POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[ReluctantSamurai]

The title sez it all:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/18/trump-presidency-years-cartoons-451470

[Hooahguy]

The title sez it all:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/18/trump-presidency-years-cartoons-451470
The past four years have been so exhausting I've forgotten about some of this.

But hey, only 26 hours to go right?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My bet, all along, is that the GOP will move to "Trump Harder" having fallen short this past round.

Perhaps, after the events of the 6th, the party will fracture over the course of the next year or so. It would probably be for the best.

[Hooahguy]

https://i.redd.it/ae1q8fu0cac61.jpg

[spmetla]

My bet, all along, is that the GOP will move to "Trump Harder" having fallen short this past round.

Perhaps, after the events of the 6th, the party will fracture over the course of the next year or so. It would probably be for the best.

I agree on this, the 'old guard' republicans like McConnell are clearly ready to dump Trump but the ground swell is of the Tea Party>Trump>post Trump movement what will likely elect even more extreme people in the midterms next year. The only way out of it I can imagine is if the Dems make a concerted effort to prove the Trump-clan fears wrong. This would mean very strong anti-China stance, not making identity politics central over substance, and not relaxing the enforcement of immigration rules. It is strange to see how the first true 'church going' president in a long time is considered un-Christian because he's a democrat, pro-choice, and catholic.

This is also compounded by the current ideological rabbit holes people go into online. Who would have predicted 20 years ago with the information revolution that the internet has brought on that so many people would fall hook line and sinker for essentially the youtube and journalistic equivalent of the the craziest tabloids written by the guy on the side of the road with the 'end is nigh sign.'

This would of course make Biden extremely vulnerable to the progressive wing of the Dems that are already irritated at this moderate administration and would hurt Harris's election efforts in 2024 if Biden does intend to only do one term as expected.

I'm curious as to the whole list of people being pardoned tomorrow

[Hooahguy]

well considering that Fox News just fired (https://twitter.com/sarahellison/status/1351627777506742276?s=20) part of the team that called Arizona for Biden, I think we know which way the wind is blowing...

[Hooahguy]

Can't resist commemorating the closing of the Trump era with this final great burn:

24267 24268

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Joe Biden is a solid speaker. Not great, but solid.

And after the last four years it sounded like poetry.

I am hopeful that we have someone who will at least attempt to move forward. Here's to the administration's success in so doing.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I didn't watch anything from the inauguration until late tonight. Work had CNN in the cafeteria but I didn't watch, today was a good day cause it was the first day in a while I didn't have to worry about something bad happening.

At lunch as I sipped my pineapple juice, I opened twitter and saw a flurry of angry retweets from Ben Shapiro. I smiled and knew that we were now in good hands.

[rory_20_uk]

If America wants to have any real international standing, they really do need to impeach Donald - else every Diplomat will be very aware that 4 years is a very short time and there's a non-zero chance things will again turn. Sure even if Donald was prevented from returning to office Ivanka might decide that she's got the experience required (photogenic, white, sociopath) to make it to the top and she might just manage to get a coalition to get there but even she would be nowhere near as bad and I imagine the International stage would view her as someone they could do business with.

Biden's speech appeared heartfelt - but the cynic in me thinks he's been a politician for 50 years so I would expect he can fake some emotion. The rhetoric was pretty anodyne and was almost interchangeable from what many of his predecessors (Compassionate conservatism / Yes We Can / It's the Economy Stupid / Kinder, Gentler Nation and so on).

I hope he chooses to be almost the "no party President" - it seems agreed he only wants one term so doesn't need to go for personal glory. And if he can frame things as a win for the country rather than for a specific party he might have more chance at getting Congress to pass some meaningful laws. This would be super tough with baiting from both within and without but he could say "save it for the 2024 campaign". A tougher question is - are there enough areas of mutual benefit that he'd get the numbers to pass things?

Failing that, just stick to the tried and tested putting all legislation in the Funding Bill and play Federal Chicken.

