Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[BoloOfEarth]

I really have to wonder, when Trump became president, whether he came into possession of some incriminating info on various people in power, and has been using that ever since to get them to bow down to them.  I mean, people who were staunch critics of him before the 2016 election suddenly became butt-kissers after he's elected.  And that continued after he was out of office.  If it was just a reaction to him being president, you'd think their attitudes would change back after he was voted out.  

Edited July 15 by BoloOfEarth

[Old Man]

4 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

I really have to wonder, when Trump became president, whether he came into possession of some incriminating info on various people in power, and has been using that ever since to get them to bow down to them.  I mean, people who were staunch critics of him before the 2016 election suddenly became butt-kissers after he's elected.  And that continued after he was out of office.  If it was just a reaction to him being president, you'd think their attitudes would change back after he was voted out.  

 

The Russians hacked the RNC around the time of the 2016 election and after that a lot of GOP members became staunchly pro-Trump.

 

They hacked the DNC at the same time fwiw.

[unclevlad]

6 hours ago, Cygnia said:

Cannon is a disgrace

 

She is, but Thomas is a larger one.

 

In the immunity decision, one of aspects of his concurring opinion was that many special prosecutor appointments have been ungrounded in law and thus unconstitutional.  That had no bearing on the immunity decision.  And now, 2 weeks later?  Cannon has her fig leaf, and she throws the case out.

 

One good point is...if the appeals court throws out yet another of her....questionable...decisions, Smith may be able to get the case assigned to a different judge.  On the surface, sure, this'd probably entail another long delay, but Cannon's pace has been glacial anyway.

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

I really have to wonder, when Trump became president, whether he came into possession of some incriminating info on various people in power, and has been using that ever since to get them to bow down to them.  I mean, people who were staunch critics of him before the 2016 election suddenly became butt-kissers after he's elected.  And that continued after he was out of office.  If it was just a reaction to him being president, you'd think their attitudes would change back after he was voted out.  

 

Note that, for a time, they did.  Even moreso after the '22 election losses.  It didn't last because Trump showed it didn't matter...he's still the nominee, and if you don't back him, you face serious retaliation.

 

Trump has never lost enough of his core, MAGA support, so they can't stop.  Heck, look how long any attempt to run against him lasted.  

 

And now we know his running mate...Vance.  God save us all.

[Old Man]

 

 

"Jeez", indeed.  Welp, thoughts and prayers

[MrWolf]

Really bad idea: bring legal gun near political rally.

 

Is that such a reach!?

[Lord Liaden]

7 hours ago, MrWolf said:

... sadly, this is my cynical lack of surprise.

 

The lengths people will go to defend this man are absolutely mind blowing (to be clear, Trump).

 

Do they not understand that if he gains total power, he won't need them any more? Their wealth and status will depend on the whims of a demented narcissist.

 

They should look at recent doings in the regime of their beloved Vladimir Putin. When a dictator's inevitable paranoia kicks in, the first people imprisoned or "disappeared" are the members of his inner circle.

[unclevlad]

10 hours ago, tkdguy said:

Jack Smith can appeal the decision IIRC, but the process will take time. He should have tried to get Cannon removed.

 

Based on...what?  The grounds for removing a federal judge are extremely narrow.  

 

If anything, she should never have been set to preside here...but the selection process has never had to deal with a situation where the person who appointed the judge, becomes a defendant.  Not at the federal level, anyway.  The conflict of interest SHOULD have been obvious...but that isn't her fault.  Not recusing?  That's for ethical judges.

 

The Senate can, I believe, impeach her...but that's dangerous too, as it'll come across as just as overtly political...and the Reps will try to use it to eliminate liberal judges.

 

Oh, a thought that came earlier that I didn't mention.  Comment was, Smith can take the motion to the appellate court in Atlanta, which overturned one of her decisions earlier.  So...one of the efforts in a hypothetical 2nd term would be to to at least fill any appellate-court openings with more Cannonesque, incompetent toadies...to make it harder to find a court that will push back.  That's assuming he doesn't expand the sizes so he can name, say, 2 to each and tilt the court system even more.  This is probably the area where Trump can to the most long-term damage.

[Cygnia]

"Shift spouses like they change their underwear": J.D. Vance decried divorce — but now loves Trump

Quote

But perhaps that's because it's not really hypocrisy that drives the MAGA movement. It's an attachment to traditional hierarchies that allow such appalling double standards to flourish. Violence from Republicans, such as on January 6, is acceptable because it's enforcing the social order they support. But the attempted murder of Trump is beyond the pale because it's an assault on the only leader they accept as legitimate.

