The Political Thread

[Caya]

Yeah, but only one side bludgeoned a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and those sure weren't the Democrats' supporters.

On a lighter note, as much as that's possible here:

 

[J.P.]

3 hours ago, Fantasy Lover said:

I find that impeachment process a bit unnecessary.

It is necessary. It will prevent him from holding any position in politics, and from trying to go for 2024 election. It strips him from his Ex-President salaries, security and so on. It would prevent him from doing something stupid until end of his term.

But since he's gone from SM, nobody knows what he's up to - and it feels a bit uncomfortable.

[Carol the Dabbler]

5 hours ago, Caya said:

only one side bludgeoned a police officer to death with a fire extinguisher and those sure weren't the Democrats' supporters.

Leaving aside the question of whether the crowd included some Antifa ringers, the video I saw showed someone being hit by an object tossed by one of the people entering the building, who either intentionally aimed it at a group (identified by the media as police) some distance away or was being unforgivably careless.  The mainstream media are reporting that the officer was struck on his helmet while on duty at the Capitol, went back to his office, later suffered a stroke and was admitted to the hospital, where he later died.  I don't think anyone's accusing anybody of literally "bludgeoning him to death," though the injury may well have caused or contributed to his death (presumably there will be an autopsy).  It has been announced that there will be an investigation.  I hope the individual is identified (which might help answer the question I left aside above) and put on trial.

4 hours ago, J.P. said:

It is necessary. It will prevent him from holding any position in politics, and from trying to go for 2024 election. It strips him from his Ex-President salaries, security and so on.

As I understand it, the Democrats are accusing him of "inciting violence."  As you know, I'm not a big fan of Mr. Trump, but it really burns me how his opponents routinely misquote him and/or quote him out of context, and everybody in the mainstream media just goes along with it.  If they have actual evidence this time, let's see it and hear it, and *then* we can decide whether we think any punishment is necessary.

 

[Caya]

Carol, I am aware you are quite fond of the "both sides" way of thinking. So, as soon as there's evidence of a Democrat/Antifa/[anything but a Republican/MAGA Trump adherent], too, breaking the windows of the Capitol and parading around inside with the [censored] Confederate flag, I'll concur. Until then, nope.

[Carol the Dabbler]

13 minutes ago, Caya said:

as soon as there's evidence of a Democrat/Antifa/[anything but a Republican/MAGA Trump adherent], too, breaking the windows of the Capitol and parading around inside with the [censored] Confederate flag, I'll concur. Until then, nope.

Guilty till proven innocent, huh?    

 

[Caya]

Quite the other way round. So far, there's been zero evidence of Antifa involvement (while plenty of MAGAs have been identified, most after kindly incriminating themselves, like that shaman). Forgive me for asking for more evidence than "but they might have been there".

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, Caya said:

Forgive me for asking for more evidence than "but they might have been there".

I'm not asking you to believe that the crowd was seeded with Antifa -- merely to consider the possibility that it could have been.  All I can say is, if I were an Antifa person and heard there was a big Republican rally coming up, I'd be *very* tempted to infiltrate it and stir up some trouble, just to make the Republicans look bad.  (I find it hard to believe that in a political crowd that size, there were no dissidents whatsoever).  There's been some evidence of this cited on the conservative media, but the liberal media are pretty much ignoring those reports as far as I'm aware.  This may mean they've seen evidence that the reports are false, or no plausible evidence that they're true, or it may mean something else.

I'd be a lot more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if I hadn't witnessed them misrepresenting Trump with my own eyes and ears (the aforementioned misquoting or taking out of context, when the complete video is -- or at least was -- readily available online).  That may be due to some sort of perfectly innocent misunderstanding, but I think there's reason to be somewhat skeptical.

By the way, I'm not necessarily swallowing the conservative reports whole either.  I've noticed omissions in some of them as well.

Each side has its own point of view and therefore its own way of interpreting things.  So they're bound to be reporting things differently -- to some extent.  My question is, has that "extent" been exceeded, and if so who's exceeding it and why?