~:smoking:

[ReluctantSamurai]

Unsure if this was a good thing or not:

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/20/22241150/pro-trump-inauguration-protests-low-energy

OTOH, it's good that there were no more conflicts, as it's likely more people, both LEO's and protesters might have gotten killed. Or it just means that the extremists are not yet jihadists willing to go on a suicide mission, and are just biding time until law enforcement relaxes. I still expect a kidnapping/attempt or assassination of a government official in the next six months to happen. Just because their first attempt (Gov. Whitmer) failed doesn't mean they won't try again...:shrug:

[Hooahguy]

Unsure if this was a good thing or not:

https://www.vox.com/2021/1/20/22241150/pro-trump-inauguration-protests-low-energy

OTOH, it's good that there were no more conflicts, as it's likely more people, both LEO's and protesters might have gotten killed. Or it just means that the extremists are not yet jihadists willing to go on a suicide mission, and are just biding time until law enforcement relaxes. I still expect a kidnapping/attempt or assassination of a government official in the next six months to happen. Just because their first attempt (Gov. Whitmer) failed doesn't mean they won't try again...:shrug:
Perhaps biding their time but its so hard to tell, especially with a Justice Department that is now vowing to crack down on those groups. Now that their leader is gone and cowed (the Proud Boys called Trump "a total failure"). I guess we will see.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If America wants to have any real international standing, they really do need to impeach Donald - else every Diplomat will be very aware that 4 years is a very short time and there's a non-zero chance things will again turn. Sure even if Donald was prevented from returning to office Ivanka might decide that she's got the experience required (photogenic, white, sociopath) to make it to the top and she might just manage to get a coalition to get there but even she would be nowhere near as bad and I imagine the International stage would view her as someone they could do business with.

This has been a problem since Carter. Prior to that time, there was a tradition of "politics stops at the water's edge" that had guided US foreign policy. While we were always more changeable and prone to fits of moralism over realpolitik, there was a somewhat steadier stance to our foreign affairs. Carter, who thought we should center our foreign policy on human rights rather than purely on the national interest, shifted our stance on a number of issues. Reagan backlashed against this, and to an extent we have been "see-sawing" ever since. Carter's approach was inarguable more in line with Western morality, but also created different problems. For sure, our variability since has caused concern among our allies and others. Trump's efforts -- even more "cowboy" than Dubya or Reagan and more ham-fisted than any of the other 45 in my opinion -- have certainly made things worse for the near future.


Biden's speech appeared heartfelt - but the cynic in me thinks he's been a politician for 50 years so I would expect he can fake some emotion. The rhetoric was pretty anodyne and was almost interchangeable from what many of his predecessors (Compassionate conservatism / Yes We Can / It's the Economy Stupid / Kinder, Gentler Nation and so on).
You may be right. Biden is an old-school pol and a party man of long standing. And, truly, an inaugural speech is talking in "poetry" while the governance to follow must happen in "prose." We shall see how he fares. I will note that his reputation for working with others and for caring about the common person is pretty consistently touted. It was not created just for this campaign.


I hope he chooses to be almost the "no party President" - it seems agreed he only wants one term so doesn't need to go for personal glory. And if he can frame things as a win for the country rather than for a specific party he might have more chance at getting Congress to pass some meaningful laws. This would be super tough with baiting from both within and without but he could say "save it for the 2024 campaign". A tougher question is - are there enough areas of mutual benefit that he'd get the numbers to pass things?There most certainly are. The worry is that the more ideologically-driven wings of both parties will stop compromise efforts from happening. There SHOULD be strong centrist support for a well framed COVID-mitigation set of legislative efforts as well as for infrastructure improvements and for reasonable efforts to mitigate the "wealth gap." For the latter I hope they have the perspicacity to see that taxing income is not the best route to that rebalance.

