Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Starlord said:

 

I saw that. Very disappointing. It's pandering to the increasingly large radical fringe of the party who believe everything which comes from the president's mouth.

 

G-d help us if Trump decides he's running a suicide cult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think many people pushing for this are more about restricting voter access as a means of disenfranchisement.  Another take here:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/12/31/sasse-gop-election-certification-objections-government-wilson-bts-nr-vpx.cnn

TL;DR:  they're looking to engage Trump's base and co-opt them.  

 

But, yeah, Wednesday is going to be a mess.  It seems certain to fail, as there are, I think, more than enough Republican Senators who've ripped the ongoing claims.  All it would take is 3;  Wikipedia shows 14.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_reactions_to_Donald_Trump's_claims_of_2020_election_fraud#Senators

 

So this is all much ado about nothing, about lining their wallets (because this isn't related to a campaign per se, *are* there any limits on where it can go?  I doubt it), about maintaing the siren song of Trumpism.  I don't think it can possibly work.  I still will be relieved when we get past this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, archer said:

Just finished building an Ikea shelf. I'm going to name it Joe.

 

It's a bit shaky and leans slightly to the left.

 

But it's a hell of lot better than the one I had before.

 

Not saying that you meant this as other than a joke, but anyone who thinks Joe Biden leans to the left is mired in propaganda. Anywhere else in the developed world, Biden would be considered right of center.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

Not saying that you meant this as other than a joke, but anyone who thinks Joe Biden leans to the left is mired in propaganda. Anywhere else in the developed world, Biden would be considered right of center.

 

In US politics, he's always been at least slightly left of center...even back when he ran as a pro-life Democrat.

 

But nobody has ever claimed that US political terminology is standardized to mean the same thing as political terminology in other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

I still think many people pushing for this are more about restricting voter access as a means of disenfranchisement.  Another take here:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/12/31/sasse-gop-election-certification-objections-government-wilson-bts-nr-vpx.cnn

TL;DR:  they're looking to engage Trump's base and co-opt them.  

 

But, yeah, Wednesday is going to be a mess.  It seems certain to fail, as there are, I think, more than enough Republican Senators who've ripped the ongoing claims.  All it would take is 3;  Wikipedia shows 14.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_reactions_to_Donald_Trump's_claims_of_2020_election_fraud#Senators

 

So this is all much ado about nothing, about lining their wallets (because this isn't related to a campaign per se, *are* there any limits on where it can go?  I doubt it), about maintaing the siren song of Trumpism.  I don't think it can possibly work.  I still will be relieved when we get past this.

 

 

 

About the "lining their wallets":

 

The Daily Beast had an article this week claiming that Cruz was going to Georgia fundraising and stumping for the 2 Republican candidates. But that he was keeping all the money he raised for himself rather than at least splitting it with the two actual candidates.

 

The story was behind a paywall so I didn't get to see details about whether he was doing that with the candidate's blessing, at least, or just out of chutzpah.

 

I also didn't get to see enough of the story to be able to judge whether I think the claim is true.

 

I do know that I have not seen that claim repeated elsewhere in the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The money for the runoffs is still campaign money.  The money I'm more concerned with, is for contesting the election.  I did look again;  apparently it's going mostly into the Save America PAC (gee, I wonder whose interests they support) and to the RNC.  Which sounds like Trump trying to maintain an obligation from them to him.

 

Newsweek has a story on the runoff;  they're not saying Cruz is keeping all of it, but that the fine print says it will be split.

https://www.newsweek.com/mcconnell-cruzs-georgia-senate-fundraising-money-benefitting-their-own-campaigns-1558160

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, archer said:

 

In US politics, he's always been at least slightly left of center...even back when he ran as a pro-life Democrat.

 

But nobody has ever claimed that US political terminology is standardized to mean the same thing as political terminology in other countries.

 

It's not a matter of terminology, it's an overview of the political spectrum. The discourse over what's considered the norm in the United States has skewed so far to the right today, many Americans don't even understand what "left" means anymore. The term itself has become a bogeyman, used by politicians and special interest groups to scare the populace into supporting them.