In that light, it's not hard to see what holds Vance's seemingly disparate views together. It's not a faith in marriage, but an allegiance to male domination.

While he was carefully gender-neutral in his 2021 comments, the larger context suggests Vance's grievance is with women. No-fault divorce is the result of years of feminist organizing. Women initiate 70% of divorces. And while there are certainly male victims of domestic abuse, the vast majority of people who need to escape violent marriages are women. Vance can play all the word games he likes, but when he's deriding "people" for not having good enough reasons for ending marriages, there's little doubt it's women he's mostly thinking of. It's usually women who are being chastised in these right-wing laments about divorce. Women have always been the ones expected to suffer adultery, abuse, or just plain unhappiness to hold a marriage together. Divorced men like Trump don't get rebuked, especially by the Christian right, even when it's their adulteries and abuses that caused the divorce. Ultimately, the blame is placed on the wives for not working harder to save the marriage.

 

[Starlord]

13 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

 

"Jeez", indeed.  Welp, thoughts and prayers

 

 

[wcw43921]

God Did Not Save Donald Trump

[Asperion]

23 hours ago, Cygnia said:

Cannon is a disgrace

 

That should be changed to be a Trump pawn. 

[Grailknight]

21 minutes ago, Asperion said:

 

That should be changed to be a Trump pawn. 

 

Why not both? There can be more than one accurate description.

[unclevlad]

NYT's morning newsletter said outright, Vance signals complete Trumpist takeover of the Republican Party.

 

Quote

Selecting Vance also signals the party’s final commitment to Trumpism. Vance is one of the most aggressive and ideological disciples of the MAGA movement. Instead of balancing the ticket with someone who could expand Trump’s appeal to new voters, Trump has anointed the senator as the future of the Republican Party.

 

The party that Trump took over in 2016 — one guided by establishmentarians like Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and John McCain — is now unrecognizable. Trump ushered in economic populism and pushed out the quest for limited government spending. He traded foreign interventionism for restrictive trade policies and downgraded the importance of country-club Republicans while prioritizing blue-collar workers.

 

The arrival of Vance on the ticket shows there is no going back.

 

[Old Man]

I wonder what rock that NYT writer has been living under for eight years.

 

Vance was the most pro-Kremlin VP candidate, so it's no surprise he got the nom.

 

[Pattern Ghost]

Vance is also a hardcore Evangelical. They now have one of their own to succeed Trump when they're done with him. All indications are that there is more serious long term planning by the Evangelical wing of the party (or should I just say the party at this point?) this time around, even before the Project 25 information was released. Vance's nomination seals it.

 

This video has old clips of Vance. Hate to see him and his ilk seize power:

 

 

I just hope that the Project 25 information being put out, along with the abortion issue tip the scales to Biden, despite the press's concerted efforts to throw this to Trump. (It's one thing to not be thrilled about a president who needs more rest than usual -- which is where he's at right now -- and who has a qualified successor, but it's another to go to this level of frenzy for ratings and take the country down in the process.)

Edited July 16 by Pattern Ghost

[DShomshak]

2 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

God Did Not Save Donald Trump

Author Shane Claiborne questions the theology of saying God saved Donald Trump but let the person near him die. But as the article Cygnia posted points out, conservatives believe in hierarchy -- that some people have and deserve broader rights and powers than the rest of us, that some people are worthier than the rest of us. So it's OK for God to decide that Donald Trump must be saved at the expense of some nobody's life. And hey, if the victim was a righteous patriotic Christian he's in Heaven anyway, so it's all good, right? And if he wasn't, despite being there to adulate the Great Man, he's in Hell as he deserves, so it's all still good.

 

Years back, I read an essay by the Classical author Plutarch on "Atheism and Superstition." Plutarch was a priest of Isis, IIRC, not a Christian, but people of all faiths might ponder his words. Plutarch thought that atheists erred by saying nothing was the work of God (or Gods), but superstitious people committed a worse error by attributing too much to God -- that everything in life, good or bad, was ordained as reward, punishment, or mere caprice, leaving the person constantly fearing they have somehow given offense. And to attribute caprice or malice to God was, he argued, the ultimate slander against God's perfection. At least atheists leave God blameless.

 

That assumes God values all people the same. If God doesn't, well, you get into the Gnostic heresy, which is a whole other can of worms.

 

Dean Shomshak

atheist, but theology-curious

[Ternaugh]

3 hours ago, wcw43921 said:

God Did Not Save Donald Trump

 

This line resonates with me.

 

Quote

In the words of theologian Barbara Brown Taylor, “The only clear line I draw these days is this: When my religion tries to come between me and my neighbor, I will choose my neighbor … Jesus never commanded me to love my religion.”