[ReluctantSamurai]

"They're thieves! They're thieves! They're filthy little thieves! Where is it? Where is it? They stole it from us, our precious. Curse them! WE hates them! It's ours it is, and we wants it! We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us. Sneaky little hobbitses. Wicked, tricksy, false!"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/23/donald-trump-lawsuit-lord-of-the-rings-gondor-election


“Gondor has no king,” the lawsuit states (https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1120287/gov.uscourts.txwd.1120287.6.0.pdf), a footnote providing an explanation of the woeful fate of Tolkien’s entirely imaginary land populated by dragons, wizards, hobbits and elves, all threatened by a baleful Dark Lord backed up by an army of orcs and with famously little time for due democratic process.

The suit explains how Gondor’s throne was empty and its rightful kings in exile, presumably positing the idea that Trump is the true king of America – a land happily monarch-free since 1776.

“This analogy is applicable since there is now in Washington DC a group of individuals calling themselves the president, vice-president and Congress who have no rightful claim to govern the American people,” the case states.

The lawsuit then suggests that America’s version of the stewards of Gondor should be selected from among – surprise, surprise – Trump’s cabinet members, who should run the country.


:stupido:

[Hooahguy]

Today Rand Paul introduced a motion that would have dismissed the impeachment trial. It was voted down (https://twitter.com/jeremyherb/status/1354161907956121601?s=20) 55-45, with only Rebublicans Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Toomey, and Sasse voting with the Dems on this. I guess we now know with reasonable certainty that impeachment will fail. Of course McConnell refuses to entertain the idea of impeachment earlier saying it was too soon, only to then turn around to vote to dismissing saying its too late to do it now.
:inquisitive:

[rory_20_uk]

I thought that having the spectre of Donald 2024 would have been a disaster - but of course him starting a third party purely to damage Republicans that had crossed him is a bigger threat. Even if he couldn't run himself he'd enjoy all the rallies and spouting bullshit which is his favourite part anyway. And he can continue this threat for as long as his attention span allows.

I fear that any meaningful change that isn't done by Executive Order is going to be nigh on impossible (ban on Feds using private prisons - good... Obama did the same and it was reversed... Oh). Perhaps investing in infrastructure can be positioned as another way of funnelling money to the GOP funders so might go ahead.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

McConnell seems like the consummate politician - completely without any guiding principle or idea other than preserving potential future power/influence.

[Hooahguy]

I thought that having the spectre of Donald 2024 would have been a disaster - but of course him starting a third party purely to damage Republicans that had crossed him is a bigger threat. Even if he couldn't run himself he'd enjoy all the rallies and spouting bullshit which is his favourite part anyway. And he can continue this threat for as long as his attention span allows.

Hard to say what he does for 2024. I think him not having his twitter account has largely neutered his voice, however I dont think thats really necessary anymore since Trumpism has taken on a mind of its own within the party and they are slowly kicking out anyone who isnt sufficiently pro-Trump. Definitely cultish behavior.

Furthermore I fully expect primary challenges for all 10 House Republicans who voted for impeachment. I do think it would be hilarious though if Ivanka primaried Marco Rubio in Florida. It would be a fitting end to his sad saga.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am hopeful that the Trumpist "Patriot Party" will indeed be formed. We will then get a more accurate representation of America's political spectrum with 25% Patriot Party, 15% GOP, 60% Dem.

Please note that I threw out those percentages using my anecdotal sense of things and not anything resembling meticulous research. Monty will no doubt have it parsed out fully.

[Hooahguy]

If anyone is interested, the NYT released a super-detailed interactive map of precinct-level data, including the 2020 vs 2016 data matchups.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html

[Montmorency]

If anyone is interested, the NYT released a super-detailed interactive map of precinct-level data, including the 2020 vs 2016 data matchups.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-election-map.html

A frustrating missed opportunity in the design of this resource. Aside from not labeling the precinct numbers, the total counts are not included alongside the percentages.

(For an example of why this could be important, look at some of the western precincts were the comparison between 2016 and 2020, cross-referenced elsewhere, counts single digits of voters.)

