|
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 31 2024 00:23 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:24 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:13 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 18:42 BlackJack wrote:On March 30 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On March 30 2024 14:51 BlackJack wrote:On March 30 2024 09:20 KwarK wrote:On March 30 2024 08:01 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I have no problem with hypotheticals like "can this happen again" or "how can we better prepared for this." I take issue when hypotheticals that weren't even close to happening are pretended to be plausible or likely just to push the argument that the Jan 6 mob nearly succeeded.
The problem with the line of reasoning many people are employing in this thread is that we saw that the further the mob got the more disgusted average Americans became, not just at the mob but also directly at Trump. The two are inversely related. The idea that if the mob just got a little further Trump would have found the support he needs to stay in power is the opposite conclusion that should be drawn.
In fact one of the biggest criticisms of Trump on Jan 6th is that everyone around him was pleading with him to get on television and call down the mob to end the insanity. Not even his closest advisers and family were on board with this and yet people want to pretend that Trump would have found the support from someone (electors, the courts, the army) to continue as a dictator. In your reality is the view that Trump won 2020 not a mainstream one among Republican state level representatives in Georgia and Arizona. In our reality we have a clear path to Trump staying in power. 1. Pence fails to certify the electors. According to Pence he was only actually talked into certifying them by Dan fucking Quayle. Also the Secret Service attempted to remove Pence before certification took place. Also an explicitly stated goal of Trump's mob that he specifically called upon them to do was to get him to certify the election. 2. The Republican controlled state legislatures give Trump the electoral college votes won by Biden. That's wholly plausible given how many state representatives openly say the election was stolen by Biden and that Trump won. Anyway, here's some excerpts from Trump's Jan 6 speech. Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We're supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution.
States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.
And I actually, I just spoke to Mike. I said: "Mike, that doesn't take courage. What takes courage is to do nothing. That takes courage." And then we're stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot and we have to live with that for four more years. We're just not going to let that happen.
...
And Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us, and if he doesn't, that will be a, a sad day for our country because you're sworn to uphold our Constitution.
...
They want to recertify their votes. They want to recertify. But the only way that can happen is if Mike Pence agrees to send it back. Mike Pence has to agree to send it back.
(Audience chants: "Send it back.")
...
Mike Pence, I hope you're going to stand up for the good of our Constitution and for the good of our country. And if you're not, I'm going to be very disappointed in you. I will tell you right now. I'm not hearing good stories. So it's really not clear that the mob Trump raised at that rally was an explicit attempt to send the elections back to the states beyond the literal chants of "send it back" that he led the mob in. And it's really not clear that it was an order and a threat against Mike Pence beyond "we're not going to let that happen" and "I'm going to be very disappointed in you", and of course, the fact that the mob started chanting "hang Mike Pence" for some reason. So which part of the seizure of power do you think was so unlikely. Mike Pence failing to certify or the Republican State officials buying into the Trump election narrative? The part that barely failed because of Dan Quayle and the Secret Service or the part that didn't fail at all? People go "well I don't see how we get from Trump's mob to him staying in power" as if he didn't fucking lay it out for them step by step. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president Direct quote from Donald Trump on Jan 6 to his mob before sending them to make Pence send it back. Trump explained his plan to his followers but now people, who can literally watch the video in which Trump explains his plan which he specifically states is a plan to seize power, say "I don't think there was an actual plan to seize power". You’re failing to mention that the idea Pence could reject the electors is based on a dubious legal theory that even the creator called a controversial long shot that would likely be rejected by the Supreme Court. Your post treats it as a foregone conclusion that it would have worked if Pence just played along. If this were a similarly dubious plot for Trump to redirect funding to build his border wall it would have been laughed out of the room but because this is useful in implicating Trump it’s become a “clear path” for Trump to stay in power. Okay, so because his clear and well-documented plan to stage a coup was dumb and doomed to fail from the start, that makes it not-an-attempted-coup? That's the conclusion you've decided to draw from reading my posts. I have no issue acknowledging that Trump would do almost anything, legal or illegal, to steal an election. I don't know if his schemes constitute a coup d'etat in the traditional sense but I'm fine with calling them that colloquially. I just also agree with Introvert that it wasn't as on a knife edge as people are making it sound. We might even agree here once you take away the position you've foisted on me. I’m fine with the position “J6 was a coup attempt, but it was hare-brained and stupid and never gonna work.” I don’t think you’ve done a very good job enumerating why – insisting their theories are “legally dubious” when someone is seizing the seat of government by force is kinda absurd. If Congress (under duress) is insisting Trump actually won the election, and Trump is calling in military units to maintain control, your theory is that… Joe Biden would simply say “I’ll see you in court”? But whatever, I don’t actually care that much about wargaming the coup to figure out its exact percentage chance of success. In 2024 I’d rather discuss something you brought up in a previous post: The problem with the line of reasoning many people are employing in this thread is that we saw that the further the mob got the more disgusted average Americans became, not just at the mob but also directly at Trump. See, I think this was right in 2021, and I’m glad because I think that’s an appropriate reaction to partisans, on behalf of the President, breaking into the Capitol and trying to intimidate Congress into overturning an election. Now in 2024 one party still has that reaction to J6ers, while the other calls them heroes and patriots. Trump, as mentioned, is opening rallies with a rendition of the anthem sung by imprisoned J6ers while he stands and salutes. He promises to pardon them on his first day back in office. So, uh, generally speaking: a President openly endorsing armed bands of thugs committing crimes to intimidate his political enemies into submission, and promising to use his legal authority as President to shield them from legal consequences. That’s bad, right? Is this one of those “slippery slopes?” @Intro, can we get a ruling? From what I can tell, that is a very minority position even though you keep repeating it. There are a growing number of people who think the DOJ has been too harsh, as certain GOP outlets are focus on some defendants who seem like they could be overcharged, but that is miles away from calling them "heroes". Found a random poll reported on by wapo that says 55% of gop voters think the j6 defendants have been charged fairly or not harshly enough. And given the wording, the percentage for "heroes" is probably miniscule. So where is this majority you speak of? Ctrl+F-ing the word “majority” in my post just to make sure I’m not crazy. Where did I say a “majority” of any population supports them? I said the party is lionizing them, and Trump is explicitly endorsing them and promising to pardon them. That’s a no on getting a ruling, then? Apologies if you haven't used that exact word in the multiple posts you've made in this topic in the past few days. But to me blanket statements like "the party is lionizing them" requires some sort of evidence? If the position that they are heroes is so mainstream as to be dangerous, shouldn't at least most Republicans agree with that statement? You are apparently unfamiliar with how this issue is actually discussed within the GOP. The position they are heroes is very small. The position they are being unfairly treated is more widely held, given stories about how some people were barely in the building and contrasting that with how the Biden DOJ had treated left wing violence. And finally, the single largest block of Republicans, a majority according to that poll, considers them criminals. Trump dangling pardons has more yo do with the second view than the first. He did, after all, fail to preemptively pardon them in 2021. *** Edit:it is annoying, but not surprising, that apparently if I don't the absolute maximally hardcore stance I'm implicty and explicitly accused of saying nothing happened. I've said what happened on Jan 6 is bad, I've been saying it since it happened! But because I say, rightly, that democracy wa not actually hanging by a thread I'm basically an apologist. I mean I hate to just link a Daily Show clip but it might be the quickest summary. Some highlights: - Louis Gohmert meeting a J6er on release from prison to give her an honorary flag
- Trump rally starting with a voice saying “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages” followed by a recording of J6ers singing the anthem while Trump salutes.
- Trump calling on Biden to “release the hostages,” promising to release those “unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots” when he gets into office
Now I don’t think I’ve accused you of being pro-J6 or saying “nothing happened,” but again, you’re someone who looks at Biden trying to forgive some student debt or Trump getting fined for the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of financial fraud he committed, and sees a slippery slope to authoritarianism. But meanwhile a sitting president incited an armed mob to threaten Congress into supporting him staying in office after losing. Now he openly celebrates the members of that mob as “incredible patriots” and wants to use presidential authority to shield them from consequences. I’ve asked three times now, would you consider that a concerning slippery slope or no?
Those all line up more with the second position I gave, but again I don't see any "lionizing" going on, especially if Trump is still hedging on the violent offenders. So yes, it would be bad if he was saying "the people chasing after Congressmen to threaten them are heroes". But I don't read any of it that way. I think the use of the words "hostsges" and "unfairly treated" is helpful here.
All this however is getting more in the weeds. The idea that the people breaking down the doors are being "lionized" by the party is just wrong.
|
On March 31 2024 00:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2024 00:22 WombaT wrote:On March 31 2024 00:17 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2024 00:08 Sadist wrote:
Lets be fucking honest here. Its misleading as hell to try to argue that Trump wants to pardon the Jan 6th traitors because they were oversentenced. GTFO with that nonsense. If you feel that way get into specifics? Who has been overcharged? What should their sentence be? Do they represent a majority or the minority of those overcharged. Lets go through every case and evaluate and decide.
That is not what Trump wants to do. His messaging is that these people were patriots trying to stop Crooked Joe Biden from stealing an election that he won. Full stop. They should be pardoned because they are loyal to him. Trump had stayed on message from the fucking beginning. Words matter. He will never admit he lost. He then tried to actually steal the election and overturn the will of the people and commit a coup.
Anyone voting for him, shilling for him, making bad faith arguments is complicit to his bullshit.
Theres been a fairly substantial discussion in certain righty media about particular cases, and Tump I think recently said, in a speech where he mentioned pardons, not pardoning people who "got out of control" or something like that. You can fairly say that isn't what he really thinks, but at least so far his rhetoric is right in line with the "many individuals were overcharged" viewpoint. Imo it's not a stalking horse for something else. Just because you haven't looked doesn't mean it isn't happening lol What are those distinctions being made in those circles? I mean for me personally just being in the vicinity of a volatile and emergent phenomenon isn’t in and of itself damning. For folks who actually stormed the Capitol I’m not really sure what benefit of the doubt can be extended there though There is a view, which I don't necessarily share, that some people kind of just wandered in and were even treated well by police in the building, who eventually got slapped with heavy penalties. Now this topic is not one I've looked into much so I couldn't give names (re:Sadist) but the distinction is generally if, from the recordings, the conduct matches what certain people are being charged with. And iirc there have been a few cases where the government had failed to prove their most serious charges. And I think recently the DC circuit said someone's sentence was improperly lengthened. Finally, I believe the Supreme court had agreed to hear a similar case about the use of certain statues wrt certain j6 defendants. So these aren't fever dreams. they wandered in and were treated well while an armed mob was storming the building and other police officers were scrambling to stop them from reaching the Congressmen.
I find that very hard to believe. Did all of them 'riot'? probably not. Some probably had a fun look around, but getting swept up in a riot and going along to see whats up does not absolve one of guilt.
|
On March 30 2024 23:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2024 23:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 30 2024 23:43 WombaT wrote:On March 30 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:24 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:13 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 18:42 BlackJack wrote:On March 30 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On March 30 2024 14:51 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
You’re failing to mention that the idea Pence could reject the electors is based on a dubious legal theory that even the creator called a controversial long shot that would likely be rejected by the Supreme Court. Your post treats it as a foregone conclusion that it would have worked if Pence just played along. If this were a similarly dubious plot for Trump to redirect funding to build his border wall it would have been laughed out of the room but because this is useful in implicating Trump it’s become a “clear path” for Trump to stay in power.