 

[Arcadia]

It's not just the one speech, Carol. Trump has been fomenting this kind of behavior since the day he started running for office, if not before. He could have stopped talking the way he does at any point, but instead he chose to continue an us vs. them approach. I've seen unedited videos of his speeches; the media is not putting words in his mouth. He DOES use inflammatory language, and he DOES incite hatred towards elected officials (as well as many other people). A more balanced person may take his rantings with a grain of salt, but not everyone is as open minded as you are. Some were bound to be riled up to the point of violence, and he did nothing --- NOTHING --- to counteract that.

I'm on the fence about impeachment. On the one hand, I think Trump is evil and should be punished for being who he is. On the other hand, I don't see what good it will do, he's opened Pandora's box, the ills he's unleashed will only feed on his "martyrdom." And on the third hand, I'd rather see Congress get on with the business of fixing this country rather than continuing to split it apart. But even if that means letting Trump get away without even a slap on the hand? I don't know. Some betrayals are too big to overlook, maybe this is one of them.

[Carol the Dabbler]

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

Trump has been fomenting this kind of behavior since the day he started running for office, if not before.

He talks with a swagger, yes, and I've always said I think he's a jerk.  But I've never heard him call for violence.  Perhaps you're saying that telling people to be strong, stand up for themselves, etc., is some sort of code talk for violence, and a few of his followers may take it that way, but politicians have been saying grandiose things like that for centuries.  I do think he showed poor judgement in calling for a march on the Capitol, but he's certainly not the first President to suffer a lapse in judgement, and I don't think that's an impeachable offense.

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

I've seen unedited videos of his speeches; the media is not putting words in his mouth.

I'm not claiming that they make stuff up, I'm saying that I've seen him repeatedly quoted WAY out of context, making it look like he'd said the exact opposite of what he actually did say.  As you know, I hate politics, so I don't follow it closely, but I got curious about the repeated claim that in Charlotte he had called the KKK (or their ilk) "fine people," so I went looking for that on YouTube and found a video of that speech -- in which he actually said the exact opposite (as I reported here, back in September).  But in October, he was still being accused of calling such individuals "fine people" -- even by Mr. Biden himself!

After finding out what he actually said there (and in another situation where he was also quoted out of context), I've taken all reports with a grain of salt.

2 hours ago, Arcadia said:

he DOES incite hatred towards elected officials (as well as many other people).

And the Democrats aren't making some pretty inflammatory statements about Republicans?

 

[Arcadia]

9 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

He talks with a swagger, yes, and I've always said I think he's a jerk.  But I've never heard him call for violence.  Perhaps you're saying that telling people to be strong, stand up for themselves, etc., is some sort of code talk for violence, and a few of his followers may take it that way, but politicians have been saying grandiose things like that for centuries.  I do think he showed poor judgement in calling for a march on the Capitol, but he's certainly not the first President to suffer a lapse in judgement, and I don't think that's an impeachable offense.

November, 2015: An activist chanting Black Lives Matter at one of Trump’s rallies was beaten by his supporters, prompting Trump to remark, “Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.”

February, 2016: Regarding hecklers at his rallies while on the campaign trail, Trump suggested that his fans, “knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously," he said. "OK, just knock the hell. I promise you I will pay for the legal fees.”

February, 2016: When a protester was taken out of a Trump rally, Trump remarked, “He's walking out with big high-fives, smiling, laughing. I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you.”

August, 2016: Trump suggested that “second amendment people” could stop his rival for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton, from appointing judges. Given that the second amendment states citizens have the right to bear arms, this was commonly understood to be a suggestion that his supporters assassinate her.

July, 2017: Trump remarked to policemen that they should not worry about injuring suspects and “please don’t be too nice.”

(Borrowed from Harper's Bazaar, too busy to look further.)

9 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

And the Democrats aren't making some pretty inflammatory statements about Republicans?

