US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4268

On July 15 2024 06:23 ASoo wrote:
Will no one rid me of this troublesome [democracy / electoral opponent]?

On July 15 2024 05:00 WombaT wrote:

This seems incongruous in combination with many a claim that the Dems are trying to engage in politically-motivated, largely unprecedented impeachments and criminal prosecutions against Trump.

On July 15 2024 07:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Would you mind elaborating on what you're referring to when you say that you believe Trump loves his country? How does he demonstrate that he loves the United States?

On July 15 2024 06:53 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Obviously January 6 was very close to being far worse than it was. I don't know for sure that if any of the people who got into the building had also gotten into the House of Representatives chamber while Representatives and Senators were, there would have been violence and possibly murder of those Representatives and Senators, but some of those people, if they had, yes, there would have been.

That it was an organized attempt to overthrow the government by Donald Trump, I can't sign onto that. The man did not try to take advantage of the situation to seize various levers of power, he didn't declare an emergency and send men with guns to take over television and radio broadcasting and internet infrastructure or to cow citizens into hiding in their homes, he didn't do anything of the things that are seen in any coup attempt.

It was partially an unruly mob that wanted to stop the certification, some of whom wanted a "real" investigation of the election they felt had been denied, some of whom wanted to force the Congress to deny certification to Biden and hand it to Trump. The large majority of the crowd outside the Capitol never entered it, and a majority of the crowd that did enter walked around and did nothing. It was not a black and white event that can be 100% classified simplistically. The only part that can be classified simplistically is that, yes indeed, a portion of the crowd wanted to stop the certification vote and were ready and willing to use violence to do it, and they did use violence. Those people were mostly dangerous moron sheep, and some of them were dangerous half-idiots, and they deserve(d) punishment.

If you want to look at why Trump is now the favorite to win the presidency instead of forever ostracized and barred from polite society forevermore by 90+% of the populace because of January 6, you have to look at how for three months in the preceding summer, protests that regularly (not always, and not a majority of the protests, but a too-large proportion) devolved into violent riots were justified, rationalized, minimalized, and generally pooh-poohed. If black bloc antifa whatever types can attack the federal courthouse in Portland, Oregon, every night for weeks and society did not unite to condemn them, if Republican politicians can be attacked on the streets of Washington DC leaving the Republican National Convention, without society uniting to condemn those attacks, if society could not unite to condemn all the very real mass violence that did happen from the end of May to the end of August, why would you expect society to unite and condemn January 6 rioters, or true January 6 insurrectionists?

Trump refused to accept the election results. A violent riot followed afterwards on January 6. This happens pretty often in many countries around the world after democratic elections, but the losing parties aren't called authoritarian dictators or threats to democracy who will turn their countries into police states if they win next time. If he wins, is Donald Trump going to repeal, either formally or just in effect, the Bill of Rights and other amendments or portions of the constitution dealing with liberties and the representative form of government? Is he going to have his political opponents shot, or disappeared, or hounded into ruin by the agents of the State? I see no reason to believe so. I see no reason to believe he had any kind of plan to remain in office through force. He's always been a shit-stirrer. He stirred the shit, like a lot of American politicos did in 2020, and he wasn't the only one who did so with the result being violent shit squirts all over the place. I'm not going to just shit (somebody please stop me lol) on tens of millions of people on either side and demand they submit on these issues, because that doesn't work. It just doesn't. It doesn't work even when tens of millions agree with me against the other tens of millions. Like the Red Army on the Eastern Front, quantity has a quality all its own that can't simply be disregarded.

He appointed Justices who junked Roe v. Wade. Okay. In reality, what this did was hand power over the issue to the representatives of the people in state legislatures and governor's offices, or to the people directly through referendums. The results have been mixed, but with a definite bend towards preserving the ability to have an abortion overall. Trump has said over and over again that's the result he wanted, handing power over the issue to the people, and has given no indication he would change that by diktat. My own personal opinion is that I reject the idea that at any point in my existence I did not have the inalienable right to live, and that no-rights-having-me was replaced by rights-having-me at the instant of my birth, like the stork came in and did a switcheroo when no one was looking. I believe that all people possess that right to life during the entirety of their existence. Unless they relinquish that right themselves through their own conscious actions, like the more heinous types of killing others. Which babies are not capable of doing. So that's that for abortion and me generally. Rape, incest, health of the mother, are tough questions because again the baby is innocent, but I can't ignore that the mother did not consent to being raped, or to incest, or to risk her life (or ensure the end of her life) via pregnancy. It's not black and white at all. It's not a bunch of easy questions. And in those cases, despite my reservations, I have to side with the mother. I wish there were a way to have things end up with the baby not being aborted, both the baby and mother be fine, happy ending. Sometimes that is the way the real world works. But not all the time or even most of the time in any context, and especially the context of rape/incest/threat to the mother from the pregnancy, and I can't ignore that.