Okay, so because his clear and well-documented plan to stage a coup was dumb and doomed to fail from the start, that makes it not-an-attempted-coup? That's the conclusion you've decided to draw from reading my posts. I have no issue acknowledging that Trump would do almost anything, legal or illegal, to steal an election. I don't know if his schemes constitute a coup d'etat in the traditional sense but I'm fine with calling them that colloquially. I just also agree with Introvert that it wasn't as on a knife edge as people are making it sound. We might even agree here once you take away the position you've foisted on me. I’m fine with the position “J6 was a coup attempt, but it was hare-brained and stupid and never gonna work.” I don’t think you’ve done a very good job enumerating why – insisting their theories are “legally dubious” when someone is seizing the seat of government by force is kinda absurd. If Congress (under duress) is insisting Trump actually won the election, and Trump is calling in military units to maintain control, your theory is that… Joe Biden would simply say “I’ll see you in court”? But whatever, I don’t actually care that much about wargaming the coup to figure out its exact percentage chance of success. In 2024 I’d rather discuss something you brought up in a previous post: The problem with the line of reasoning many people are employing in this thread is that we saw that the further the mob got the more disgusted average Americans became, not just at the mob but also directly at Trump. See, I think this was right in 2021, and I’m glad because I think that’s an appropriate reaction to partisans, on behalf of the President, breaking into the Capitol and trying to intimidate Congress into overturning an election. Now in 2024 one party still has that reaction to J6ers, while the other calls them heroes and patriots. Trump, as mentioned, is opening rallies with a rendition of the anthem sung by imprisoned J6ers while he stands and salutes. He promises to pardon them on his first day back in office. So, uh, generally speaking: a President openly endorsing armed bands of thugs committing crimes to intimidate his political enemies into submission, and promising to use his legal authority as President to shield them from legal consequences. That’s bad, right? Is this one of those “slippery slopes?” @Intro, can we get a ruling? From what I can tell, that is a very minority position even though you keep repeating it. There are a growing number of people who think the DOJ has been too harsh, as certain GOP outlets are focus on some defendants who seem like they could be overcharged, but that is miles away from calling them "heroes". Found a random poll reported on by wapo that says 55% of gop voters think the j6 defendants have been charged fairly or not harshly enough. And given the wording, the percentage for "heroes" is probably miniscule. So where is this majority you speak of? Ctrl+F-ing the word “majority” in my post just to make sure I’m not crazy. Where did I say a “majority” of any population supports them? I said the party is lionizing them, and Trump is explicitly endorsing them and promising to pardon them. That’s a no on getting a ruling, then? Apologies if you haven't used that exact word in the multiple posts you've made in this topic in the past few days. But to me blanket statements like "the party is lionizing them" requires some sort of evidence? If the position that they are heroes is so mainstream as to be dangerous, shouldn't at least most Republicans agree with that statement? You are apparently unfamiliar with how this issue is actually discussed within the GOP. The position they are heroes is very small. The position they are being unfairly treated is more widely held, given stories about how some people were barely in the building and contrasting that with how the Biden DOJ had treated left wing violence. And finally, the single largest block of Republicans, a majority according to that poll, considers them criminals. Trump dangling pardons has more yo do with the second view than the first. He did, after all, fail to preemptively pardon them in 2021. That is interesting and I must confesss not something I would have necessarily assumed. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter at all if polled Republicans consider them to be criminals, as those polled Republicans will still end up voting for the ringleader in the next presidential election. There is also this, although equally if one is a conservative they’re as equally pushed into the ‘lesser of two evils’ box as the socialist left are, within their own belief system. If there’s the expectation that folks from that tradition suck it up and tick the blue box, I’d fully expect conservatives even if they have big misgivings about Trump to exercise the same process.
That's a fair point for the general election against Biden, but not for the Republican primary imo.
|
On March 31 2024 00:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2024 00:23 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:24 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:13 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 18:42 BlackJack wrote:On March 30 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On March 30 2024 14:51 BlackJack wrote:On March 30 2024 09:20 KwarK wrote:[quote] In your reality is the view that Trump won 2020 not a mainstream one among Republican state level representatives in Georgia and Arizona. In our reality we have a clear path to Trump staying in power. 1. Pence fails to certify the electors. According to Pence he was only actually talked into certifying them by Dan fucking Quayle. Also the Secret Service attempted to remove Pence before certification took place. Also an explicitly stated goal of Trump's mob that he specifically called upon them to do was to get him to certify the election. 2. The Republican controlled state legislatures give Trump the electoral college votes won by Biden. That's wholly plausible given how many state representatives openly say the election was stolen by Biden and that Trump won. Anyway, here's some excerpts from Trump's Jan 6 speech. [quote] So it's really not clear that the mob Trump raised at that rally was an explicit attempt to send the elections back to the states beyond the literal chants of "send it back" that he led the mob in. And it's really not clear that it was an order and a threat against Mike Pence beyond "we're not going to let that happen" and "I'm going to be very disappointed in you", and of course, the fact that the mob started chanting "hang Mike Pence" for some reason. So which part of the seizure of power do you think was so unlikely. Mike Pence failing to certify or the Republican State officials buying into the Trump election narrative? The part that barely failed because of Dan Quayle and the Secret Service or the part that didn't fail at all? People go "well I don't see how we get from Trump's mob to him staying in power" as if he didn't fucking lay it out for them step by step. [quote] Direct quote from Donald Trump on Jan 6 to his mob before sending them to make Pence send it back. Trump explained his plan to his followers but now people, who can literally watch the video in which Trump explains his plan which he specifically states is a plan to seize power, say "I don't think there was an actual plan to seize power". You’re failing to mention that the idea Pence could reject the electors is based on a dubious legal theory that even the creator called a controversial long shot that would likely be rejected by the Supreme Court. Your post treats it as a foregone conclusion that it would have worked if Pence just played along. If this were a similarly dubious plot for Trump to redirect funding to build his border wall it would have been laughed out of the room but because this is useful in implicating Trump it’s become a “clear path” for Trump to stay in power. Okay, so because his clear and well-documented plan to stage a coup was dumb and doomed to fail from the start, that makes it not-an-attempted-coup? That's the conclusion you've decided to draw from reading my posts. I have no issue acknowledging that Trump would do almost anything, legal or illegal, to steal an election. I don't know if his schemes constitute a coup d'etat in the traditional sense but I'm fine with calling them that colloquially. I just also agree with Introvert that it wasn't as on a knife edge as people are making it sound. We might even agree here once you take away the position you've foisted on me. I’m fine with the position “J6 was a coup attempt, but it was hare-brained and stupid and never gonna work.” I don’t think you’ve done a very good job enumerating why – insisting their theories are “legally dubious” when someone is seizing the seat of government by force is kinda absurd. If Congress (under duress) is insisting Trump actually won the election, and Trump is calling in military units to maintain control, your theory is that… Joe Biden would simply say “I’ll see you in court”? But whatever, I don’t actually care that much about wargaming the coup to figure out its exact percentage chance of success. In 2024 I’d rather discuss something you brought up in a previous post: The problem with the line of reasoning many people are employing in this thread is that we saw that the further the mob got the more disgusted average Americans became, not just at the mob but also directly at Trump. See, I think this was right in 2021, and I’m glad because I think that’s an appropriate reaction to partisans, on behalf of the President, breaking into the Capitol and trying to intimidate Congress into overturning an election. Now in 2024 one party still has that reaction to J6ers, while the other calls them heroes and patriots. Trump, as mentioned, is opening rallies with a rendition of the anthem sung by imprisoned J6ers while he stands and salutes. He promises to pardon them on his first day back in office. So, uh, generally speaking: a President openly endorsing armed bands of thugs committing crimes to intimidate his political enemies into submission, and promising to use his legal authority as President to shield them from legal consequences. That’s bad, right? Is this one of those “slippery slopes?” @Intro, can we get a ruling? From what I can tell, that is a very minority position even though you keep repeating it. There are a growing number of people who think the DOJ has been too harsh, as certain GOP outlets are focus on some defendants who seem like they could be overcharged, but that is miles away from calling them "heroes". Found a random poll reported on by wapo that says 55% of gop voters think the j6 defendants have been charged fairly or not harshly enough. And given the wording, the percentage for "heroes" is probably miniscule. So where is this majority you speak of? Ctrl+F-ing the word “majority” in my post just to make sure I’m not crazy. Where did I say a “majority” of any population supports them? I said the party is lionizing them, and Trump is explicitly endorsing them and promising to pardon them. That’s a no on getting a ruling, then? Apologies if you haven't used that exact word in the multiple posts you've made in this topic in the past few days. But to me blanket statements like "the party is lionizing them" requires some sort of evidence? If the position that they are heroes is so mainstream as to be dangerous, shouldn't at least most Republicans agree with that statement? You are apparently unfamiliar with how this issue is actually discussed within the GOP. The position they are heroes is very small. The position they are being unfairly treated is more widely held, given stories about how some people were barely in the building and contrasting that with how the Biden DOJ had treated left wing violence. And finally, the single largest block of Republicans, a majority according to that poll, considers them criminals. Trump dangling pardons has more yo do with the second view than the first. He did, after all, fail to preemptively pardon them in 2021. *** Edit:it is annoying, but not surprising, that apparently if I don't the absolute maximally hardcore stance I'm implicty and explicitly accused of saying nothing happened. I've said what happened on Jan 6 is bad, I've been saying it since it happened! But because I say, rightly, that democracy wa not actually hanging by a thread I'm basically an apologist. I mean I hate to just link a Daily Show clip but it might be the quickest summary. Some highlights: - Louis Gohmert meeting a J6er on release from prison to give her an honorary flag
- Trump rally starting with a voice saying “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages” followed by a recording of J6ers singing the anthem while Trump salutes.
- Trump calling on Biden to “release the hostages,” promising to release those “unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots” when he gets into office
Now I don’t think I’ve accused you of being pro-J6 or saying “nothing happened,” but again, you’re someone who looks at Biden trying to forgive some student debt or Trump getting fined for the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of financial fraud he committed, and sees a slippery slope to authoritarianism. But meanwhile a sitting president incited an armed mob to threaten Congress into supporting him staying in office after losing. Now he openly celebrates the members of that mob as “incredible patriots” and wants to use presidential authority to shield them from consequences. I’ve asked three times now, would you consider that a concerning slippery slope or no? Those all line up more with the second position I gave, but again I don't see any "lionizing" going on, especially if Trump is still hedging on the violent offenders. So yes, it would be bad if he was saying "the people chasing after Congressmen to threaten them are heroes". But I don't read any of it that way. I think the use of the words "hostsges" and "unfairly treated" is helpful here. All this however is getting more in the weeds. The idea that the people breaking down the doors are being "lionized" by the party is just wrong. Has Trump at any point made that distinction clear?
Has he said "these innocent people who did nothing wrong should be freed, but these ones who were clearly up to no good should stay locked up?"
Or are we just assuming that must be what Trump meant?
|
Northern Ireland23322 Posts
On March 31 2024 00:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2024 23:59 WombaT wrote:On March 30 2024 23:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 30 2024 23:43 WombaT wrote:On March 30 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:24 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:13 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 18:42 BlackJack wrote:On March 30 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Okay, so because his clear and well-documented plan to stage a coup was dumb and doomed to fail from the start, that makes it not-an-attempted-coup?