Forgive me if I hold the president to a higher standard than the rank and file.

 

 

[Arcadia]

I think this sums it up nicely. You don't have to advocate violence, you just have to light a match in a room full of bombs.

[J.P.]

Sorry, but I have heard Trump's calling for violence from this side of the pond.

I've had the "luck" to be on Twitter as it started and have seen the pictures and videos coming almost in real time. It was a second time I was witnessing a crisis that way and I don't think I want more of it.
I also listened to Trump's statement "condemning" violence - after that, for the first time in my online presence, I openly called someone a MF.
For someone who hardly passed a dementia test, he is surprisingly good in making allusions. "The election was stolen from us, we are right but now we need peace".

I'm expecting more of it on the inauguration day to be honest - and that with or without Trump. I suspect the whole "movement" has gained such momentum, that now, if Trump himself stood in their way, he would be swept away. Some of the people who were at the Capitol call him a traitor already because he wasn't there (as he promised minutes before) and condemned the raid he called people to.

Funnily enough not so long ago we have had a similar situation in Berlin. People almost got into the Parliament, but thanks goodness the policemen who were securing the building weren't on the side of the mob.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/08/opinion/germany-parliament-us-capitol.html
https://www.dw.com/en/capitol-hill-riots-are-western-democracies-under-attack/a-56163820

[Carol the Dabbler]

We live in crazy times, that's for sure.  I see your point, Arcadia.  Some of the statements you linked to may have been his idea of a joke, but they could easily be taken at face value.  All but one of your quotes were from his 2015-16 campaign, though, and it's my impression that he has in general toned down his outrageousness somewhat since taking office.  I'd consider it unfair and illogical for the Democrats to use anything prior to 2017 as justification for impeachment.  They need to focus on his recent actions, and if they want to convince me (though I doubt that's on their mind) they need to be specific and present undeniable evidence.

 

[J.P.]

I don't think they use anything old.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55656385

[J.P.]

The transcript
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

[Van Buren Supernova]

2016, I invested a bit too much time and emotion to this, and it affected me a little bit too much to my liking.

And just couple of weeks ago, I thought it is finally ending, bad, but fortunately not as bad as I imagined,  but I was wrong.

I guess the reason of why I suddenly 'care' in 2016 because I experienced the impact directly, of species in this magnitude, stupidity with power.

@Carol the Dabbler, but not to you particularly, his kind of statements and comments would be just another blabbering idiot if he is no one. But with power, it comes with high price. That's why I always, always, ALWAYS, AL-effing-WAYS resent religious and political leaders who speak without knowing the actual consequences. Maybe, maybe we could see behind those immature statements, but for many others, it's not that obvious, especially if they choose to believe what they believe, most time without facts.

And it's fertile ground for those with agenda to stir it to the direction they want because they have necessary rocket fuel.

Anyone with bits of logic could see that this one doesn't take defeat well, FFS, he was throwing tantrum when his reality show didn't get an Emmy. Which is why I can never fathom 2016 result.

Overall what I want to say, never never ever underestimate the effect of stupidity with power, and that's why they have to be hold accountable.

[Van Buren Supernova]

My ignorance..

I thought impeachment (even the first one) would result on someone/committee taking over or limited power or at the very least putting a leash to the impeached. So I was surprised it's business as usual, but didn't care more to actually find out.

Now second impeachment, I thought, okay, this one should be more impactful, but then I read, briefly, from BBC News, correct me if I'm wrong, it seems like it barely means something? 
I mean they vote to impeach him the first time, then vote the second time, then there would be another vote needed for conviction, and then there would be ANOTHER vote to block him from...running again?

I mean, how much does it take and how much destruction that he/she needs to do to prevent them to hold that kind of power? Or actually being held accountable?

In reality, ex-convict, someone simply born in different race, or every decent person would have difficulty getting decent job or decent live or have decent freedom or decent status.
Is it me or is there something not good here? Change my mind, or enlighten me. Please!

[J.P.]