The 2016 NYT map included counts, though not precinct labels. Use alongside USElectionAtlas.

[Hooahguy]

To think (https://www.businessinsider.com/tommy-tuberville-says-he-cant-comment-marjorie-taylor-greene-weather-2021-2) Doug Jones got replaced with this guy:


GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville says he doesn't know anything about Marjorie Taylor Greene because bad weather has prevented him from reading the news.

[a completely inoffensive name]

How can bad weather prevent someone from reading the news, but not prevent a football game. Really jogs the noggin.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Some surprising statistics on just who assaulted the Capital on 6 Jan:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/the-capitol-rioters-arent-like-other-extremists/617895/


What’s clear is that the Capitol riot revealed a new force in American politics—not merely a mix of right-wing organizations, but a broader mass political movement that has violence at its core and draws strength even from places where Trump supporters are in the minority. Preventing further violence from this movement will require a deeper understanding of its activities and participants, and the two of us do not claim to know which political tactics might ultimately prove helpful. But Americans who believe in democratic norms should be wary of pat solutions. Some of the standard methods of countering violent extremism—such as promoting employment or waiting patiently for participants to mellow with age—probably won’t mollify middle-aged, middle-class insurrectionists. And simply targeting better-established far-right organizations will not prevent people like the Capitol rioters from trying to exercise power by force.

Can't wait to see what SNL does with this bit:

https://twitter.com/JasonSCampbell/status/1356719881564086272

The expressions on the face of Heather Childers is priceless....~D

[Montmorency]

You know those random encounters you often see in JRPG dungeons? The sleeping soldiers in the Capitol reminded me of that. Better keep your party at full strength, never know when you'll encounter a band of National Guardsmen!


Also, the NYT resource shows vote counts now.

[Hooahguy]

Biden decides (https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/05/us/joe-biden-trump-impeachment#biden-trump-intelligence-briefings) not to give Trump any more intel briefings, which is usually given to former presidents as a courtesy.

Personally I think it would have been more interesting to feed Trump incorrect information and see who he passes it off to.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Here's the "Texit" discussion......again:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/05/texas-republicans-endorse-legislation-vote-secession

One has to wonder if these folks ever passed grade school math:

https://theweek.com/articles/470115/what-happen-texas-actually-seceded


If you're in a state intent on bolting the Union, there is good tax news, says MarketWatch's Arends (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-seceding-from-the-us-will-cost-you-2012-11-16): "You will be liberated from the sheer living hell of the federal tax code." Of course, you'll also "get fewer government services." Also, your newly independent nation "will go into recession, and fast." The feds would take back their highway, airport, and university research funding, and maybe even demand a refund, says the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in an editorial (http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/11/20/4429851/a-peaceful-texas-secession-would.html). Obama would close down or (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/us/politics/with-stickers-a-petition-and-even-a-middle-name-secession-fever-hits-texas.html)repossess (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/us/politics/with-stickers-a-petition-and-even-a-middle-name-secession-fever-hits-texas.html) federal courthouses, prisons, national parks, and military bases that pump tens of billions each into local economies. Plus, Texas and other newly minted nations would have to pay for their own militaries, says Jack Simmons at the UT-Arlington Shorthorn (http://www.theshorthorn.com/opinion/columnists/columnist-texas-economy-could-not-survive-secession/article_833cfe76-3395-11e2-ba04-001a4bcf6878.html). "We would also need some form of health care, some sort of disaster relief, a postal service, welfare, social security, FDA, CIA, FBI — the list goes on," totaling well over a trillion dollars. "And that's just start-up costs."

[Xantan]

I've been thinking heavily in the past period about the next steps - where do we go from here? Where are we going from here?

Last night was the Superbowl and Jeep released a charming advert, with Bruce Springsteen. Sure, a bit corny, but it emphasised the need for unity and understanding. The comment section is an absolute trash bucket and the dislike ratio is also rather high for a commercial advert in the end. While you can say "YouTube comments do not represent reality", I'm starting to think this does not appear to be the case any more as people with real accounts simply rail against leftists, Democrats, Supreme Court and everything in between.