That's the conclusion you've decided to draw from reading my posts. I have no issue acknowledging that Trump would do almost anything, legal or illegal, to steal an election. I don't know if his schemes constitute a coup d'etat in the traditional sense but I'm fine with calling them that colloquially. I just also agree with Introvert that it wasn't as on a knife edge as people are making it sound. We might even agree here once you take away the position you've foisted on me. I’m fine with the position “J6 was a coup attempt, but it was hare-brained and stupid and never gonna work.” I don’t think you’ve done a very good job enumerating why – insisting their theories are “legally dubious” when someone is seizing the seat of government by force is kinda absurd. If Congress (under duress) is insisting Trump actually won the election, and Trump is calling in military units to maintain control, your theory is that… Joe Biden would simply say “I’ll see you in court”? But whatever, I don’t actually care that much about wargaming the coup to figure out its exact percentage chance of success. In 2024 I’d rather discuss something you brought up in a previous post: The problem with the line of reasoning many people are employing in this thread is that we saw that the further the mob got the more disgusted average Americans became, not just at the mob but also directly at Trump. See, I think this was right in 2021, and I’m glad because I think that’s an appropriate reaction to partisans, on behalf of the President, breaking into the Capitol and trying to intimidate Congress into overturning an election. Now in 2024 one party still has that reaction to J6ers, while the other calls them heroes and patriots. Trump, as mentioned, is opening rallies with a rendition of the anthem sung by imprisoned J6ers while he stands and salutes. He promises to pardon them on his first day back in office. So, uh, generally speaking: a President openly endorsing armed bands of thugs committing crimes to intimidate his political enemies into submission, and promising to use his legal authority as President to shield them from legal consequences. That’s bad, right? Is this one of those “slippery slopes?” @Intro, can we get a ruling? From what I can tell, that is a very minority position even though you keep repeating it. There are a growing number of people who think the DOJ has been too harsh, as certain GOP outlets are focus on some defendants who seem like they could be overcharged, but that is miles away from calling them "heroes". Found a random poll reported on by wapo that says 55% of gop voters think the j6 defendants have been charged fairly or not harshly enough. And given the wording, the percentage for "heroes" is probably miniscule. So where is this majority you speak of? Ctrl+F-ing the word “majority” in my post just to make sure I’m not crazy. Where did I say a “majority” of any population supports them? I said the party is lionizing them, and Trump is explicitly endorsing them and promising to pardon them. That’s a no on getting a ruling, then? Apologies if you haven't used that exact word in the multiple posts you've made in this topic in the past few days. But to me blanket statements like "the party is lionizing them" requires some sort of evidence? If the position that they are heroes is so mainstream as to be dangerous, shouldn't at least most Republicans agree with that statement? You are apparently unfamiliar with how this issue is actually discussed within the GOP. The position they are heroes is very small. The position they are being unfairly treated is more widely held, given stories about how some people were barely in the building and contrasting that with how the Biden DOJ had treated left wing violence. And finally, the single largest block of Republicans, a majority according to that poll, considers them criminals. Trump dangling pardons has more yo do with the second view than the first. He did, after all, fail to preemptively pardon them in 2021. That is interesting and I must confesss not something I would have necessarily assumed. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter at all if polled Republicans consider them to be criminals, as those polled Republicans will still end up voting for the ringleader in the next presidential election. There is also this, although equally if one is a conservative they’re as equally pushed into the ‘lesser of two evils’ box as the socialist left are, within their own belief system. If there’s the expectation that folks from that tradition suck it up and tick the blue box, I’d fully expect conservatives even if they have big misgivings about Trump to exercise the same process. That's a fair point for the general election against Biden, but not for the Republican primary imo.
Yeah, Trump crushing the primary kind of goes against that particular narrative
|
On March 31 2024 00:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2024 22:50 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 19:54 Gorsameth wrote:On March 30 2024 13:30 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 11:31 KwarK wrote:On March 30 2024 11:15 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 11:13 KwarK wrote:On March 30 2024 11:09 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 10:58 KwarK wrote:On March 30 2024 10:13 Introvert wrote:
The first part is saying that they didn't have a way to respect it or disrespect it either way, and certainly not by the time of the riot. And again I don't recall much fervor for that path among the legislatures themselves. Listen, if we keep adding more and more things that didn't happen then yes, we can have a systemic collapse. But it was not nearly as knife's edge as you are saying, and thank goodness for that! The law as it existed then, and I think as ha been reinforced now, only provides for certain changes in very limited circumstances, and again by Jan 6 even those would have closed. Any state that attempted to send a second slate would have run into issues at every turn, within their own bodies, conflict eith executive officials, Congress, and the courts. At best I suppose Congress could have rejected a slate, but that wouldn't replace them iirc, and certainly not past safe harbor. But that would have had nothing to do with Pence. Okay, let's assume that in 2021 Trump would have run into issues with Republican officials choosing country over party and being unwilling to overthrow democracy in his name. Sure, a lot of them at the time and since have absolutely endorsed his election fraud theories and said that the election was stolen from him, but let's assume a world in which they weren't traitors. What we would expect to see in the following four years is that endorsement of the stolen election theory would become a requirement for Trump's support as a Republican candidate. Anyone unwilling to get on board with the theory would be treated as disloyal and would be targeted by Trump. Over time the Republican officials in the states would be replaced with individuals who could be counted on to support Trump when the time came in 2025. https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/republican-nominees-in-40-states-think-the-2020-election-was-stolen-heres-why-that-matters/Now the reality is that the Republican party in 2021 was already compromised. 139 out of 221 sitting Republican Congressmen voted against accepting the election results on Jan 7 2021. They're already mostly traitors. But if we set that to one side and pretend that they're not, Trump is actively reshaping the party to consist only of traitors. If your assumption is that the officials would have stopped them then you need to take a look at the officials and what they're saying in public. Actually what we would expect to see if they believed Trump's theory, or at least been open to it politically, would be for them to, you know, do it. which they did not. As for the future, i believe the reformed electoral count act deals with any problems that may have remained. But of course we were talking about 2020 not 2024. Are you at very least on board with the idea that Trump had a specific plan to overturn the election by attacking the capitol and pushing it back to the state legislatures? The plan that he explained during the speech inciting the attack on the capitol. That plan. Because getting consensus on that, which is literally something Trump himself explained, feels like it would be progress. I think he wanted to generate political pressure on Congress to do a thing that wouldn't come to fruition even if they wanted it. I don't think he intended violence but he was too much of a coward and vain man to stop it when he should have. Edit: if he should have been impeached for anything it should have been for something akin to dereliction of duty. Not the articles that emerged from the House later So when he said that the plan was “President Pence has to send it back to the states to recertify and we become president” which is, incidentally, the same plan that was uncovered in the emails and memos by the prosecution in Georgia your understanding of that plan is that he wanted to put political pressure on Congress? Why do you think the words he used so clearly describe something other than what they say? well ok in my hurry i left Pence out of the list, but as I laid out before his plan was to have the states get new electors. but that wasn't going to work. I'm not sure what you are unclear on, he wanted Congress/Pence to not certify the results and thought that would send it back to the states, which it wouldn't. What i said in that post is I don't think he was trying to incite a mob to attack Congress, but I also think he could have stopped it (and should have stopped it) but didn't. But the states already had new electors ready and waiting. The paperwork was already filled out and signed with a list of electors for Trump, there are investigations and cases running against them for falsifying federal documents. You mean in Georgia? My understanding of thr Georgia elector indictments doesn't indicate they were actually alternates, but that they offered to be. One doesn't simply fill out a form to become an elector, they have to be recognized as one by the appropriate authority i.e. nominated or chosen as elector candidates by the state party or officials in some way, and the lists are determined ahead of time. Memory is foggy but I think they were indicted basically for being well meaning if mistaken citizens. Volunteering to be alternate electors in the event Gerogia needed them. But that wasn't going to happen. They weren't an actual slate, if they were why were they being indicted! *** To clarify for anyone else, KwarK moved from the riot to the scheme to send it back to states (though related). I said that wasn't a coup attempt at the riot, at no time have I commented on this plan with any such words, either to agree or to disagree with them. No mob was going to be able to force Pence to send it back to the states and no state submitted a second slate in time, even if such a slate would have been legitimate, which most people reading the law say they would not have been Edit: the "easier" path might have been to get the House to reject enough slates to put Biden under 270 and then have the House elect him, but the new house was already sworn in and besides being a dem majority would not have done so with either party in charge. Which I think is why he wanted it sent to the states. Both were bad options, really. I belive even this remote possibility was foreclosed with the amended electoral count act, now removing a states vote reduces the number of electors needed to win. I mean Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Only 2 of them (Pennsylvania and New Mexico) mentioned they were just in case Trump won legal challenges. The others 5 did not. Show nested quote +On the same day that the true electors voted, at the direction of Trump campaign officials, "alternate slates" of Republican electors convened in seven states, most of which Biden had won by a relatively small margin, (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) to sign false certificates of ascertainment.[38] This was ostensibly in case Texas v. Pennsylvania was ruled in favor of Trump. However, that case was thrown out on December 11, 2020, three days before the electoral vote was to occur, a fact that was withheld from most of the fake electors by Giuliani and Chesebro.[39] In each case the false electors signed a facsimile of an Electoral College certificate of ascertainment, proclaiming Trump and Pence the victors, and sent it to the National Archives and to Congress.[40]
The alternate elector certificates for Pennsylvania and New Mexico contained language indicating they would take effect only if the Trump campaign's challenges to the election results were sustained by the courts; but "alternate" certificates from the other five states contained no indication that they were not genuine. These self-proclaimed electors have no legal standing, and the National Archives did not accept their documents, publishing the official (Biden) results from those states as the result of the election.[41][42][43][44] en.wikipedia.orgWere they duped by the Trump campaign? Probably, I doubt they had the legal knowledge to know what they were doing. Was it another step in trying to falsely get Trump elected and overturn a legitimate election? Absofuckinglutely.
Ok, thanks for the additional details. My point was more about
These self-proclaimed electors have no legal standing, and the National Archives did not accept their documents, publishing the official (Biden) results from those states as the result of the election.
though
Edit:
On March 31 2024 00:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2024 00:42 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2024 00:23 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:24 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:13 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 18:42 BlackJack wrote:On March 30 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On March 30 2024 14:51 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
You’re failing to mention that the idea Pence could reject the electors is based on a dubious legal theory that even the creator called a controversial long shot that would likely be rejected by the Supreme Court. Your post treats it as a foregone conclusion that it would have worked if Pence just played along. If this were a similarly dubious plot for Trump to redirect funding to build his border wall it would have been laughed out of the room but because this is useful in implicating Trump it’s become a “clear path” for Trump to stay in power.