12 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

And it's fertile ground for those with agenda to stir it to the direction they want because they have necessary rocket fuel.

If you know who some of his followers are, the result was foreseeable. They wanted to march on the Capitol for a long time, especially under Obama, but I was witnessing this civil war between left and right since I'm on Internet and it's 20+ years now.

Other thing: the speech he had - it was long, full of numbers and names and for someone who so often wasn't able to read a whole sentence from a prompter, this was really remarkable. Can it be, he was only playing an idiot?

[Carol the Dabbler]

13 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

 I can never fathom 2016 result.

My impression is that he would have lost to just about anybody except Hillary Clinton.  I'm pretty sure that most people who voted in that election were basically voting *against* one or the other of them.

9 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

I thought impeachment (even the first one) would result on someone/committee taking over or limited power or at the very least putting a leash to the impeached. So I was surprised it's business as usual

Even a lot of Americans don't understand the terminology.  I'm no expert, but "impeachment" means something like being put on trial.  The "trial" (hearings) can result in the person being either removed from office or retained.  If retained, it's like being acquitted in a trial, so there is no punishment.

13 hours ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

his kind of statements and comments would be just another blabbering idiot if he is no one. But with power, it comes with high price.

With increased power comes increased responsibility, for sure, so we need to focus on what he's done while in office.  I started reading the transcript that J.P. so thoughtfully provided, but after several pages of blather I noticed that I was only a small fraction of the way along.  I assume that you folks are basing your opinions of this speech on certain specific passages, so if you would be so kind as to point me to the relevant time stamps, I'd be glad to have a further look.  Thank you.

 

[J.P.]

The stupid thing about the SM ban is you cannot quote him and all his talking about "fighting" and "taking our country back".

[Carol the Dabbler]

5 hours ago, J.P. said:

The stupid thing about the SM ban is you cannot quote him and all his talking about "fighting" and "taking our country back".

Let me just point out that Democrats have been talking about "taking our country back" for decades.  I don't think anyone takes it too literally.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

A legal analyst for NBC News has posted a piece with this title:  "Trump's speech is probably defensible in every court -- except perhaps the Senate."  [Link]

[Van Buren Supernova]

3 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

Let me just point out that Democrats have been talking about "taking our country back" for decades.  I don't think anyone takes it too literally.

 

A legal analyst for NBC News has posted a piece with this title:  "Trump's speech is probably defensible in every court -- except perhaps the Senate."  [Link]

Please refer to what I had tried to say earlier, which unfortunately I don't have the skill to articulate it well enough.

All these technicality, semantics (or other terms I'm not so sure with) is indeed applicable for common folks, or average folks, or earthlings, but NOT to someone who is known to spew unchecked facts, data, accusations, lies, denials on his ordinary life AND WHEN he is actually holding very high power (leader of the free world they say?) and when he is known to have followers who follow the same recipe, fact is pfft, who breathes and eats everything he says and then some and on shaky ground to do questionable things. (I bet many, many who stormed the capitol thought it was just harmless fun, endorsed by someone who has power to protect them). Add all those things up, his lawful remarks ARE NOT HARMLESS AT ALL; it carries weight, it pushes movements, it gives reasons and justifications, it becomes weapon. In short, it is dangerous and has significant capability to be very destructive.

Having said all above, allow me to be honest with you Carol, I don't intend to be offensive, but I have to be very honest, I'm with you that things shouldn't be black and white, there are different sides, POV and shades, but many times, your fifty shades of grey frustrates me.

We had talked about many things before in the past, from Bill Cosby to many other things I can't remember all, and while I enjoy level-headed and respectful discussions, which I really appreciate, I probably don't have the energy to dissect all those shades.
Many times I found myself ready to try to indulge with counter reasonings, but then I stopped myself because I could picture which and which reasoning of mine that you would pick up and question, which, in my humble opinion, only send us to spiral discussion that I have to go back to my point again, after going around the forest.