 

[Starlord]

1 hour ago, DShomshak said:

Author Shane Claiborne questions the theology of saying God saved Donald Trump but let the person near him die. But as the article Cygnia posted points out, conservatives believe in hierarchy -- that some people have and deserve broader rights and powers than the rest of us, that some people are worthier than the rest of us. So it's OK for God to decide that Donald Trump must be saved at the expense of some nobody's life. And hey, if the victim was a righteous patriotic Christian he's in Heaven anyway, so it's all good, right? And if he wasn't, despite being there to adulate the Great Man, he's in Hell as he deserves, so it's all still good.

 

Years back, I read an essay by the Classical author Plutarch on "Atheism and Superstition." Plutarch was a priest of Isis, IIRC, not a Christian, but people of all faiths might ponder his words. Plutarch thought that atheists erred by saying nothing was the work of God (or Gods), but superstitious people committed a worse error by attributing too much to God -- that everything in life, good or bad, was ordained as reward, punishment, or mere caprice, leaving the person constantly fearing they have somehow given offense. And to attribute caprice or malice to God was, he argued, the ultimate slander against God's perfection. At least atheists leave God blameless.

 

That assumes God values all people the same. If God doesn't, well, you get into the Gnostic heresy, which is a whole other can of worms.

 

Dean Shomshak

atheist, but theology-curious

 

The basic debate shouldn't even get that far - why is God putting Trump in a position for him to need saving?  Why did God allow Biden to be President?  Why did God allow the shooter to be bullied or mentally ill or to even exist in the first place?  Why does God create people who will never have even have a chance to believe in him?  And the most important question of all - why does God give New England 7 Super Bowls and the Cincinnati Bengals none?

 

Is there Free Will or isn't there?  God arguments are a silly thing.

Edited July 16 by Starlord

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Ternaugh said:

In the words of theologian Barbara Brown Taylor, “The only clear line I draw these days is this: When my religion tries to come between me and my neighbor, I will choose my neighbor … Jesus never commanded me to love my religion.”

 

Yeah.  My personal take for some time is the broad tenets...calling them from God is fine.  It's the fine details...that often strongly clash with the broad tenets...where my take is, no, these aren't the words of God.  These are the pronouncements of men.  At *best*...I can accept that God is perfect...but our understanding is not.  So at least, man making pronouncements that limit God's perfect love (for example)...are suffering from a misunderstanding.  

 

2 hours ago, DShomshak said:

but superstitious people committed a worse error by attributing too much to God -- that everything in life, good or bad, was ordained as reward, punishment, or mere caprice

 

Thank you.  You've said something I've kept back for some time.  Because when someone attributes everything to God, IMO, they're ceding ethical control to the priesthood...and therefore power.  And that's what concerns me greatly, because history is replete with religious organizations massively abusing power.  

I've also always drawn a major line between religion as faith, and religion as an institution.  I have little problem with personal faith.  The institutions become as self-serving as any bureaucracy...and their power has almost no counter.  How can it NOT corrupt?  

[unclevlad]

A short aside.

 

I switched my signature line to what it is now...oh, gee.  2018?  19?  Some time during Trump's term.  Because the context was Trump and his lies, and to right-wing media lies.

 

But I have to believe Voltaire included religious leaders.  In his time (1694-1778) they still held considerable sway.  The various inquisition efforts weren't buried deeply in the past...the case of Galileo was in 1633.

[tkdguy]

[BoloOfEarth]

For those who say that God saved Trump... I have to wonder, did He take the days off when Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and others were assassinated? 

 

Did He also save Adolf Hitler from the (many) attempts on his life?  Did He save Mussolini from the assassination attempt where the bullet merely grazed his nose?

[BoloOfEarth]

22 minutes ago, tkdguy said:

 

Obviously she hasn't heard from Trump.  I mean, her husband gave his life protecting his family.  In Trump's mind, that makes her husband a chump.

[Ranxerox]

10 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

For those who say that God saved Trump... I have to wonder, did He take the days off when Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and others were assassinated? 

 

Did He also save Adolf Hitler from the (many) attempts on his life?  Did He save Mussolini from the assassination attempt where the bullet merely grazed his nose?

 

Are you sure that you want the answer to that question?

4 hours ago, Ternaugh said:

 

This line resonates with me.

Quote

n the words of theologian Barbara Brown Taylor, “The only clear line I draw these days is this: When my religion tries to come between me and my neighbor, I will choose my neighbor … Jesus never commanded me to love my religion.”

 

 

 

My wife liked this line so much that she plans on putting it on a tee shirt.