The lake is poisoned with arsenic at this rate, and frankly, getting people to understand basic reality is going to be a serious problem. And talking of Texit and what not... the parody is consumed from my view, we've woken up, only to find that the parody spilled a whole laboratory of poison in the lake.

And don't think it's just the USA. Europe is guilty of this too.

[ReluctantSamurai]

getting people to understand basic reality is going to be a serious problem

The Texit fantasy is just one example of a lack of reality. Even if it were allowed, the "Lone Star Nation" would be broke in a year, despite their oil revenue. Among a whole host of other issues, this pandemic has highpointed the serious lack of reality we have here in America. Over a year in, and Americans STILL don't take SARS-2 as seriously as we should. When these new mutations become dominant by spring, vaccine or no, the carnage will continue. The rise of conspiratism shows that Americans have little faith in our government, and flail about for something to believe in.

Sad to say, I'm not overly optimistic....:shame:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The reactionary quintile of the population has not been politically defeated decisively yet. They will scream and curse and refuse all compromise -- Xantan's heavy-metal poisoning reference is not without merit. Given the intelligence damage displayed, I would have opted for lead over arsenic, but...

Eventually, they will be defeated politically to such a profound degree that they will have to a)re-think, or b)rebel and be crushed. I think it will be the former, after a long draw down, but I could be wrong.

Fortunately, the somewhat more centered quintile will probably (and some are already) skipping straight to re-think.

[Pannonian]

There hasn't been much coverage here of US politics since the inauguration. Has the noise quietened down? What's this about Texit?

[Hooahguy]

There hasn't been much coverage here of US politics since the inauguration. Has the noise quietened down? What's this about Texit?
A bunch of Texas Republicans are saying they want to form an independent republic, going as far as introducing a bill authorizing a referendum to leave the US. Probably won't go anywhere, but just in case it does we will be ready (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvjOG5gboFU).

We should have burned more of the south during the Civil War.

[Montmorency]

A bunch of Texas Republicans are saying they want to form an independent republic, going as far as introducing a bill authorizing a referendum to leave the US. Probably won't go anywhere, but just in case it does we will be ready (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvjOG5gboFU).

We should have burned more of the south during the Civil War.

24334

[a completely inoffensive name]

A bunch of Texas Republicans are saying they want to form an independent republic, going as far as introducing a bill authorizing a referendum to leave the US. Probably won't go anywhere, but just in case it does we will be ready (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvjOG5gboFU).

We should have burned more of the south during the Civil War.

Remember years ago on this forum after that one church shooting (who can keep track of all the shootings amiright?) where I said we needed to bring back Radical Reconstruction to finally root out the racist aspects of southern culture and people got all indignant about it?

[Hooahguy]

Remember years ago on this forum after that one church shooting (who can keep track of all the shootings amiright?) where I said we needed to bring back Radical Reconstruction to finally root out the racist aspects of southern culture and people got all indignant about it?
I completely agree. The failure of Reconstruction led to Jim Crow which arguably led to where we are today. So yeah we need a Reconstruction v2 but I'm not sure what that would even look like.

[Gilrandir]

We should have burned more of the south during the Civil War.

I wonder what would be the reaction of others if someone said "We should have carpet-bombed Vietnam more" or "We should have sent more Jews to concentration camps in 1938" or "We should have dropped a couple of more A-bombs on Japan in 1945" or "We should have raped more German women in 1945"? Still a unanimous acquienscence?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The "Reconstruction" ended up being a fiasco.

John Wilkes Booth saw to that at Ford's theater. Had Lincoln been in charge of the first 3 years of it, with all of the political clout he had garnered, it would likely have been much less abusive but far firmer in screening out those who had led the rebellion from positions of power.