Okay, so because his clear and well-documented plan to stage a coup was dumb and doomed to fail from the start, that makes it not-an-attempted-coup? That's the conclusion you've decided to draw from reading my posts. I have no issue acknowledging that Trump would do almost anything, legal or illegal, to steal an election. I don't know if his schemes constitute a coup d'etat in the traditional sense but I'm fine with calling them that colloquially. I just also agree with Introvert that it wasn't as on a knife edge as people are making it sound. We might even agree here once you take away the position you've foisted on me. I’m fine with the position “J6 was a coup attempt, but it was hare-brained and stupid and never gonna work.” I don’t think you’ve done a very good job enumerating why – insisting their theories are “legally dubious” when someone is seizing the seat of government by force is kinda absurd. If Congress (under duress) is insisting Trump actually won the election, and Trump is calling in military units to maintain control, your theory is that… Joe Biden would simply say “I’ll see you in court”? But whatever, I don’t actually care that much about wargaming the coup to figure out its exact percentage chance of success. In 2024 I’d rather discuss something you brought up in a previous post: The problem with the line of reasoning many people are employing in this thread is that we saw that the further the mob got the more disgusted average Americans became, not just at the mob but also directly at Trump. See, I think this was right in 2021, and I’m glad because I think that’s an appropriate reaction to partisans, on behalf of the President, breaking into the Capitol and trying to intimidate Congress into overturning an election. Now in 2024 one party still has that reaction to J6ers, while the other calls them heroes and patriots. Trump, as mentioned, is opening rallies with a rendition of the anthem sung by imprisoned J6ers while he stands and salutes. He promises to pardon them on his first day back in office. So, uh, generally speaking: a President openly endorsing armed bands of thugs committing crimes to intimidate his political enemies into submission, and promising to use his legal authority as President to shield them from legal consequences. That’s bad, right? Is this one of those “slippery slopes?” @Intro, can we get a ruling? From what I can tell, that is a very minority position even though you keep repeating it. There are a growing number of people who think the DOJ has been too harsh, as certain GOP outlets are focus on some defendants who seem like they could be overcharged, but that is miles away from calling them "heroes". Found a random poll reported on by wapo that says 55% of gop voters think the j6 defendants have been charged fairly or not harshly enough. And given the wording, the percentage for "heroes" is probably miniscule. So where is this majority you speak of? Ctrl+F-ing the word “majority” in my post just to make sure I’m not crazy. Where did I say a “majority” of any population supports them? I said the party is lionizing them, and Trump is explicitly endorsing them and promising to pardon them. That’s a no on getting a ruling, then? Apologies if you haven't used that exact word in the multiple posts you've made in this topic in the past few days. But to me blanket statements like "the party is lionizing them" requires some sort of evidence? If the position that they are heroes is so mainstream as to be dangerous, shouldn't at least most Republicans agree with that statement? You are apparently unfamiliar with how this issue is actually discussed within the GOP. The position they are heroes is very small. The position they are being unfairly treated is more widely held, given stories about how some people were barely in the building and contrasting that with how the Biden DOJ had treated left wing violence. And finally, the single largest block of Republicans, a majority according to that poll, considers them criminals. Trump dangling pardons has more yo do with the second view than the first. He did, after all, fail to preemptively pardon them in 2021. *** Edit:it is annoying, but not surprising, that apparently if I don't the absolute maximally hardcore stance I'm implicty and explicitly accused of saying nothing happened. I've said what happened on Jan 6 is bad, I've been saying it since it happened! But because I say, rightly, that democracy wa not actually hanging by a thread I'm basically an apologist. I mean I hate to just link a Daily Show clip but it might be the quickest summary. Some highlights: - Louis Gohmert meeting a J6er on release from prison to give her an honorary flag
- Trump rally starting with a voice saying “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages” followed by a recording of J6ers singing the anthem while Trump salutes.
- Trump calling on Biden to “release the hostages,” promising to release those “unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots” when he gets into office
Now I don’t think I’ve accused you of being pro-J6 or saying “nothing happened,” but again, you’re someone who looks at Biden trying to forgive some student debt or Trump getting fined for the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of financial fraud he committed, and sees a slippery slope to authoritarianism. But meanwhile a sitting president incited an armed mob to threaten Congress into supporting him staying in office after losing. Now he openly celebrates the members of that mob as “incredible patriots” and wants to use presidential authority to shield them from consequences. I’ve asked three times now, would you consider that a concerning slippery slope or no? Those all line up more with the second position I gave, but again I don't see any "lionizing" going on, especially if Trump is still hedging on the violent offenders. So yes, it would be bad if he was saying "the people chasing after Congressmen to threaten them are heroes". But I don't read any of it that way. I think the use of the words "hostsges" and "unfairly treated" is helpful here. All this however is getting more in the weeds. The idea that the people breaking down the doors are being "lionized" by the party is just wrong. Has Trump at any point made that distinction clear? Has he said "these innocent people who did nothing wrong should be freed, but these ones who were clearly up to no good should stay locked up?" Or are we just assuming that must be what Trump meant?
As I alluded to previously, Trump made some comment about not pardoning those who " got out if control" although obviously that phrase is non-specific. But I think it underlined that Trump knows a blanket pardon would not be a move supported even by his own party
|
Trump trying to declare himself the winner has no legal standing. That sure didn't stop him from trying.
Sorry but I find that a very weak argument. None of this has legal standing. Trump and his campaign tried anyway.
A Coup never has legal standing. They "make it legal" by virtue of succeeding.
|
On March 31 2024 00:42 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2024 00:23 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:24 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:13 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 18:42 BlackJack wrote:On March 30 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On March 30 2024 14:51 BlackJack wrote:On March 30 2024 09:20 KwarK wrote:[quote] In your reality is the view that Trump won 2020 not a mainstream one among Republican state level representatives in Georgia and Arizona. In our reality we have a clear path to Trump staying in power. 1. Pence fails to certify the electors. According to Pence he was only actually talked into certifying them by Dan fucking Quayle. Also the Secret Service attempted to remove Pence before certification took place. Also an explicitly stated goal of Trump's mob that he specifically called upon them to do was to get him to certify the election. 2. The Republican controlled state legislatures give Trump the electoral college votes won by Biden. That's wholly plausible given how many state representatives openly say the election was stolen by Biden and that Trump won. Anyway, here's some excerpts from Trump's Jan 6 speech. [quote] So it's really not clear that the mob Trump raised at that rally was an explicit attempt to send the elections back to the states beyond the literal chants of "send it back" that he led the mob in. And it's really not clear that it was an order and a threat against Mike Pence beyond "we're not going to let that happen" and "I'm going to be very disappointed in you", and of course, the fact that the mob started chanting "hang Mike Pence" for some reason. So which part of the seizure of power do you think was so unlikely. Mike Pence failing to certify or the Republican State officials buying into the Trump election narrative? The part that barely failed because of Dan Quayle and the Secret Service or the part that didn't fail at all? People go "well I don't see how we get from Trump's mob to him staying in power" as if he didn't fucking lay it out for them step by step. [quote] Direct quote from Donald Trump on Jan 6 to his mob before sending them to make Pence send it back. Trump explained his plan to his followers but now people, who can literally watch the video in which Trump explains his plan which he specifically states is a plan to seize power, say "I don't think there was an actual plan to seize power". You’re failing to mention that the idea Pence could reject the electors is based on a dubious legal theory that even the creator called a controversial long shot that would likely be rejected by the Supreme Court. Your post treats it as a foregone conclusion that it would have worked if Pence just played along. If this were a similarly dubious plot for Trump to redirect funding to build his border wall it would have been laughed out of the room but because this is useful in implicating Trump it’s become a “clear path” for Trump to stay in power. Okay, so because his clear and well-documented plan to stage a coup was dumb and doomed to fail from the start, that makes it not-an-attempted-coup? That's the conclusion you've decided to draw from reading my posts. I have no issue acknowledging that Trump would do almost anything, legal or illegal, to steal an election. I don't know if his schemes constitute a coup d'etat in the traditional sense but I'm fine with calling them that colloquially. I just also agree with Introvert that it wasn't as on a knife edge as people are making it sound. We might even agree here once you take away the position you've foisted on me. I’m fine with the position “J6 was a coup attempt, but it was hare-brained and stupid and never gonna work.” I don’t think you’ve done a very good job enumerating why – insisting their theories are “legally dubious” when someone is seizing the seat of government by force is kinda absurd. If Congress (under duress) is insisting Trump actually won the election, and Trump is calling in military units to maintain control, your theory is that… Joe Biden would simply say “I’ll see you in court”? But whatever, I don’t actually care that much about wargaming the coup to figure out its exact percentage chance of success. In 2024 I’d rather discuss something you brought up in a previous post: The problem with the line of reasoning many people are employing in this thread is that we saw that the further the mob got the more disgusted average Americans became, not just at the mob but also directly at Trump. See, I think this was right in 2021, and I’m glad because I think that’s an appropriate reaction to partisans, on behalf of the President, breaking into the Capitol and trying to intimidate Congress into overturning an election. Now in 2024 one party still has that reaction to J6ers, while the other calls them heroes and patriots. Trump, as mentioned, is opening rallies with a rendition of the anthem sung by imprisoned J6ers while he stands and salutes. He promises to pardon them on his first day back in office. So, uh, generally speaking: a President openly endorsing armed bands of thugs committing crimes to intimidate his political enemies into submission, and promising to use his legal authority as President to shield them from legal consequences. That’s bad, right? Is this one of those “slippery slopes?” @Intro, can we get a ruling? From what I can tell, that is a very minority position even though you keep repeating it. There are a growing number of people who think the DOJ has been too harsh, as certain GOP outlets are focus on some defendants who seem like they could be overcharged, but that is miles away from calling them "heroes". Found a random poll reported on by wapo that says 55% of gop voters think the j6 defendants have been charged fairly or not harshly enough. And given the wording, the percentage for "heroes" is probably miniscule. So where is this majority you speak of? Ctrl+F-ing the word “majority” in my post just to make sure I’m not crazy. Where did I say a “majority” of any population supports them? I said the party is lionizing them, and Trump is explicitly endorsing them and promising to pardon them. That’s a no on getting a ruling, then? Apologies if you haven't used that exact word in the multiple posts you've made in this topic in the past few days. But to me blanket statements like "the party is lionizing them" requires some sort of evidence? If the position that they are heroes is so mainstream as to be dangerous, shouldn't at least most Republicans agree with that statement? You are apparently unfamiliar with how this issue is actually discussed within the GOP. The position they are heroes is very small. The position they are being unfairly treated is more widely held, given stories about how some people were barely in the building and contrasting that with how the Biden DOJ had treated left wing violence. And finally, the single largest block of Republicans, a majority according to that poll, considers them criminals. Trump dangling pardons has more yo do with the second view than the first. He did, after all, fail to preemptively pardon them in 2021. *** Edit:it is annoying, but not surprising, that apparently if I don't the absolute maximally hardcore stance I'm implicty and explicitly accused of saying nothing happened. I've said what happened on Jan 6 is bad, I've been saying it since it happened! But because I say, rightly, that democracy wa not actually hanging by a thread I'm basically an apologist. I mean I hate to just link a Daily Show clip but it might be the quickest summary. Some highlights: - Louis Gohmert meeting a J6er on release from prison to give her an honorary flag
- Trump rally starting with a voice saying “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages” followed by a recording of J6ers singing the anthem while Trump salutes.
- Trump calling on Biden to “release the hostages,” promising to release those “unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots” when he gets into office
Now I don’t think I’ve accused you of being pro-J6 or saying “nothing happened,” but again, you’re someone who looks at Biden trying to forgive some student debt or Trump getting fined for the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of financial fraud he committed, and sees a slippery slope to authoritarianism. But meanwhile a sitting president incited an armed mob to threaten Congress into supporting him staying in office after losing. Now he openly celebrates the members of that mob as “incredible patriots” and wants to use presidential authority to shield them from consequences. I’ve asked three times now, would you consider that a concerning slippery slope or no? Those all line up more with the second position I gave, but again I don't see any "lionizing" going on, especially if Trump is still hedging on the violent offenders. So yes, it would be bad if he was saying "the people chasing after Congressmen to threaten them are heroes". But I don't read any of it that way. I think the use of the words "hostsges" and "unfairly treated" is helpful here. All this however is getting more in the weeds. The idea that the people breaking down the doors are being "lionized" by the party is just wrong.
Celebrating someone as a martyr is lionizing them. Giving them an honorary flag on release is lionizing them. And calling them “incredible patriots” is definitely lionizing them. I mean come on, Trump loudly proclaims his love and support for those incredible patriots, and then gives some soft waffley language about maybe excluding the “out of control” ones and you say “nothing to see here, clearly Trump is just working from his liberal positions on criminal justice”?
