defend it by pointing out what it was in response to. I hate them. I deeply hate the practice of identifying with political beliefs.
You’ve chatted with me long enough to know I’m essentially an authoritarian communist in many ways, but a large majority of people on my side of the aisle make me want to puke. I think the resentment-fueled reactionary dogshit that infests local politics is a main contributor to my hatred of my own party or leaning or whatever. It’s not like I’d ever in a million years vote for a republican because they are strictly dogshit. But I feel very disappointed in Portland and SF because they are amazingly terrible optics for perspectives I hold.
|
United States41383 Posts
On December 22 2023 10:29 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2023 02:32 Zambrah wrote:
Biden can totally beat Trump, I think its even likely if something happens to give him a little burst of support around election time. Gas prices getting to pre-pandemic levels, something meaningful to QoL for people alongside people's general distaste of Trump.
Ill beat the turnout drum again, as long as turnout isn't depressed I think Biden will win.
Dunno how scabbed over people's feelings are about Trump, his nazi ass comments lately might help keep turnout from being depressed if he keeps making them though. 14,509 immigrants encountered at the border in 1 day this week, setting a new record. These are the same migrants that the Democratic mayors of Chicago and New York are saying are destroying their cities. Eric Adams blames the Biden administration for the predicament the are in.. Meanwhile you can't even go into a store anymore and get some razor blades off the shelf without asking a store associate to open the locked case they keep them in. Some stores are installing security gates inside of the store due to rampant theft. Homelessness is up. Crime is up. Our once great cities are turning to shit. If you think Biden can win this election with a QoL argument I'm afraid he's SoL. But hey, gas prices are coming down a bit.
You’re listing a series of disconnected grievances that have nothing to do with Biden and won’t be fixed by Trump. It makes you sound like you’re unable to string thoughts together in a coherent way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