As it was, Johnson moved too rapidly towards the reformation of civil governments in the former Confederacy, did little to restrict the returned participation of the previous rebel leadership to political life, and actively campaigned against the rights of newly freed Blacks and against the 14th amendment. Many historians rank him among our worst Presidents, generally only according Buchannan a worse performance assessment -- though now both of them have been surpassed.

Following Johnson, Grant took a stance much more in line with the approach historians expected Lincoln to have taken -- but he could not reverse the "olly-olly-oxen-free" that Johnson had done with so many former Confederates. Grant smashed the first iteration of the KKK, but was not able to overturn the various Jim Crow laws that began to sprout up.


Texas likes to claim that they are the only state that was admitted to the union with a proviso that they had the right to secede. Our Civil War, fought (in part) to assert that no state has such a right, seems to mitigate against this belief.

[Idaho]

I wonder what would be the reaction of others if someone said "We should have carpet-bombed Vietnam more" or "We should have sent more Jews to concentration camps in 1938" or "We should have dropped a couple of more A-bombs on Japan in 1945" or "We should have raped more German women in 1945"? Still a unanimous acquienscence?

So you see the destruction of a racist and murderous political construct as morally the same as killing millions of actual people. Interesting.

[Hooahguy]

I dunno, I just think that going around burning all the plantation mansions of slave owners and other icons of slavery would have been a net positive.

[Montmorency]

Remember years ago on this forum after that one church shooting (who can keep track of all the shootings amiright?) where I said we needed to bring back Radical Reconstruction to finally root out the racist aspects of southern culture and people got all indignant about it?

Are you thinking of the Charlottesville Rally? Cuz the Charleston church shooting was 2015, and I wouldn't recommend reading back through the archives before 2017, for the cringe factor.

I do recall that when I said last year our problem was we didn't burn down enough of the South, you had a strong negative reaction.


[Excerpts of Rebecca Latimer Felton’s speech to the Georgia Agricultural Society, August 11, 1897]

On August 11, 1897 Rebecca Latimer Felton, wife of a Populist leader in Georgia, spoke at the Georgia Agricultural Society about the problems that farm wives faced. She claimed that farm wives faced many dangers but none greater than the threat of black rapists. She argued that charitable donations for overseas missionaries were misspent; funds were better spent educating poor young white girls who had been left unprotected by the poor white men of the South. White men, she said, had failed to protect farm wives from “the black rapist.” Vigilante justice, she declared, was a way for men to restore that protection. According to Felton,

“When there is not enough religion in the pulpit to organize a crusade against sin; nor justice in the court house to promptly punish crime; nor manhood enough in the nation to put a sheltering arm about innocence and virtue----if it needs lynching to protect woman’s dearest possession form the ravening human beasts----then I say lynch, a thousand times a week if necessary.”

Politics was central to Felton’s perspective. North Carolina Republicans who had encouraged African-American men’s success were also to blame for the actions of the “black rapist.” Republicans, Felton insisted, “must find a means to stop the crime that invites lynching by the ignorant and malicious of your supporters, or you cannot escape the responsibility for their actions.” Republicans “encouraged the ignorant Negroes in thinking that the success of the party…insures him against the just penalty of his wrongdoing.” Republicans, who had portrayed white Democrats as blacks’ most bitter enemy, had led African-American men to perform all kinds of outrages against whites. “In his ignorance,” she argued, the African-American man “…has interpreted this to give him license to degrade and debauch.” Speaking to white Republicans, Felton warned, “you are his teacher. You must correct your teachings or you cannot escape the wrath of an outraged people.”

If only the federal response to that stuff had been...

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/PD9PRE/uncle-sam-rolling-up-his-sleeves-and-getting-ready-to-get-to-work-and-flexing-his-arm-muscles-PD9PRE.jpg


Unrelatedly, an interesting take (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/re-establish-us-influence-biden-should-play-rope-dope-not-compete-globally-177380) on US strategy vis-a-vis China:


To Re-Establish U.S. Influence, Biden Should Play Rope-a-Dope, Not Compete Globally
Rather than reclaim global dominance by outspending and overpowering new contenders, U.S. planners should instead simply not contest many of Beijing’s and Moscow’s costly efforts to expand their networks of clients.