In other contexts (e.g. BLM protesters) Trump is happy to celebrate extrajudicial violence or even execution, he’s not coming from some principled position here. He likes them because they’re friendlies who proved their loyalty, and he celebrates them as martyrs because he wants more fans like that (and, maybe, because he would really like “under federal indictment” to be a more positive association right now).
The slippery slope, by the way, would be inciting supporters to crimes on his behalf and pardoning them, by the way, not just calling them heroes. Maybe Joe Biden should start calling on his supporters to commit federal crimes against Republicans and promising to pardon them?
|
On March 31 2024 01:09 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2024 00:42 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2024 00:23 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:24 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:13 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 18:42 BlackJack wrote:On March 30 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:On March 30 2024 14:51 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
You’re failing to mention that the idea Pence could reject the electors is based on a dubious legal theory that even the creator called a controversial long shot that would likely be rejected by the Supreme Court. Your post treats it as a foregone conclusion that it would have worked if Pence just played along. If this were a similarly dubious plot for Trump to redirect funding to build his border wall it would have been laughed out of the room but because this is useful in implicating Trump it’s become a “clear path” for Trump to stay in power.
Okay, so because his clear and well-documented plan to stage a coup was dumb and doomed to fail from the start, that makes it not-an-attempted-coup? That's the conclusion you've decided to draw from reading my posts. I have no issue acknowledging that Trump would do almost anything, legal or illegal, to steal an election. I don't know if his schemes constitute a coup d'etat in the traditional sense but I'm fine with calling them that colloquially. I just also agree with Introvert that it wasn't as on a knife edge as people are making it sound. We might even agree here once you take away the position you've foisted on me. I’m fine with the position “J6 was a coup attempt, but it was hare-brained and stupid and never gonna work.” I don’t think you’ve done a very good job enumerating why – insisting their theories are “legally dubious” when someone is seizing the seat of government by force is kinda absurd. If Congress (under duress) is insisting Trump actually won the election, and Trump is calling in military units to maintain control, your theory is that… Joe Biden would simply say “I’ll see you in court”? But whatever, I don’t actually care that much about wargaming the coup to figure out its exact percentage chance of success. In 2024 I’d rather discuss something you brought up in a previous post: The problem with the line of reasoning many people are employing in this thread is that we saw that the further the mob got the more disgusted average Americans became, not just at the mob but also directly at Trump. See, I think this was right in 2021, and I’m glad because I think that’s an appropriate reaction to partisans, on behalf of the President, breaking into the Capitol and trying to intimidate Congress into overturning an election. Now in 2024 one party still has that reaction to J6ers, while the other calls them heroes and patriots. Trump, as mentioned, is opening rallies with a rendition of the anthem sung by imprisoned J6ers while he stands and salutes. He promises to pardon them on his first day back in office. So, uh, generally speaking: a President openly endorsing armed bands of thugs committing crimes to intimidate his political enemies into submission, and promising to use his legal authority as President to shield them from legal consequences. That’s bad, right? Is this one of those “slippery slopes?” @Intro, can we get a ruling? From what I can tell, that is a very minority position even though you keep repeating it. There are a growing number of people who think the DOJ has been too harsh, as certain GOP outlets are focus on some defendants who seem like they could be overcharged, but that is miles away from calling them "heroes". Found a random poll reported on by wapo that says 55% of gop voters think the j6 defendants have been charged fairly or not harshly enough. And given the wording, the percentage for "heroes" is probably miniscule. So where is this majority you speak of? Ctrl+F-ing the word “majority” in my post just to make sure I’m not crazy. Where did I say a “majority” of any population supports them? I said the party is lionizing them, and Trump is explicitly endorsing them and promising to pardon them. That’s a no on getting a ruling, then? Apologies if you haven't used that exact word in the multiple posts you've made in this topic in the past few days. But to me blanket statements like "the party is lionizing them" requires some sort of evidence? If the position that they are heroes is so mainstream as to be dangerous, shouldn't at least most Republicans agree with that statement? You are apparently unfamiliar with how this issue is actually discussed within the GOP. The position they are heroes is very small. The position they are being unfairly treated is more widely held, given stories about how some people were barely in the building and contrasting that with how the Biden DOJ had treated left wing violence. And finally, the single largest block of Republicans, a majority according to that poll, considers them criminals. Trump dangling pardons has more yo do with the second view than the first. He did, after all, fail to preemptively pardon them in 2021. *** Edit:it is annoying, but not surprising, that apparently if I don't the absolute maximally hardcore stance I'm implicty and explicitly accused of saying nothing happened. I've said what happened on Jan 6 is bad, I've been saying it since it happened! But because I say, rightly, that democracy wa not actually hanging by a thread I'm basically an apologist. I mean I hate to just link a Daily Show clip but it might be the quickest summary. Some highlights: - Louis Gohmert meeting a J6er on release from prison to give her an honorary flag
- Trump rally starting with a voice saying “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages” followed by a recording of J6ers singing the anthem while Trump salutes.
- Trump calling on Biden to “release the hostages,” promising to release those “unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots” when he gets into office
Now I don’t think I’ve accused you of being pro-J6 or saying “nothing happened,” but again, you’re someone who looks at Biden trying to forgive some student debt or Trump getting fined for the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of financial fraud he committed, and sees a slippery slope to authoritarianism. But meanwhile a sitting president incited an armed mob to threaten Congress into supporting him staying in office after losing. Now he openly celebrates the members of that mob as “incredible patriots” and wants to use presidential authority to shield them from consequences. I’ve asked three times now, would you consider that a concerning slippery slope or no? Those all line up more with the second position I gave, but again I don't see any "lionizing" going on, especially if Trump is still hedging on the violent offenders. So yes, it would be bad if he was saying "the people chasing after Congressmen to threaten them are heroes". But I don't read any of it that way. I think the use of the words "hostsges" and "unfairly treated" is helpful here. All this however is getting more in the weeds. The idea that the people breaking down the doors are being "lionized" by the party is just wrong. Celebrating someone as a martyr is lionizing them. Giving them an honorary flag on release is lionizing them. And calling them “incredible patriots” is definitely lionizing them. I mean come on, Trump loudly proclaims his love and support for those incredible patriots, and then gives some soft waffley language about maybe excluding the “out of control” ones and you say “nothing to see here, clearly Trump is just working from his liberal positions on criminal justice”? In other contexts (e.g. BLM protesters) Trump is happy to celebrate extrajudicial violence or even execution, he’s not coming from some principled position here. He likes them because they’re friendlies who proved their loyalty, and he celebrates them as martyrs because he wants more fans like that (and, maybe, because he would really like “under federal indictment” to be a more positive association right now). The slippery slope, by the way, would be inciting supporters to crimes on his behalf and pardoning them, by the way, not just calling them heroes. Maybe Joe Biden should start calling on his supporters to commit federal crimes against Republicans and promising to pardon them?
But they aren't martyrs in their capacity as rioters, but as "hostages" bring "treated unfairly." Thats why they are being called political prisoners. And again, most of the party consider those charged as criminals, your statements are at very best overbroad. I have also explained how this topic is actually discussed on the right generally, but I guess you can take it or leave it.
|
Where are these places I can find these reasonable takes in the right?
|
On March 31 2024 01:31 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2024 01:09 ChristianS wrote:On March 31 2024 00:42 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2024 00:23 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:24 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:13 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 18:42 BlackJack wrote:On March 30 2024 17:16 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Okay, so because his clear and well-documented plan to stage a coup was dumb and doomed to fail from the start, that makes it not-an-attempted-coup?
That's the conclusion you've decided to draw from reading my posts. I have no issue acknowledging that Trump would do almost anything, legal or illegal, to steal an election. I don't know if his schemes constitute a coup d'etat in the traditional sense but I'm fine with calling them that colloquially. I just also agree with Introvert that it wasn't as on a knife edge as people are making it sound. We might even agree here once you take away the position you've foisted on me. I’m fine with the position “J6 was a coup attempt, but it was hare-brained and stupid and never gonna work.” I don’t think you’ve done a very good job enumerating why – insisting their theories are “legally dubious” when someone is seizing the seat of government by force is kinda absurd. If Congress (under duress) is insisting Trump actually won the election, and Trump is calling in military units to maintain control, your theory is that… Joe Biden would simply say “I’ll see you in court”? But whatever, I don’t actually care that much about wargaming the coup to figure out its exact percentage chance of success. In 2024 I’d rather discuss something you brought up in a previous post: The problem with the line of reasoning many people are employing in this thread is that we saw that the further the mob got the more disgusted average Americans became, not just at the mob but also directly at Trump. See, I think this was right in 2021, and I’m glad because I think that’s an appropriate reaction to partisans, on behalf of the President, breaking into the Capitol and trying to intimidate Congress into overturning an election. Now in 2024 one party still has that reaction to J6ers, while the other calls them heroes and patriots. Trump, as mentioned, is opening rallies with a rendition of the anthem sung by imprisoned J6ers while he stands and salutes. He promises to pardon them on his first day back in office. So, uh, generally speaking: a President openly endorsing armed bands of thugs committing crimes to intimidate his political enemies into submission, and promising to use his legal authority as President to shield them from legal consequences. That’s bad, right? Is this one of those “slippery slopes?” @Intro, can we get a ruling? From what I can tell, that is a very minority position even though you keep repeating it. There are a growing number of people who think the DOJ has been too harsh, as certain GOP outlets are focus on some defendants who seem like they could be overcharged, but that is miles away from calling them "heroes". Found a random poll reported on by wapo that says 55% of gop voters think the j6 defendants have been charged fairly or not harshly enough. And given the wording, the percentage for "heroes" is probably miniscule. So where is this majority you speak of? Ctrl+F-ing the word “majority” in my post just to make sure I’m not crazy. Where did I say a “majority” of any population supports them? I said the party is lionizing them, and Trump is explicitly endorsing them and promising to pardon them. That’s a no on getting a ruling, then? Apologies if you haven't used that exact word in the multiple posts you've made in this topic in the past few days. But to me blanket statements like "the party is lionizing them" requires some sort of evidence? If the position that they are heroes is so mainstream as to be dangerous, shouldn't at least most Republicans agree with that statement? You are apparently unfamiliar with how this issue is actually discussed within the GOP. The position they are heroes is very small. The position they are being unfairly treated is more widely held, given stories about how some people were barely in the building and contrasting that with how the Biden DOJ had treated left wing violence. And finally, the single largest block of Republicans, a majority according to that poll, considers them criminals. Trump dangling pardons has more yo do with the second view than the first. He did, after all, fail to preemptively pardon them in 2021. *** Edit:it is annoying, but not surprising, that apparently if I don't the absolute maximally hardcore stance I'm implicty and explicitly accused of saying nothing happened. I've said what happened on Jan 6 is bad, I've been saying it since it happened! But because I say, rightly, that democracy wa not actually hanging by a thread I'm basically an apologist. I mean I hate to just link a Daily Show clip but it might be the quickest summary. Some highlights: - Louis Gohmert meeting a J6er on release from prison to give her an honorary flag
- Trump rally starting with a voice saying “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages” followed by a recording of J6ers singing the anthem while Trump salutes.
