Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I believe Trump knew he was deliberately lying, at first. But with his repeated lies constantly reinforced over years by his cultists and sycophants and extremist pundits, he became convinced it was all real. The con man conned himself.

 

I'm listening to the opening of the call, it's on CNN.  He *totally* believes it now.  More and more and more claims of hundreds of thousands of irregular votes, of wild claims that've been debunked.  He's spouting insane BS that's ALL purely hearsay and/or unsupported.  "We had 30,000 people at our rallies, we couldn't lose."  WHAT?

And it's so insane..."we have all these affidavits and all these certified results...we'll have them available in the next few days."  It's been 2 MONTHS!

I swear, I'm about 15 minutes in, and the tone from Trump makes me think he's foaming at the mouth.  I can practically see the spittle coming off.  

 

"FBI and state police investigated all of these, nothing happened."  Trump: "Then they're lying or incompetent!"  Utterly scornful.  

 

Trump:  "they don't need to share it but they should."  Like his tax returns?

 

"We'll find hundreds of thousands of fake signatures if you let us do it."  Yeah, I'll buy that.

 

I won't recommend you listen to the call, or at least, the half that CNN put up.  It's terrifying.  It's nauseating.  I watched Beau's post that Tricksta linked a few posts ago...listening to it, really does make the transcript stuff pale.  But it's not anything new.  

That said, I'm not sure there's anything in that first half hour that strikes me as criminal.  It's a recitation of claims.  Maybe there is something in the 2nd half, but I don't subscribe to WaPo.  But I'm not a legal scholar, and the pressure tactics alone might be illegal.

I also caught an MSNBC story.  A point the main speaker made:  we're going to have a dozen Senators contest the results...AFTER this tape came out.  He was dumbfounded.  After listening to the first half...well, but there's nothing new there.  Claim after claim after claim without a shred of support.  The gent did make the point that having this on record...are you for democracy or for the coup, and now it'll be on record...that might be good, but even then...the fact that *so many* Republicans buy into the "stolen election" BS says this is VERY likely to work more against those who vote to accept the election results.

 

Hm.  I have a chiropractor appointment tomorrow, and since I'm out anyway, I'll make a quick run for a few days of fresh stuff.  The market I'll probably hit, since I'll be on that side of town, has some rather good beers.  Perhaps something to celebrate 2 Democratic Senators from Georgia...or if not, to celebrate Biden's victory FINALLY being certified Wednesday...or maybe Thursday.  

OK, I'm trying to be an optimist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

 

 

That said, I'm not sure there's anything in that first half hour that strikes me as criminal.  It's a recitation of claims.  Maybe there is something in the 2nd half, but I don't subscribe to WaPo.  But I'm not a legal scholar, and the pressure tactics alone might be illegal.

 

I found a video posted by a YouTube political commentator, David Pakman (definitely liberal bias, but generally reasonable and factual) which excerpts the passages from Trump's call that seem to be raising the most hackles. I'll start with the first one, then I recommend listening to the next two passages from the call. Pakman will come on in between for a few moments to comment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those passages are being taken out of context.  The first 5 minutes of his rant before this...and the opening parts Pakman excerpted seem to be from the first 10 minutes...he lays out wild, WILD claims and assertions about multiple hundreds of thousands of votes that were lost, miscounted, multiply counted for Trump, etc. etc. etc.  It is an easy argument to say, look, there's all these mistakes and all I need is 11,000 votes. 

 

And I'm completely against Trump, but Pakman's interpretation is questionable.  My take is that Trump completely, utterly, unshakably believes he won the election...that it's impossible he lost.  TAKE THAT AT FACE VALUE FOR TRUMP.  The analysis of Trump's motive must start from that premise.  It is an unquestionable Truth.  He cannot be moved from it.  For him it is Holy Writ.  Does that make it true?  Of course not.  But it is, I think, sufficient to explain the entire 30 minutes I heard.  Was he threatening the secretary of state, or trying to warn him because he Knows He Will Be Proven Right in the End.

 

Mind, my interpretation suggests immediate removal from office on competency grounds, so it's not exactly an excuse or vindication.  But, as utterly disturbing as it is, you have to start by digging into the Trump mindset.  Pakman can't.  That's not a criticism;  arguably it's a compliment.  It's allllll too easy to see Trump through blood-red glasses.

 

I will buy that the "there are gonna be reprisals" could be construed as incitement.  I think it's harder to call it a direct threat...or would be, if Trump had decent legal counsel.  From what we've seen of his legal team, they'd manage to expose more facts and aggravating factors to turn a misdemeanor charge into a mid-level felony when all is said and done.  I will also ABSOLUTELY accept that the call was dead wrong from the get-go, and prima facie intimidation.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So our city mayor and council decided that, to help prevent the spread of Covid-19, they'll have 2 disposable masks sent to everyone who gets a utility bill.

 

2.

 

This was posted on Nextdoor, the community news app.  Some people said, well, good, some people have a hard time affording them.  Most were going, at this point it's pointless.

 

THEN an anti-masker kicked in that we're all being conned...citing a congressman who, it turns out, signed onto the amicus brief.  Citing an epidemiologist whose credentials are partially fake.  Citing censorship when said person's claims, denied by the agency he was asserting chairmanship of, were pulled from YT and FB.  Citing "statistics" that 70% of those who became infected wore masks 100% of the time so they obviously don't work.  Oh, and clinched it in the end with a rant about the disaster that will result after the Dems take over after the fraudulent election.  The whole alt-right drivel.

 

I think that little exchange of posts probably led to a very weird dream that woke me up way too early this morning.