I'm familiar with the idea of American retrenchment driven by hard-nosed analysis of our lack of strength, but I wonder how China might be lured into the sorts of imperial over-extensions we have been prone to.




I wonder what would be the reaction of others if someone said "We should have carpet-bombed Vietnam more" or "We should have sent more Jews to concentration camps in 1938" or "We should have dropped a couple of more A-bombs on Japan in 1945" or "We should have raped more German women in 1945"? Still a unanimous acquienscence?

We should have done to the South just as we did to Germany and Japan. Look how they turned out!

[Hooahguy]

Unrelatedly, an interesting take (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/re-establish-us-influence-biden-should-play-rope-dope-not-compete-globally-177380) on US strategy vis-a-vis China:

I'm familiar with the idea of American retrenchment driven by hard-nosed analysis of our lack of strength, but I wonder how China might be lured into the sorts of imperial over-extensions we have been prone to.
Probably better to post this in the Biden thread, but trying to lure them into committing more resources in Africa could be a way forward, but Im not sure if that will really have the desired effect, considering China has more resources than Russia does. Its also important to note that while Russia had been committing serious forces into Ukraine and Syria, China was taking a more soft power focus with only sending small numbers of military forces as peacekeepers and letting money do the rest. Their largest deployment is to South Sudan with only about 1,000 soldiers. Compare with Russia in Syria in 2015, they sent about 4,000 soldiers with lots of heavy equipment and aircraft. China seems to be wisely playing it safe in the sense that they don't want to get drawn into an extended conflict like the US and Russia have.

Also I think hegemonic is a better term than imperial in this context, but that's just me.


We should have done to the South just as we did to Germany and Japan. Look how they turned out!
Germany for sure, but there is still unfortunately not a small amount of historical revisionism in Japan regarding various atrocities, such as the comfort women. As with many things, the first step to recovery is admitting one's mistakes, and I feel like large swaths of our country isn't truly repentant over the cause of the Civil War and subsequent oppression. I mean how many still claim it was about state's rights and not slavery?

[Pannonian]

Probably better to post this in the Biden thread, but trying to lure them into committing more resources in Africa could be a way forward, but Im not sure if that will really have the desired effect, considering China has more resources than Russia does. Its also important to note that while Russia had been committing serious forces into Ukraine and Syria, China was taking a more soft power focus with only sending small numbers of military forces as peacekeepers and letting money do the rest. Their largest deployment is to South Sudan with only about 1,000 soldiers. Compare with Russia in Syria in 2015, they sent about 4,000 soldiers with lots of heavy equipment and aircraft. China seems to be wisely playing it safe in the sense that they don't want to get drawn into an extended conflict like the US and Russia have.

Also I think hegemonic is a better term than imperial in this context, but that's just me.


Germany for sure, but there is still unfortunately not a small amount of historical revisionism in Japan regarding various atrocities, such as the comfort women. As with many things, the first step to recovery is admitting one's mistakes, and I feel like large swaths of our country isn't truly repentant over the cause of the Civil War and subsequent oppression. I mean how many still claim it was about state's rights and not slavery?

Why not colonial? They're doing what the East India Company and others of that ilk were doing. They're even sending out Chinese workers to staff the higher echelons of the infrastructure they're creating. The only difference is that modern western countries have liberal scruples, whereas China see their day in the sun.

[Hooahguy]

Why not colonial? They're doing what the East India Company and others of that ilk were doing. They're even sending out Chinese workers to staff the higher echelons of the infrastructure they're creating. The only difference is that modern western countries have liberal scruples, whereas China see their day in the sun.
Thats an interesting take for sure, it would seem to fit the bill with regards to China. Though I was referring to the US when talking about using hegemonic vs imperial.

