Skip to main content
Topic: Trump (Read 66049 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Trump

Reply #1365
This is in the guardian live feed:

“Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has told colleagues that he believes Trump committed impeachable offenses, according to the New York Times. McConnell has also said he is glad the House is moving forward with impeachment because he thinks it will make it easier to push Trump out of the Republican party.“
 
 No f*cking sh!t.  From day one of his presidency, you f*cking bellend.
I'm a fcuking idiot. Clearly.

Re: Trump

Reply #1366

 No f*cking sh!t.  From day one of his presidency, you f*cking bellend.

Actually no.  McConnell was very pleased to have that vacuous sack of sh!t as president because he was never interested in policy and approved everything that Moscow Mitch wanted until recently.  Now he seems to think that he wouldn't be able to control him anymore and he would endanger their attempts to win back the house and the senate so it would be best to expel him forever and get someone else to press forward with his awful agenda.  It's all very logical unfortunately.

Chicago: Cynical.
If running is bad for your knees try hanging out with Russ and Tricky for a night.

Re: Trump

Reply #1367
This is in the guardian live feed:

“Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has told colleagues that he believes Trump committed impeachable offenses, according to the New York Times. McConnell has also said he is glad the House is moving forward with impeachment because he thinks it will make it easier to push Trump out of the Republican party.“

Interesting. Of course, the first part doesn't mean he'd vote to convict, and the second part could hold even if Trump isn't convicted.

Trumpists alone can't get Trump nominated or elected. If he's sufficiently soiled himself to put off enough Republicans that he's no longer a viable candidate, there's limited upside for McConnell.. but I wonder what the GOP establishment feel about one of the open Trump supporters getting nominated. If Trump is convicted by the Senate, does that put more stink on Ted Cruz etc and take some of those guys out of the game? Is that what the GOP wants, or would they rather like to be able to nominate someone who isn't Trump, but comes with his constituency?

OOOH, POLITICS INNIT.
this is an excellent rectangle

Re: Trump

Reply #1368
Interesting. Of course, the first part doesn't mean he'd vote to convict, and the second part could hold even if Trump isn't convicted.

Trumpists alone can't get Trump nominated or elected. If he's sufficiently soiled himself to put off enough Republicans that he's no longer a viable candidate, there's limited upside for McConnell.. but I wonder what the GOP establishment feel about one of the open Trump supporters getting nominated. If Trump is convicted by the Senate, does that put more stink on Ted Cruz etc and take some of those guys out of the game? Is that what the GOP wants, or would they rather like to be able to nominate someone who isn't Trump, but comes with his constituency?

OOOH, POLITICS INNIT.

Here's a bigger story:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/us/mitch-mcconnell-trump-impeachment.html
They don't think it be like it is, but it do

Re: Trump

Reply #1369
And I don't think it matters if Cruz gets dragged down with Trump. Texas will only provide a wingnuttier wingnut. It's Texas.
They don't think it be like it is, but it do

Re: Trump

Reply #1370
That would be more your department than mine, but I'm sure that if there is a way of issuing a pre-emptive pardon to his family members he will and even to himself. The problem is that no one is changing their minds - to his supporters, who are sadly legion, the pardon would be justifiable to escape the hatchet job being done on him by the establishment, any challenge to it would be evidence of the establishment's hatred for him, and if it succeeded it would simply be proof of their power and willingness to use it for evil.

The wording can be pretty broad:
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

Re: Trump

Reply #1371
I saw an interesting take that suggested Trump pardoning himself was unlikely to work and would invite a prosecution.

Basically, the only time the question has been asked of the DoJ was in '74 when they said it wasn't possible (largely hinges on the word "grant" and the fact it doesn't say he can). So that advice stands until someone changes it. Of course Trump could get someone to advise that it was possible but, presumably, Biden's DoJ would overturn the advice. Which means that, outside of the week Trump pardoned himself, in 47 years the advice was consistent that it wasn't possible. (Obviously the Supreme Court would decide but it means they have to overturn something which is a higher bar).

And it's likely to invite a prosecution because it's established that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. So you've got a situation where's he's admitted guilt and doesn't have a valid pardon (in the view of the DoJ). Under those circumstances, it would almost be negligent not to prosecute.