But back to Trump as a dictator or threat to democracy. I just don't see it. I see a man who is a narcissist and a boor, among other negative qualities. But I also see good qualities in him, the best among those that he truly loves his country and wants it to succeed. In that mix he is not so unique among politicians as many think he is. I don't see where he has the intention, or the ability, to dismantle the constitution and Republic. If January 6 is what he came up with for doing so last time, then he is plain incompetent at it.

You want to talk about near things, an eighth of an inch to one side and we wouldn't be arguing about whether Trump is a threat to democracy. We'd, far more likely than not, be arguing about whether soldiers need to be called in to stop the fiery and mostly not peaceful protests sweeping the country, and arguing about whether the soldiers would try to stop them, or would stand aside, or would even join in. Thank God we aren't doing that.

Alas, all mine knightly friends are getting their destriers re-shoed today.

On July 15 2024 07:42 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


I'm asking someone else a question in good faith, because I consider that person to be a sincere and honest interlocutor. You are not that person, and you didn't even attempt to answer the question anyway. I will not be engaging with you further.

On July 15 2024 06:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


No? I put his quote inside quotation marks, to indicate it's a direct quote. If it's not a direct quote, I try to do the grammatically correct thing and not use quotes. My grammar isn't always perfect, but I try to check those kinds of things. Either way, Trump's faux compassion about school shootings isn't going to fool anyone who isn't already in his cult.

On July 15 2024 07:48 BlackJack wrote:


Trumps remarks after the shooting:

Before going further, I want to send our support and our deepest sympathies to the victims and families touched by the terrible school shooting yesterday in Perry, Iowa. To the entire community: We love you, we pray for you and we ask God to heal and comfort really the whole state and the pain that you have. This is something that's very unique to your state. We're really with you, as much as anybody can be. It's a very terrible thing that happened. And it's just terrible to see that happening. It's just terrible. So surprising to see it here. But, we have to get over it. We have to move forward. We have to move forward. But, to the relatives and to all of the people that are so devastated right now, to a point they can't breathe, they can't live, we are with you all the way. We're with you and we love you and cherish you.

Surgically removing a single sentence out of context from the thousands of hours Trump spends ad libbing in front of cameras to paint him in the worst possible light is pretty on brand.

On July 15 2024 07:23 Introvert wrote:



No, that's more like a lack of opportunity. Besides, they wanted to run against him, but they also wanted him to have the "convicted felon" part to go with it. Consider this fun fact: The prosecutoe Jack Smith, going after Trump in multiple jurisdictions, is the same prosecutor who went after the Republican former governor of Virginia on a silly bribery case. The conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court unanimously, but not before it had ended his future in politics.

I keep pointing it out, but if dems truly believed Trump was an existential threat to American democracy they would have tried to move to the middle and moderate to appeal to everyone and stop him. Instead they have tried to simultaneously say that Trump is a serious threat to America and that means eveyone has to vote for us regardless of our positions. They use it more like a hostage taking. They want to run against Trump and people like him. I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before, but dems are still boosting "ultra maga" people in primaries and trying to turn around and call them fascists. You wouldn't gamble like that like that if they were actually fascists, unless you were truly a terrible person in your own right.

On July 15 2024 07:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:


You realize that the left is making that exat same argument, right - that the democratic party is holding them hostage by not moving leftward at all but telling them they have to vote for their moderate (right wing) candidate because he's 'better than trump'? There is no 'appeal to everyone' - but 'cater to a solid majority' would involve many policies that have their stronghold in the democratic party; abortion for at least 12 weeks, universal health care, certain gun control laws. Maybe you can find similar pro-republican examples in terms of upholding the law or certain immigration policies (I haven't looked into it too much tbh), but Biden isn't an actual leftist on any of this.

I think the democrats who boost maga republicans can go fuck themselves tbh. I doubt you see much support of just that here - that's the move of a career politician who cares more about increasing their own chances at winning by 10% than about what is good for the country, and it's not like people are claiming that the democratic party is free of those people.

On July 15 2024 08:00 Introvert wrote:


Is there an issue the Democratic party has not moved left on in the last 8 years? What have they done to appeal to moderates or squishy Republicans besides calling Trump a bad man? Biden staffed his admin with a bunch of Liz Warren people. The far left always says stuff like that, if someone isn't advocating for revolution they are basically a right-winger. I think we both reject that framing.


for example, the past 8 years has seen the final death of the pro-life democrat. What's left for someone who cares about abortion but maybe shares a rank-and-file democrat's concern for Trump's character? The party has told them that such a person is completely unwelcome.