- Trump calling on Biden to “release the hostages,” promising to release those “unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots” when he gets into office
Now I don’t think I’ve accused you of being pro-J6 or saying “nothing happened,” but again, you’re someone who looks at Biden trying to forgive some student debt or Trump getting fined for the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of financial fraud he committed, and sees a slippery slope to authoritarianism. But meanwhile a sitting president incited an armed mob to threaten Congress into supporting him staying in office after losing. Now he openly celebrates the members of that mob as “incredible patriots” and wants to use presidential authority to shield them from consequences. I’ve asked three times now, would you consider that a concerning slippery slope or no? Those all line up more with the second position I gave, but again I don't see any "lionizing" going on, especially if Trump is still hedging on the violent offenders. So yes, it would be bad if he was saying "the people chasing after Congressmen to threaten them are heroes". But I don't read any of it that way. I think the use of the words "hostsges" and "unfairly treated" is helpful here. All this however is getting more in the weeds. The idea that the people breaking down the doors are being "lionized" by the party is just wrong. Celebrating someone as a martyr is lionizing them. Giving them an honorary flag on release is lionizing them. And calling them “incredible patriots” is definitely lionizing them. I mean come on, Trump loudly proclaims his love and support for those incredible patriots, and then gives some soft waffley language about maybe excluding the “out of control” ones and you say “nothing to see here, clearly Trump is just working from his liberal positions on criminal justice”? In other contexts (e.g. BLM protesters) Trump is happy to celebrate extrajudicial violence or even execution, he’s not coming from some principled position here. He likes them because they’re friendlies who proved their loyalty, and he celebrates them as martyrs because he wants more fans like that (and, maybe, because he would really like “under federal indictment” to be a more positive association right now). The slippery slope, by the way, would be inciting supporters to crimes on his behalf and pardoning them, by the way, not just calling them heroes. Maybe Joe Biden should start calling on his supporters to commit federal crimes against Republicans and promising to pardon them? But they aren't martyrs in their capacity as rioters, but as "hostages" bring "treated unfairly." Thats why they are being called political prisoners. And again, most of the party consider those charged as criminals, your statements are at very best overbroad. I have also explained how this topic is actually discussed on the right generally, but I guess you can take it or leave it.
You keep blowing past the “incredible patriots” thing. If I thought someone had committed crimes, but the charges against them were a bit overzealous, I don’t think I’d call them an “incredible patriot” for it. I mean fuck, what’s having them singing the national anthem supposed to say if not “these people were emblematic of what patriotism means”?
Or maybe you’re trying to talk past Trump and insist the party generally still doesn’t support them. Never before 2016 would I have been criticized for attributing a position to “the party” because their presidential nominee loudly espouses it at every opportunity.
|
On March 31 2024 01:50 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2024 01:31 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2024 01:09 ChristianS wrote:On March 31 2024 00:42 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2024 00:23 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:24 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:13 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 18:42 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
That's the conclusion you've decided to draw from reading my posts. I have no issue acknowledging that Trump would do almost anything, legal or illegal, to steal an election. I don't know if his schemes constitute a coup d'etat in the traditional sense but I'm fine with calling them that colloquially.
I just also agree with Introvert that it wasn't as on a knife edge as people are making it sound.
We might even agree here once you take away the position you've foisted on me.
I’m fine with the position “J6 was a coup attempt, but it was hare-brained and stupid and never gonna work.” I don’t think you’ve done a very good job enumerating why – insisting their theories are “legally dubious” when someone is seizing the seat of government by force is kinda absurd. If Congress (under duress) is insisting Trump actually won the election, and Trump is calling in military units to maintain control, your theory is that… Joe Biden would simply say “I’ll see you in court”? But whatever, I don’t actually care that much about wargaming the coup to figure out its exact percentage chance of success. In 2024 I’d rather discuss something you brought up in a previous post: The problem with the line of reasoning many people are employing in this thread is that we saw that the further the mob got the more disgusted average Americans became, not just at the mob but also directly at Trump. See, I think this was right in 2021, and I’m glad because I think that’s an appropriate reaction to partisans, on behalf of the President, breaking into the Capitol and trying to intimidate Congress into overturning an election. Now in 2024 one party still has that reaction to J6ers, while the other calls them heroes and patriots. Trump, as mentioned, is opening rallies with a rendition of the anthem sung by imprisoned J6ers while he stands and salutes. He promises to pardon them on his first day back in office. So, uh, generally speaking: a President openly endorsing armed bands of thugs committing crimes to intimidate his political enemies into submission, and promising to use his legal authority as President to shield them from legal consequences. That’s bad, right? Is this one of those “slippery slopes?” @Intro, can we get a ruling? From what I can tell, that is a very minority position even though you keep repeating it. There are a growing number of people who think the DOJ has been too harsh, as certain GOP outlets are focus on some defendants who seem like they could be overcharged, but that is miles away from calling them "heroes". Found a random poll reported on by wapo that says 55% of gop voters think the j6 defendants have been charged fairly or not harshly enough. And given the wording, the percentage for "heroes" is probably miniscule. So where is this majority you speak of? Ctrl+F-ing the word “majority” in my post just to make sure I’m not crazy. Where did I say a “majority” of any population supports them? I said the party is lionizing them, and Trump is explicitly endorsing them and promising to pardon them. That’s a no on getting a ruling, then? Apologies if you haven't used that exact word in the multiple posts you've made in this topic in the past few days. But to me blanket statements like "the party is lionizing them" requires some sort of evidence? If the position that they are heroes is so mainstream as to be dangerous, shouldn't at least most Republicans agree with that statement? You are apparently unfamiliar with how this issue is actually discussed within the GOP. The position they are heroes is very small. The position they are being unfairly treated is more widely held, given stories about how some people were barely in the building and contrasting that with how the Biden DOJ had treated left wing violence. And finally, the single largest block of Republicans, a majority according to that poll, considers them criminals. Trump dangling pardons has more yo do with the second view than the first. He did, after all, fail to preemptively pardon them in 2021. *** Edit:it is annoying, but not surprising, that apparently if I don't the absolute maximally hardcore stance I'm implicty and explicitly accused of saying nothing happened. I've said what happened on Jan 6 is bad, I've been saying it since it happened! But because I say, rightly, that democracy wa not actually hanging by a thread I'm basically an apologist. I mean I hate to just link a Daily Show clip but it might be the quickest summary. Some highlights: - Louis Gohmert meeting a J6er on release from prison to give her an honorary flag
- Trump rally starting with a voice saying “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages” followed by a recording of J6ers singing the anthem while Trump salutes.
- Trump calling on Biden to “release the hostages,” promising to release those “unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots” when he gets into office
Now I don’t think I’ve accused you of being pro-J6 or saying “nothing happened,” but again, you’re someone who looks at Biden trying to forgive some student debt or Trump getting fined for the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of financial fraud he committed, and sees a slippery slope to authoritarianism. But meanwhile a sitting president incited an armed mob to threaten Congress into supporting him staying in office after losing. Now he openly celebrates the members of that mob as “incredible patriots” and wants to use presidential authority to shield them from consequences. I’ve asked three times now, would you consider that a concerning slippery slope or no? Those all line up more with the second position I gave, but again I don't see any "lionizing" going on, especially if Trump is still hedging on the violent offenders. So yes, it would be bad if he was saying "the people chasing after Congressmen to threaten them are heroes". But I don't read any of it that way. I think the use of the words "hostsges" and "unfairly treated" is helpful here. All this however is getting more in the weeds. The idea that the people breaking down the doors are being "lionized" by the party is just wrong. Celebrating someone as a martyr is lionizing them. Giving them an honorary flag on release is lionizing them. And calling them “incredible patriots” is definitely lionizing them. I mean come on, Trump loudly proclaims his love and support for those incredible patriots, and then gives some soft waffley language about maybe excluding the “out of control” ones and you say “nothing to see here, clearly Trump is just working from his liberal positions on criminal justice”? In other contexts (e.g. BLM protesters) Trump is happy to celebrate extrajudicial violence or even execution, he’s not coming from some principled position here. He likes them because they’re friendlies who proved their loyalty, and he celebrates them as martyrs because he wants more fans like that (and, maybe, because he would really like “under federal indictment” to be a more positive association right now). The slippery slope, by the way, would be inciting supporters to crimes on his behalf and pardoning them, by the way, not just calling them heroes. Maybe Joe Biden should start calling on his supporters to commit federal crimes against Republicans and promising to pardon them? But they aren't martyrs in their capacity as rioters, but as "hostages" bring "treated unfairly." Thats why they are being called political prisoners. And again, most of the party consider those charged as criminals, your statements are at very best overbroad. I have also explained how this topic is actually discussed on the right generally, but I guess you can take it or leave it. You keep blowing past the “incredible patriots” thing. If I thought someone had committed crimes, but the charges against them were a bit overzealous, I don’t think I’d call them an “incredible patriot” for it. I mean fuck, what’s having them singing the national anthem supposed to say if not “these people were emblematic of what patriotism means”? Or maybe you’re trying to talk past Trump and insist the party generally still doesn’t support them. Never before 2016 would I have been criticized for attributing a position to “the party” because their presidential nominee loudly espouses it at every opportunity.
I think in the soup of different kinds of people that were there the different categories apply. The people who were literally at his rally then walked down to the capitol and maybe were arrested when they didn't do anything wrong/violent could be called patriots without associating them with everyone else. Not that I would call them that.
Believe me or don't I guess, but I'm at least somewhat more in tune with the thinking going on in the background. Now maybe Trump.will adjust his rhetoric some more, but I'm telling you the background milieu which provides the context for this is not about calling people who assaulted the police patriots. At least not yet, and again the majority of the party doesn't think so either. I think we have both gone around this enough.
Never before 2016 would I have been criticized for attributing a position to “the party” because their presidential nominee loudly espouses it at every opportunity.
I disagree with this, why then do we even have primaries? And moreover, we could credibly claim Trump doesn't speak for the whole party to an extent greater than most others in recent memory. After all, if you are right about Trump's patriot rhetoric, then the poll I posted proves it! Trump says X about j6 rioters, most Republicans disagree. The very thing we are discussing is evidence for my position.
|
Northern Ireland23322 Posts
On March 31 2024 02:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2024 01:50 ChristianS wrote:On March 31 2024 01:31 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2024 01:09 ChristianS wrote:On March 31 2024 00:42 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2024 00:23 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:24 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:13 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I’m fine with the position “J6 was a coup attempt, but it was hare-brained and stupid and never gonna work.” I don’t think you’ve done a very good job enumerating why – insisting their theories are “legally dubious” when someone is seizing the seat of government by force is kinda absurd. If Congress (under duress) is insisting Trump actually won the election, and Trump is calling in military units to maintain control, your theory is that… Joe Biden would simply say “I’ll see you in court”?
But whatever, I don’t actually care that much about wargaming the coup to figure out its exact percentage chance of success. In 2024 I’d rather discuss something you brought up in a previous post:
[quote]
See, I think this was right in 2021, and I’m glad because I think that’s an appropriate reaction to partisans, on behalf of the President, breaking into the Capitol and trying to intimidate Congress into overturning an election. Now in 2024 one party still has that reaction to J6ers, while the other calls them heroes and patriots. Trump, as mentioned, is opening rallies with a rendition of the anthem sung by imprisoned J6ers while he stands and salutes. He promises to pardon them on his first day back in office.