There's a lot of crap being talked about the need for reconciliation and bringing the country by Republican politicians who can't even bring themselves to admit that Biden won. I'd suggest that move on their part would be the first step.

What happens next if a significant number of Republicans vote for impeachment is interesting as well - is Trump a spent force, do they get primaried out by Trump loyalists or is there a possibility of a third party?

Re: Trump

Reply #1372
That’s a good read. The counter, where Trump is concerned, is that this looks back and frames everything as a knowing attempt to hold onto power, when a great deal can be equally explained by Trump being a reckless narcissist and a skilful (somehow) manipulator of his own narrative.

I think his post-election behaviour is that of a man who is either delusional enough to believe he really did win and the court challenges would work, or (more likely) someone determined to plant a ‘I didn’t really lose, I am not a loser’ narrative as deeply and widely as possible. Didn’t he respond similarly to not winning an Emmy? The opinion he has of himself is not a new act he’s come up with to steal the presidency... he really does think that he is the best at all things and anything that doesn’t go his way is rigged.

I don’t think that he, or the people around him, are remotely capable of orchestrating the events as described in that piece.. to believe they did is to believe that Trump really was playing 5D chess all along. I choose, on the balance of probabilities, not to believe that. But it’s not the insane hypothesis I’d have said it was two years ago.

Yet even if that is my take.. I know it doesn’t make things OK. Whether he meant to or not, he showed a way of doing things that people will pick up on, and already are picking up on. You see elements of it in Johnson, I see things in the leadership down here. Take the post election events out and things from America are still very bad.. a lot of people still voted for Trump, still supported the party that stood behind him, and a relatively small number of people in a few states swung it. Without Covid he’d probably have won. Things are not OK.

But as much as people warned about Trump’s tactics, much did not come true. That article kinda just brushes over the fact that all of the Trump judges did *exactly* what anyone familiar with the sort of person who is qualified to fill one of those positions, whatever their politics, would do. There was never a sniff of the military actually getting involved on his behalf. His man in the USPS did not come through for him. Nor did his ally’s in the States. The people who said ‘he cannot and will not steal this’ can write ‘We told you so’ articles if they want.

I don't know why your reply suddenly popped into my head again, but it did. So:

I'm confused. Do you only get to be a fascist if you 'successfully' organise a coup? Dear old Oswald Moseley of the British Union of Fascists wants his reputation reassessed in that case.

An attempted coup is an attempted coup, whether or not you're a useless chancer who is just seeing how far it goes. See Germany in the 1930s.

It's nice to be complacent and say 'oh, they're all a bit sh!t and it lacked the competence of a proper armed insurrection', but then again it's not that nice really.

Re: Trump

Reply #1373
I don't know why your reply suddenly popped into my head again, but it did. So:

I'm confused. Do you only get to be a fascist if you 'successfully' organise a coup? Dear old Oswald Moseley of the British Union of Fascists wants his reputation reassessed in that case.

An attempted coup is an attempted coup, whether or not you're a useless chancer who is just seeing how far it goes. See Germany in the 1930s.

It's nice to be complacent and say 'oh, they're all a bit sh!t and it lacked the competence of a proper armed insurrection', but then again it's not that nice really.

I'm inclined to agree. It's not like the Beer Hall Putsch made them all realise the silliness and futility of their actions, and all went home to lead happy and fulfilling lives as worthwhile members of society.
They don't think it be like it is, but it do

Re: Trump

Reply #1374
I don't know why your reply suddenly popped into my head again, but it did. So:

I'm confused. Do you only get to be a fascist if you 'successfully' organise a coup? Dear old Oswald Moseley of the British Union of Fascists wants his reputation reassessed in that case.

An attempted coup is an attempted coup, whether or not you're a useless chancer who is just seeing how far it goes. See Germany in the 1930s.

It's nice to be complacent and say 'oh, they're all a bit sh!t and it lacked the competence of a proper armed insurrection', but then again it's not that nice really.
 