 

Ironically, America generally isn't as "rightist" as it may appear. Surveys show that many policies that would be considered "leftist" enjoy wide popular support in America in and of themselves: greater tax contribution from the rich, affordable health care for all, more support for small business, lowered tuition fees for college students, affordable children's daycare, and the like. It's just when those policies get lumped in with the bogeyman that people start to balk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Starlord said:

My local newspaper's editorial today actually called this "subversion" and "a coup attempt." And while the editorial board has never had much good to say about the Trump administration, this is by far the strongest condemnation I've ever seen from them.

 

In a way, I can see the Republicans' point. Just as all the "Obama is Kenyan/Muslim/Socialist" rhetoric was code for "Obama is BLACK, but we can't say that out loud," all the frittering about signature matching and drop boxes is code for "Millions of votes were cast by people we don't consider Real Americans." Which is true. I mean, I don't consider myself a Real American: I'm a semi-liberal atheist, not a conservative Christian; I don't give a rat's ass about the flag; I think the Second Amendment was never a great bulwark against tyranny, and has become a license for criminals and nutjobs; I recognize the need for military force, but do not worship it. I see the United States of America as a tool for implementing certain social goods and philosophical ideals, not as an end in itself. In so many ways, I am not loyal to the team. And yet I can and do vote, and I do what little I can to make America not be the country Trumpists think it was and should ever be. So, yeah. Of course millions of conservatives are flipping out. Shey should be. For people like me to vote, and for our candidates to win, is not merely political defeat; it is defilement.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Pariah said:

“I have never seen a president in American history who has lied so continuously and so outrageously as Donald Trump, period,” presidential historian Michael Beschloss said.

 

Trump versus the truth: The most outrageous falsehoods of his presidency

 

11 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

 

What is so demoralizing to me is that so many people have let his lies slide, and always have.  

 

To Cygnia's post...this feels like prima facie election interference, and doesn't feel like something covered by presidential immunity.  But convicting Trump?  Would it be possible to find a 12 person jury?  Find 12 people who could be impartial???  That would be a major, major difficulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if congress were inclined to pursue impeachment, I doubt they could manage the process prior to Jan 20 - at which point (unless things go even more spectacularly off profile than usual or expected), Donald Trump will no longer be president.

 

More depressingly, I've reached the point where I don't see this particularly changing anything at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

He said these things while he's still President. Could he even be tried for them, other than through impeachment?

 

Yeah, any crime you committed while president are things which you could in theory be tried for in a criminal trial...assuming the president doesn't get a pardon for those things.

 

 

1) I haven't heard the entire audio but I'd guess his legal defense team would focus on the meaning of "find" vs the meaning of "manufacture".

 

There's hundreds if not thousands of polling sites. There's thousands of election workers who handled the ballots.

 

You always hear stories in the media over the decades about lost boxes of ballots. They get left behind at polling places. They get left behind in the truck of someone's car when the guy delivered the ballots and thought he got all the ballots out of the trunk but didn't.

 

Trump's defense team would argue that "find" means "conduct a more thorough search of every place that you've ever heard of ballots being misplaced". And that it doesn't mean "manufacture fake ballots".

 

Unless there's something a hell of a lot more damning in the audio that that news story has shown, I think the defense team could create a reasonable degree of doubt in a jury, regardless of the fact that I'd at least attempt to jump for joy if the president lands in jail.

 

I think the president meant "manufacture fake ballots". You think the president meant "manufacture fake ballots". But the question is whether anyone can prove that the real meaning of his words were "go out and manufacture fake ballots".

 

 

2) Someone has to be willing to build a criminal case against an ex-president and go through the media circus of a prosecution.

 

In the past that's been a major problem. The incoming president only has so much momentum. If he spends it on prosecutions, it's not very likely that he'll be able to build consensus across party lines and get key legislation passed into law.  

 

So it's generally a choice between "prosecutions" or "getting something done".

 

If it were me, I'd get as much done as humanly possible. Then when the efforts to get legislation enacted stalls out, start up prosecutions. But I'm not part of a president's public relations team telling him how much the prosecutions are going to hurt him in public opinion and stall out efforts to get anything other than prosecutions done. I'm a guy who wants the RIGHT THING done and damn the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...