So, uh, generally speaking: a President openly endorsing armed bands of thugs committing crimes to intimidate his political enemies into submission, and promising to use his legal authority as President to shield them from legal consequences. That’s bad, right? Is this one of those “slippery slopes?” @Intro, can we get a ruling? From what I can tell, that is a very minority position even though you keep repeating it. There are a growing number of people who think the DOJ has been too harsh, as certain GOP outlets are focus on some defendants who seem like they could be overcharged, but that is miles away from calling them "heroes". Found a random poll reported on by wapo that says 55% of gop voters think the j6 defendants have been charged fairly or not harshly enough. And given the wording, the percentage for "heroes" is probably miniscule. So where is this majority you speak of? Ctrl+F-ing the word “majority” in my post just to make sure I’m not crazy. Where did I say a “majority” of any population supports them? I said the party is lionizing them, and Trump is explicitly endorsing them and promising to pardon them. That’s a no on getting a ruling, then? Apologies if you haven't used that exact word in the multiple posts you've made in this topic in the past few days. But to me blanket statements like "the party is lionizing them" requires some sort of evidence? If the position that they are heroes is so mainstream as to be dangerous, shouldn't at least most Republicans agree with that statement? You are apparently unfamiliar with how this issue is actually discussed within the GOP. The position they are heroes is very small. The position they are being unfairly treated is more widely held, given stories about how some people were barely in the building and contrasting that with how the Biden DOJ had treated left wing violence. And finally, the single largest block of Republicans, a majority according to that poll, considers them criminals. Trump dangling pardons has more yo do with the second view than the first. He did, after all, fail to preemptively pardon them in 2021. *** Edit:it is annoying, but not surprising, that apparently if I don't the absolute maximally hardcore stance I'm implicty and explicitly accused of saying nothing happened. I've said what happened on Jan 6 is bad, I've been saying it since it happened! But because I say, rightly, that democracy wa not actually hanging by a thread I'm basically an apologist. I mean I hate to just link a Daily Show clip but it might be the quickest summary. Some highlights: - Louis Gohmert meeting a J6er on release from prison to give her an honorary flag
- Trump rally starting with a voice saying “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages” followed by a recording of J6ers singing the anthem while Trump salutes.
- Trump calling on Biden to “release the hostages,” promising to release those “unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots” when he gets into office
Now I don’t think I’ve accused you of being pro-J6 or saying “nothing happened,” but again, you’re someone who looks at Biden trying to forgive some student debt or Trump getting fined for the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of financial fraud he committed, and sees a slippery slope to authoritarianism. But meanwhile a sitting president incited an armed mob to threaten Congress into supporting him staying in office after losing. Now he openly celebrates the members of that mob as “incredible patriots” and wants to use presidential authority to shield them from consequences. I’ve asked three times now, would you consider that a concerning slippery slope or no? Those all line up more with the second position I gave, but again I don't see any "lionizing" going on, especially if Trump is still hedging on the violent offenders. So yes, it would be bad if he was saying "the people chasing after Congressmen to threaten them are heroes". But I don't read any of it that way. I think the use of the words "hostsges" and "unfairly treated" is helpful here. All this however is getting more in the weeds. The idea that the people breaking down the doors are being "lionized" by the party is just wrong. Celebrating someone as a martyr is lionizing them. Giving them an honorary flag on release is lionizing them. And calling them “incredible patriots” is definitely lionizing them. I mean come on, Trump loudly proclaims his love and support for those incredible patriots, and then gives some soft waffley language about maybe excluding the “out of control” ones and you say “nothing to see here, clearly Trump is just working from his liberal positions on criminal justice”? In other contexts (e.g. BLM protesters) Trump is happy to celebrate extrajudicial violence or even execution, he’s not coming from some principled position here. He likes them because they’re friendlies who proved their loyalty, and he celebrates them as martyrs because he wants more fans like that (and, maybe, because he would really like “under federal indictment” to be a more positive association right now). The slippery slope, by the way, would be inciting supporters to crimes on his behalf and pardoning them, by the way, not just calling them heroes. Maybe Joe Biden should start calling on his supporters to commit federal crimes against Republicans and promising to pardon them? But they aren't martyrs in their capacity as rioters, but as "hostages" bring "treated unfairly." Thats why they are being called political prisoners. And again, most of the party consider those charged as criminals, your statements are at very best overbroad. I have also explained how this topic is actually discussed on the right generally, but I guess you can take it or leave it. You keep blowing past the “incredible patriots” thing. If I thought someone had committed crimes, but the charges against them were a bit overzealous, I don’t think I’d call them an “incredible patriot” for it. I mean fuck, what’s having them singing the national anthem supposed to say if not “these people were emblematic of what patriotism means”? Or maybe you’re trying to talk past Trump and insist the party generally still doesn’t support them. Never before 2016 would I have been criticized for attributing a position to “the party” because their presidential nominee loudly espouses it at every opportunity. I think in the soup of different kinds of people that were there the different categories apply. The people who were literally at his rally then walked down to the capitol and maybe were arrested when they didn't do anything wrong/violent could be called patriots without associating them with everyone else. Not that I would call them that. Believe me or don't I guess, but I'm at least somewhat more in tune with the thinking going on in the background. Now maybe Trump.will adjust his rhetoric some more, but I'm telling you the background milieu which provides the context for this is not about calling people who assaulted the police patriots. At least not yet, and again the majority of the party doesn't think so either. I think we have both gone around this enough. Show nested quote +Never before 2016 would I have been criticized for attributing a position to “the party” because their presidential nominee loudly espouses it at every opportunity. I disagree with this, why then do we even have primaries? And moreover, we could credibly claim Trump doesn't speak for the whole party to an extent greater than most others in recent memory. After all, if you are right about Trump's patriot rhetoric, then the poll I posted proves it! Trump says X about j6 rioters, most Republicans disagree. The very thing we are discussing is evidence for my position.
How can you claim Trump doesn’t speak for the party when he absolutely crushed the primaries?
|
On March 31 2024 02:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2024 01:50 ChristianS wrote:On March 31 2024 01:31 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2024 01:09 ChristianS wrote:On March 31 2024 00:42 Introvert wrote:On March 31 2024 00:23 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:42 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 30 2024 23:24 Introvert wrote:On March 30 2024 23:13 ChristianS wrote:
[quote]
I’m fine with the position “J6 was a coup attempt, but it was hare-brained and stupid and never gonna work.” I don’t think you’ve done a very good job enumerating why – insisting their theories are “legally dubious” when someone is seizing the seat of government by force is kinda absurd. If Congress (under duress) is insisting Trump actually won the election, and Trump is calling in military units to maintain control, your theory is that… Joe Biden would simply say “I’ll see you in court”?
But whatever, I don’t actually care that much about wargaming the coup to figure out its exact percentage chance of success. In 2024 I’d rather discuss something you brought up in a previous post:
[quote]
See, I think this was right in 2021, and I’m glad because I think that’s an appropriate reaction to partisans, on behalf of the President, breaking into the Capitol and trying to intimidate Congress into overturning an election. Now in 2024 one party still has that reaction to J6ers, while the other calls them heroes and patriots. Trump, as mentioned, is opening rallies with a rendition of the anthem sung by imprisoned J6ers while he stands and salutes. He promises to pardon them on his first day back in office.
So, uh, generally speaking: a President openly endorsing armed bands of thugs committing crimes to intimidate his political enemies into submission, and promising to use his legal authority as President to shield them from legal consequences. That’s bad, right? Is this one of those “slippery slopes?” @Intro, can we get a ruling? From what I can tell, that is a very minority position even though you keep repeating it. There are a growing number of people who think the DOJ has been too harsh, as certain GOP outlets are focus on some defendants who seem like they could be overcharged, but that is miles away from calling them "heroes". Found a random poll reported on by wapo that says 55% of gop voters think the j6 defendants have been charged fairly or not harshly enough. And given the wording, the percentage for "heroes" is probably miniscule. So where is this majority you speak of? Ctrl+F-ing the word “majority” in my post just to make sure I’m not crazy. Where did I say a “majority” of any population supports them? I said the party is lionizing them, and Trump is explicitly endorsing them and promising to pardon them. That’s a no on getting a ruling, then? Apologies if you haven't used that exact word in the multiple posts you've made in this topic in the past few days. But to me blanket statements like "the party is lionizing them" requires some sort of evidence? If the position that they are heroes is so mainstream as to be dangerous, shouldn't at least most Republicans agree with that statement? You are apparently unfamiliar with how this issue is actually discussed within the GOP. The position they are heroes is very small. The position they are being unfairly treated is more widely held, given stories about how some people were barely in the building and contrasting that with how the Biden DOJ had treated left wing violence. And finally, the single largest block of Republicans, a majority according to that poll, considers them criminals. Trump dangling pardons has more yo do with the second view than the first. He did, after all, fail to preemptively pardon them in 2021. *** Edit:it is annoying, but not surprising, that apparently if I don't the absolute maximally hardcore stance I'm implicty and explicitly accused of saying nothing happened. I've said what happened on Jan 6 is bad, I've been saying it since it happened! But because I say, rightly, that democracy wa not actually hanging by a thread I'm basically an apologist. I mean I hate to just link a Daily Show clip but it might be the quickest summary. Some highlights: - Louis Gohmert meeting a J6er on release from prison to give her an honorary flag
- Trump rally starting with a voice saying “Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages” followed by a recording of J6ers singing the anthem while Trump salutes.
- Trump calling on Biden to “release the hostages,” promising to release those “unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots” when he gets into office
Now I don’t think I’ve accused you of being pro-J6 or saying “nothing happened,” but again, you’re someone who looks at Biden trying to forgive some student debt or Trump getting fined for the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of financial fraud he committed, and sees a slippery slope to authoritarianism. But meanwhile a sitting president incited an armed mob to threaten Congress into supporting him staying in office after losing. Now he openly celebrates the members of that mob as “incredible patriots” and wants to use presidential authority to shield them from consequences. I’ve asked three times now, would you consider that a concerning slippery slope or no? Those all line up more with the second position I gave, but again I don't see any "lionizing" going on, especially if Trump is still hedging on the violent offenders. So yes, it would be bad if he was saying "the people chasing after Congressmen to threaten them are heroes". But I don't read any of it that way. I think the use of the words "hostsges" and "unfairly treated" is helpful here. All this however is getting more in the weeds. The idea that the people breaking down the doors are being "lionized" by the party is just wrong. Celebrating someone as a martyr is lionizing them. Giving them an honorary flag on release is lionizing them. And calling them “incredible patriots” is definitely lionizing them. I mean come on, Trump loudly proclaims his love and support for those incredible patriots, and then gives some soft waffley language about maybe excluding the “out of control” ones and you say “nothing to see here, clearly Trump is just working from his liberal positions on criminal justice”? In other contexts (e.g. BLM protesters) Trump is happy to celebrate extrajudicial violence or even execution, he’s not coming from some principled position here. He likes them because they’re friendlies who proved their loyalty, and he celebrates them as martyrs because he wants more fans like that (and, maybe, because he would really like “under federal indictment” to be a more positive association right now). The slippery slope, by the way, would be inciting supporters to crimes on his behalf and pardoning them, by the way, not just calling them heroes. Maybe Joe Biden should start calling on his supporters to commit federal crimes against Republicans and promising to pardon them? But they aren't martyrs in their capacity as rioters, but as "hostages" bring "treated unfairly." Thats why they are being called political prisoners. And again, most of the party consider those charged as criminals, your statements are at very best overbroad. I have also explained how this topic is actually discussed on the right generally, but I guess you can take it or leave it. You keep blowing past the “incredible patriots” thing. If I thought someone had committed crimes, but the charges against them were a bit overzealous, I don’t think I’d call them an “incredible patriot” for it. I mean fuck, what’s having them singing the national anthem supposed to say if not “these people were emblematic of what patriotism means”? Or maybe you’re trying to talk past Trump and insist the party generally still doesn’t support them. Never before 2016 would I have been criticized for attributing a position to “the party” because their presidential nominee loudly espouses it at every opportunity. I think in the soup of different kinds of people that were there the different categories apply. The people who were literally at his rally then walked down to the capitol and maybe were arrested when they didn't do anything wrong/violent could be called patriots without associating them with everyone else. Not that I would call them that. Believe me or don't I guess, but I'm at least somewhat more in tune with the thinking going on in the background. Now maybe Trump.will adjust his rhetoric some more, but I'm telling you the background milieu which provides the context for this is not about calling people who assaulted the police patriots. At least not yet, and again the majority of the party doesn't think so either. I think we have both gone around this enough. Show nested quote +Never before 2016 would I have been criticized for attributing a position to “the party” because their presidential nominee loudly espouses it at every opportunity. I disagree with this, why then do we even have primaries? And moreover, we could credibly claim Trump doesn't speak for the whole party to an extent greater than most others in recent memory. After all, if you are right about Trump's patriot rhetoric, then the poll I posted proves it! Trump says X about j6 rioters, most Republicans disagree. The very thing we are discussing is evidence for my position.