If that's a view that anyone holds, they might want to listen to the latest "Gaslit Nation" podcast (with Andrea Chalupa and Sarah Kendzior).  The latest issue "Clear Intent" lays out the argument, with a timeline that shows that this is not correct. They've been banging on about this stuff for four or five years.

Democracy is under attack. The most profound attack. America is far from out of the woods.

You may also wish to consider the similarities with the current UK governance, in particular the re-engineering of the institutions, the marginalisation of scrutiny and the checks and balances - example the defending of the legal profession, to render it ineffectual.

We here are deeper in the woods than people seem to realise.
I'm a fcuking idiot. Clearly.

Re: Trump

Reply #1375

If that's a view that anyone holds, they might want to listen to the latest "Gaslit Nation" podcast (with Andrea Chalupa and Sarah Kendzior).  The latest issue "Clear Intent" lays out the argument, with a timeline that shows that this is not correct. They've been banging on about this stuff for four or five years.

Democracy is under attack. The most profound attack. America is far from out of the woods.

You may also wish to consider the similarities with the current UK governance, in particular the re-engineering of the institutions, the marginalisation of scrutiny and the checks and balances - example the defending of the legal profession, to render it ineffectual.

We here are deeper in the woods than people seem to realise.

Absolutely spot on.

Re: Trump

Reply #1376
Trump now has half the impeachments in the history of the United States. (Although I do worry, a little, about the ideas this precedent will be giving the republicans - if they win the house in ‘22 Biden will be impeached every week.)

Re: Trump

Reply #1377
I'm confused. Do you only get to be a fascist if you 'successfully' organise a coup?
I didn't offer a view on whether anyone is or isn't a fascist, did I?

Quote
An attempted coup is an attempted coup, whether or not you're a useless chancer who is just seeing how far it goes. See Germany in the 1930s.

It's nice to be complacent and say 'oh, they're all a bit sh!t and it lacked the competence of a proper armed insurrection', but then again it's not that nice really.
Agreed. I'm just not sure that all these things that the article laid out as elements of an attempted coup were any such thing. And I think that matters... I may well be wrong, but it's surely a valid hypothesis? Even if the outcome of it all was, indeed, a chancer seeing how far he could get, I'd like to ascribe the correct motivations to the behaviors that set it all up.

I don't think that's complacent. It's possibly more complacent to look back and insist it was all some genius plan executed to bring about what happened, rather than what happened being the product of a frighteningly flawed individual running around Washington with a wrecking ball for five years. It's one thing to acknowledge that a bad actor can successfully execute a plan than ends up with a gang of fascists storming the Capitol... it's scarier, in my view, that an entitled narcissistic windbag with a twitter account can stumble a nation to the same outcome.

Neither of these two interpretations of events is the 'everything is ok, lads' interpretation.
this is an excellent rectangle

Re: Trump

Reply #1378
Confirmation bias, with elements of Stockholm syndrome.

All of those people accurately predicting what was going to happen, were not wrong. You've worked out out that their predictions were indeed correct, but have decided that your imperfect explanation was right all along. With hindsight.

Bonkers.
I'm a fcuking idiot. Clearly.

 

Re: Trump

Reply #1379
Confirmation bias, with elements of Stockholm syndrome.

All of those people accurately predicting what was going to happen, were not wrong. You've worked out out that their predictions were indeed correct, but have decided that your imperfect explanation was right all along. With hindsight.

Bonkers.

People predicted a lot that didn't happen though, didn't they. That's the thing about predictions... there are lots of them. They predicted that the postal service would fail to deliver votes, that Republican controlled states would reject the popular vote, that the electoral college would be corrupted, that judges appointed by the Trump administration would deliver a 'quid pro quo' and hand him the election. And I was just as biased and bonkers for not being too concerned about these things... so I hope you'll forgive me for not being all that fussed at your disdain for people who aren't in your corner of the rabbit hole.

If Trump spent five years masterminding a coup then can we at least pause the wailing to point out that he failed. He failed comprehensively. He was not even close. The institutions and the checks and balances that exist in countries like the USA, and the UK, did their job. It was never in doubt.

It should not have got that far... but if we're playing 'look at what actually happened' then we need to be fair and look at the good things that did happen, and the predicted bad things that didn't.
this is an excellent rectangle