I blame it on my INTJ and your INTP, I have an INTP friend and while we are both normally very quiet species, people could find us talking for hours about all kind of nonsenses and like you, he always wants to look and question any, every, every, and every single angles, which is not something bad at all, which I like to do as well, but for me, something seems clearer than the other, something wronger than the other.
Especially in this case, of course I habe repeated myself before, I had very bad personal experience dealing with similar situation on the wrong end of the stick, just regular people who suffers from division, chaos, hatred, unfairness, fear, sowed exactly like and from someone or organization similar the way he does thing, and trust me, words could do as much damage as action.

My experience goes way way worse but the beginning is pretty similar. This is just the beginning, if nothing is being done. Me and my family suffer 'only' trauma, financial, livelihood and material lost, but there were many lives and dignities taken and things are and will never be the same.

So there is only so much energy I want to spend in trying to convince you the actual damage that this guy is capable of shouldn't be judged just by him actually goes down and wields the sword himself.
Words are not just imaginary, virtual, defensible coming from him.

So I would let others try, this is not a battle I want to be, especially I know that you are genuinely trying to understand. This is not over but for reason above and the risk of me turning into fluffy bunny  😋, I just said what I said in the beginning of this post. Feel free to think I am just blabbering and to all, sorry if my post is messy, I am sure it's full of grammatical and vocabulary errors.

P.S. Sorry for other nicer INTJ. I don't represent us and not sure what I am. 

[Arcadia]

I think you put it very well, VBS. I'm actually almost teary-eyed.

For myself, I guess I have to admit that I don't believe certain beliefs ... white supremacy and male grievance, to name a couple ... deserve representation. Counseling, yes. But not an advocate. And I also believe that many -- too many -- in Trump's base are NOT careful, thoughtful people. There's a lot of anger, resentment and desire for revenge bubbling around in there. I say this, because I know some of them. They are not prone to dispassionate analysis of his words.

And the words of a president carry more weight than those of John Doe down the street. I remember how often the right made fun of Obama's very careful manner of speaking ... and it could indeed take him a long time to say something ... but I think Obama was acutely conscious of the potential for inflaming  passions with words. Trump is too, but in a different way ... he doesn't give a damn about the results of his rhetoric as long as it feeds his monstrous ego. Whatever happens to anyone else is of no concern to him.

I could go on (indefinitely!) but basically I feel the leader of any country should be held to a higher standard of behavior than most people. And in that regard, Trump has failed miserably, over and over, since the moment he was elected. What I don't understand is why he wasn't impeached after his first month in office ... it was abundantly clear even then that he was neither suited to public service, nor capable of growing into his role. 

*sigh*

I think the impeachment process is confusing to everyone, (even those in congress!) but as I understand it, the end game is to prevent Trump from ever running for office again. Which is nice, but frankly I'm far more terrified that he will start his own media empire and continue to foul the world with his lies and bombast. Oh well, I guess that will happen anyway, whether or not Trump is on the loose ... the genie's out of the bottle. Maybe it's useful to have a public face to tie it to. I don't know, I just know I wish he would cease to exist.

[J.P.]

ETA: crossposted with Arcadia

I think - as we were talking about it discussing Sherlock - The effect of words depends not only on who is saying them, but also - or even more - on who's listening.

There is still a Twitter account with the name "Trump War Room". He knew who his fans were and how they will react. Call it deliberate misunderstanding.

His auditory was for years now dominated by militant, gun loving, flag waving freedom fetishists. They love him for allowing them to keep their assault rifles. They wanted to use the second amendment to overthrow Obama. They feel entitled to own the country. What was missing: a leader.

I'm not saying all his supporters are like this, but a big part of the bunch that came to DC surely were. And they were told, again and again that they have been robbed, duped, that there is a conspiracy to take their landslide victory away and they have to prevent the parliament to declare Biden's victory etc etc. How could they react?

Then you have the pictures of policemen opening the fence for the protestors and taking selfies with them, which suggests the whole action was prepared. A bit much for a "joke we have misunderstood again".