 

But worse, it just drove home again just how deep and how basic the divide is, and the massive damage that's occurred, and will almost certainly continue IMO.  This path leads nowhere good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mussolini and the fascists managed to be simultaneously revolutionary and traditionalist;[83][84] because this was vastly different from anything else in the political climate of the time, it is sometimes described[by whom?] as "The Third Way".[85] The Fascisti, led by one of Mussolini's close confidants, Dino Grandi, formed armed squads of war veterans called blackshirts (or squadristi) with the goal of restoring order to the streets of Italy with a strong hand. The blackshirts clashed with communists, socialists, and anarchists at parades and demonstrations; all of these factions were also involved in clashes against each other. The Italian government rarely interfered with the blackshirts' actions, owing in part to a looming threat and widespread fear of a communist revolution. The Fascisti grew rapidly; within two years they transformed themselves into the National Fascist Party at a congress in Rome. In 1921, Mussolini won election to the Chamber of Deputies for the first time.[18] In the meantime, from about 1911 until 1938, Mussolini had various affairs with the Jewish author and academic Margherita Sarfatti, called the "Jewish Mother of Fascism" at the time.[86]

March on Rome

In the night between 27 and 28 October 1922, about 30,000 Fascist blackshirts gathered in Rome to demand the resignation of liberal Prime Minister Luigi Facta and the appointment of a new Fascist government. On the morning of 28 October, King Victor Emmanuel III, who according to the Albertine Statute held the supreme military power, refused the government request to declare martial law, which led to Facta's resignation. The King then handed over power to Mussolini (who stayed in his headquarters in Milan during the talks) by asking him to form a new government. The King's controversial decision has been explained by historians as a combination of delusions and fears; Mussolini enjoyed wide support in the military and among the industrial and agrarian elites, while the King and the conservative establishment were afraid of a possible civil war and ultimately thought they could use Mussolini to restore law and order in the country, but failed to foresee the danger of a totalitarian evolution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Starlord said:

 

You're more optimistic about who will be in office in two weeks than I am.

 

I think there's no more than a wafer-thin chance that Trump's still in office come the 21st.  That said, it's NOT zero chance, which is disturbing as heck.  I do think he's going to continue the farce all the way to the end...well, ok, for the next 6 months, but as soon as Biden takes the oath of office, there will be no real recourse for Trump.

 

That said, Trump can, and very likely will, continue to do damage, on multiple levels.  Biden may well not achieve much of anything...partly because of overall gridlock (especially if the Republicans retain the Senate) but also because he'll have to work hard just to undo the damage Trump's done.  And the social damage can't be undone quickly;  I'm pessimistic saying I don't think it can be undone *at all* but at the very least, repairing the cultural chasm is going to take many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On KUOW yesterday, former Washington State Republican Chairman (and former but no longer Republican) Chris Vance shocked the interviewer by calling Trump "fascist," and likewise the Republicans who support his challenge to the election. Not "authoritarian tendencies." Not even "proto-fascist," anymore. Vance went there. He said that nothing in The Phone Call actually surprised him, but it was so blatant an attempt to throw out the rule of law that he thinks "fascist" is now justified.

 

As for whether this would be a turning point that made any more Republicans finally turn against Trump, Vance said, "How many turning points do they need?"

 

Vance thinks the social/political damage will continue for decades.

 

Dean Shomshak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

On KUOW yesterday, former Washington State Republican Chairman (and former but no longer Republican) Chris Vance shocked the interviewer by calling Trump "fascist," and likewise the Republicans who support his challenge to the election. Not "authoritarian tendencies." Not even "proto-fascist," anymore. Vance went there. He said that nothing in The Phone Call actually surprised him, but it was so blatant an attempt to throw out the rule of law that he thinks "fascist" is now justified.

 

As for whether this would be a turning point that made any more Republicans finally turn against Trump, Vance said, "How many turning points do they need?"

 

Vance thinks the social/political damage will continue for decades.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

That's what I argued to Republicans through half of 2015 right on through the 2016 election. 

 

I've seen nothing to change my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add that I think there's zero chance of Trump staying prisident. Republicans don't have the votes in Congress to block certification of the electors. If Trump tries ordering martial law, his toadies at the Pentagon may go along but the generals will say no. Armed insurrection by the Proud Boys and such ilk might happen, but they've actually been more timid than I expected. As a few people here have suggested, many of them seem to be LARPing insurrection with no taste for the real thing. So they aren't going to overthrow the government.

 

But Iit doesn't tak outright civil war to cause a lot of damage. I hope the Democratic party leadership understands, bone deep, that while some Republicans may still be "the loyal opposition," much of the party is implacably hostile.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

referenced Mussolini for a reason

 

Indeed. Nothing Donald Trump has been pulling has been novel or creative, or surprising to anyone with a passing knowledge of history. This is Dictator 101.  We've seen it a hundred times over the past century. The only slightly surprising thing is that it's worked so well in what was long believed to be a stable democracy.

 

Donald Trump, of course, is too ignorant to know anything about history. Some of what he's doing may be the product of his exploitative instincts, but many commentators are asserting his close confidant, Stephen Miller, is steeped in fascist precedents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinion: Donald Trump fires the shot that begins the Republican civil war

 

But it's more than that.

 

Quote

 

The Republican civil war is here. That may warm Democrats, but they should not grow too confident. All of American politics are as volatile as they've been since the Sixties. And with Trump gone to unite Democrats in their hatred, their own civil war is in the offing.

 

American politics is reinventing itself. And judging by the present, it’s going to be painful to watch. 

 

 

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...