I thought we might wind up here. There’s a kind of rhetorical fuzziness any time we try to attribute a position to a group of people – of course, they’re different people who don’t agree on every single thing! “Republicans believe” or “J6ers believe” or even “Joe Biden and Kamala Harris believe” are, necessarily, abstractions that elide at least some amount of individual variation within the group being described.
That’s philosophically interesting and worth keeping in mind, especially when a large group (e.g. Muslims) is being generalized by the actions of a small, unrepresentative group of members. But it’s also rhetorically useful when you want to avoid negative associations with a group. “You can’t say the KKK believes black people are inferior, because the KKK isn’t a person that can believe things! Individual members believe things, and there’s surely some variation among them in what they believe.”
It’s a kind of intentional aphasia, an effort to deny uncomfortable truths because “what even is truth, man?” In this case there’s no ambiguity that the purpose of the rally was to prevent certification of the true election results, and between “hang Mike Pence” and “trial by combat” and beating cops with flagpoles, the crowd as a whole was not averse to threatening violence in pursuit of that goal. And it’s pretty clear Trump is celebrating J6ers in general (with maybe a vaguely-worded asterisk about a few exceptions), not saying their prosecutions are generally just (but got overzealous in a few cases). There’s also zero ambiguity that Republicans overwhelmingly chose him as their nominee, and that he has broad unilateral authority to set the policy objectives of the party.
So it’s not that I don’t believe you read some very nuanced-sounding takes on National Review or Ricochet or wherever. And I’m sure it’s true that right now, if you poll Republican voters, they’re not supportive of pardoning J6ers (though I fully expect those numbers to change between now and November). It’s that despite those things, the Republican nominee is making celebrating the people prosecuted for this crime a central part of his campaign, and promising to take back power and use it to shield them from consequences.
The political power of the Republican party is being used to pursue that objective. Fussing about whether that really means we can say “the party supports it” is useless obfuscation.
|
The president is a standard bearer and leader, not an instantiation of the party. In many cases you would hope that he does speak for the party, that's how he got there! But let's not commit the fallacy of division here. When a majority of the state parties, the congressional representatives, and most importantly a majority of a party's voters don't have the same views as the president, then how we can say that his position as president/nominee is the party position? But if I concede that it is, then what value does that term even have? Sometimes the president speaks for his party, sometimes he speaks for himself. In doing the latter he can bring others around to his side. This is no dodge, it is self-evidently true.
Perhaps we could adopt a standard that says a party's position on a subject is what law it would enact if it had the power. I like this because i like the idea of party platforms as being a party's thoughtful and considered compromise position about itself. And maybe when a party doesn't have one it's harder to say who speaks for it 
not perfect, but a start to show what I mean ( I don't actually intend to start yet another discussion)
Edit: needless to say, the pardon power is not part of this, as pretty much every president in modern times has made some awful pardons. That power is his alone and so doesn't fit neatly into my proposed def, and unless the nominee is running on pardoning a whole class of ppl (say, draft dodgers) it's hard to say this unilateral exercise of power is the "party position" without additional information.
|
139 out of 221 Republicans in the House voted against certifying Biden won the election.
We know what the parties position on the subject is.
Outside of Washington and Vermont Trump has won over 50% of the votes in the primaries so far.
We know the position of Republican voters, they still support a man who's main stance is that he won 4 years ago.
At what point do you stop making excuses for a party that seemingly is no longer yours?
|
On March 31 2024 04:15 Introvert wrote:The president is a standard bearer and leader, not an instantiation of the party. In many cases you would hope that he does speak for the party, that's how he got there! But let's not commit the fallacy of division here. When a majority of the state parties, the congressional representatives, and most importantly a majority of a party's voters don't have the same views as the president, then how we can say that his position as president/nominee is the party position? But if I concede that it is, then what value does that term even have? Sometimes the president speaks for his party, sometimes he speaks for himself. In doing the latter he can bring others around to his side. This is no dodge, it is self-evidently true. Perhaps we could adopt a standard that says a party's position on a subject is what law it would enact if it had the power. I like this because i like the idea of party platforms as being a party's thoughtful and considered compromise position about itself. And maybe when a party doesn't have one it's harder to say who speaks for it not perfect, but a start to show what I mean ( I don't actually intend to start yet another discussion) Edit: needless to say, the pardon power is not part of this, as pretty much every president in modern times has made some awful pardons. That power is his alone and so doesn't fit neatly into my proposed def, and unless the nominee is running on pardoning a whole class of ppl (say, draft dodgers) it's hard to say this unilateral exercise of power is the "party position" without additional information.
He is running on pardoning them! He’s holding campaign rallies where he rants at length about what great patriots they are, and how horribly they’re being mistreated! If you’re about to start fussing about what qualifies as a “class of people” that’s exactly the kind of intentional aphasia I’m talking about.
I think I like your definition, too. There’s a bit of quibbling you could do about their public position versus what they would actually do if given the chance, but that hardly matters here. Notably, this definition means one can meaningfully say “ I disagree with my party’s position on ______” if they know their party would do x if elected, and they would prefer y (but still support the party because of other reasons). So I don’t think I’m committing any fallacy of division here; I fully acknowledge that many self-identified Republicans don’t think J6ers should be pardoned or praised as patriots. Maybe a majority of them! I disagree that’s “most important,” however; more important is what the party will actually *do* with power.
In this case, the Republican Party’s position is that you should vote Trump for president, and they intend to dedicate all their energy to making him president. Regarding the pardon power, they think it should be used how Donald Trump thinks it should be used, which happens to be pardoning a bunch of federal criminals who tried to overturn the result of his failed reelection. I don’t see the point in insisting that’s still not “the party’s position,” particularly when it’s not like many elected Republicans are even going on record to say “I don’t think he should do that.”
|
Again we are guessing about who, exactly, he would pardon. I will give you this much though: Trump has said enough to assume he would pardon at least some of the people convicted of crimes in J6. All are entitled to take that information into account when they vote, though maybe not many will
As for my definition, there is also nuance in how to define a position with the knowledge you may have to compromise
which is important because it's something voters take in their calculations, I expect. But it's a good start!
The insistence goes both ways  It appears to matter because people keep telling me that's the party position and that i should acknowledge this. I don't know how many people are voting for him on that proposition though, I think most Republican voters are supporting him because they like the job he did as president. But that's haggling, I am happy to restate my disagreement and call it a day.
|
On March 31 2024 05:18 Introvert wrote:Again we are guessing about who, exactly, he would pardon. I will give you this much though: Trump has said enough to assume he would pardon at least some of the people convicted of crimes in J6. All are entitled to take that information into account when they vote, though maybe not many will As for my definition, there is also nuance in how to define a position with the knowledge you may have to compromise which is important because it's something voters take it their calculations, I expect. But it's a good start! The insistence goes both ways It appears to matter because people keep telling me that's the party position and that i should acknowledge this. I don't know how many people are voting for him on that proposition though, I think most Republican voters are supporting him because they like the job he did as president. But that's haggling, I am happy to restate my disagreement and call it a day.
That’s all very lawyerly. “Introvert hereafter acknowledges that Donald Trump can be assumed to intend to pardon a nonzero number of defendants associated with the event commonly referred to as January 6th, although no assumptions can be made about the number or character of those pardoned, and the possibility that Mr. Trump would merely be attempting to rectify a miscarriage of justice cannot be eliminated.”
Sure, you can say that. Or you can factor in a single thing we’ve learned about this guy’s character in the last, well, I’ll just say 8 years to reduce the cognitive load. I don’t doubt he’ll exclude some of them from his pardon – many J6ers made “I was deceived by the president” central to their legal defenses. He’s all about loyalty, after all.
See what I mean about perpetually defending his flank even as you insist you’re not on his side? I simply don’t believe you would have the same extreme commitment to benefit of the doubt and blindness to dangerous precedents and slippery slopes if it were a Democrat. If Biden were pardoning, say, someone who rumors suggested might testify against Hunter Biden for immunity, Republicans would drown us all in conspiracy and innuendo, and I’m confident you wouldn’t leap to Biden’s defense. In all likelihood you’d join the chorus, maybe in some vague noncommittal way like “I don’t know whether to believe all the conspiracies but there’s certainly a lot of smoke.”
But anyway, I think I’ve got it. You would consider pardoning people that committed felonies on behalf of the president’s efforts to overthrow an election, you know, faux pas. Vaguely distasteful. But it’s certainly low salience, and you see no reason to think there’s any bad precedents or slippery slopes going on. And you certainly see no reason anybody should care enough to vote against him for it.
|
On March 31 2024 05:50 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2024 05:18 Introvert wrote:Again we are guessing about who, exactly, he would pardon. I will give you this much though: Trump has said enough to assume he would pardon at least some of the people convicted of crimes in J6. All are entitled to take that information into account when they vote, though maybe not many will As for my definition, there is also nuance in how to define a position with the knowledge you may have to compromise which is important because it's something voters take it their calculations, I expect. But it's a good start! The insistence goes both ways It appears to matter because people keep telling me that's the party position and that i should acknowledge this. I don't know how many people are voting for him on that proposition though, I think most Republican voters are supporting him because they like the job he did as president. But that's haggling, I am happy to restate my disagreement and call it a day. + Show Spoiler +That’s all very lawyerly. “Introvert hereafter acknowledges that Donald Trump can be assumed to intend to pardon a nonzero number of defendants associated with the event commonly referred to as January 6th, although no assumptions can be made about the number or character of those pardoned, and the possibility that Mr. Trump would merely be attempting to rectify a miscarriage of justice cannot be eliminated.”
Sure, you can say that. Or you can factor in a single thing we’ve learned about this guy’s character in the last, well, I’ll just say 8 years to reduce the cognitive load. I don’t doubt he’ll exclude some of them from his pardon – many J6ers made “I was deceived by the president” central to their legal defenses. He’s all about loyalty, after all.
See what I mean about perpetually defending his flank even as you insist you’re not on his side? I simply don’t believe you would have the same extreme commitment to benefit of the doubt and blindness to dangerous precedents and slippery slopes if it were a Democrat. If Biden were pardoning, say, someone who rumors suggested might testify against Hunter Biden for immunity, Republicans would drown us all in conspiracy and innuendo, and I’m confident you wouldn’t leap to Biden’s defense. In all likelihood you’d join the chorus, maybe in some vague noncommittal way like “I don’t know whether to believe all the conspiracies but there’s certainly a lot of smoke.”
But anyway, I think I’ve got it. You would consider pardoning people that committed felonies on behalf of the president’s efforts to overthrow an election, you know, faux pas. Vaguely distasteful. But it’s certainly low salience, and you see no reason to think there’s any bad precedents or slippery slopes going on. And you certainly see no reason anybody should care enough to vote against him for it.
Hopefully this exercise also helps people understand why I see Biden supporters and genocide (their word) in a similar way.
Or as Sadist put it:
Anyone voting for him, shilling for him, making bad faith arguments is complicit to his bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