[Gilrandir]

So you see the destruction of a racist and murderous political construct as morally the same as killing millions of actual people. Interesting.

You mean the destruction of a racist and murderous political construct didn't involve killing millions of actual people? Or are these inevitable victims that don't deserve any consideration but only "serve them right" attitude?

What I see is glorifying atrocities that accompany any war (and sometimes not only war). It is what they do in Russia now saying "We should have starved more Ukrainians in 1932-33" or "We should have killed all those Crimean Tatars instead of just benevolently sending them out to live in Siberia". And I'm appalled that similar hatetalk is heard from an Amercian who, moreover, is an admin at a social media outlet. And all forumers seem to support it and feel mildly humored. Not much of a stranger in a strange land. Something is really wrong with western values.

[Crandar]

Unilateral secession is illegal in the United States, but condemning so harshly the referendum efforts of Texas seems morally questionable. I don't see why shouldn't every state have the right to self-determination and sovereignty, if it so wishes. California, Texas or Hawaii should have, in my opinion, the chance to declare independence, as long as an absolute majority, as established by a transparent referendum, is in favour of it. I remember Spain being internationally condemned for not allowing the Catalans to hold an independence referendum, a criticism with which I agreed, although I'm against Catalan nationalism.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Unilateral secession is illegal in the United States, but condemning so harshly the referendum efforts of Texas seems morally questionable.

And yet you don't find the reasons behind the Texit secession referendums "morally questionable"?

I'll give you a couple of hints...

A quote from Rush Limbaugh [an ultra conservative political commentator]:


There cannot be a peaceful coexistence of two completely different theories of life, theories of government, theories of how we manage our affairs. We can’t be in this dire a conflict without something giving somewhere along the way.

What "theories" do you think he refers to?

Then there's the people of Texas themselves whose lawmakers just lost their bid to have the Supreme Court overturn the legitimate results of our recent presidential election. In other words, FU Detroit, New York, LA, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Chicago, and other Democratic-voting cities. Guess what those cities (and others not mentioned) all have in common?

[Crandar]

American traditional values (tm) and ''Communism'', I suppose? I don't disagree that they are just salty ultra-conservatives (politically correct fascists, we used to call them in the old days) that were disappointed in a centrist winning the bid for the presidency, but I still find the effort to deny the right to self-determination morally questionable. I also find Catalan nationalism vile, perhaps even worse than the cute Red Scare of our Texan cowboys, but I think Madrid should have let them have their stupid referendum anyways.

[ReluctantSamurai]

American traditional values (tm) and ''Communism'', I suppose? I don't disagree that they are just salty ultra-conservatives (politically correct fascists, we used to call them in the old days) that were disappointed in a centrist winning the bid for the presidency, but I still find the effort to deny the right to self-determination morally questionable.

While it's true that this sort of talk emerges in Texas every time a Democrat wins the White House, you were closer to the mark with 'politically correct fascists'. In other words, good old fashioned white supremacy. So how about the right of self-determination for those that white supremacists wish to keep under their boot heel? Texas led the way this past election in voter rights suppression. A fear that black Americans, Latino Americans, and all those people they fear will "replace" them, get the right to determine the direction this country takes. So of course....let's Texit. :no:

[Hooahguy]

American traditional values (tm) and ''Communism'', I suppose? I don't disagree that they are just salty ultra-conservatives (politically correct fascists, we used to call them in the old days) that were disappointed in a centrist winning the bid for the presidency, but I still find the effort to deny the right to self-determination morally questionable. I also find Catalan nationalism vile, perhaps even worse than the cute Red Scare of our Texan cowboys, but I think Madrid should have let them have their stupid referendum anyways.
I'd say it has more to do with being mad about minorities flexing their right to vote than actual worries about communism or socialism. As mentioned earlier, there is deep-seated racism amongst many on the right, even if they wont admit it. That's why they focus their efforts to overturn the results in areas where African Americans predominantly live. Worst-kept secret of the GOP. There's a reason why Rhodesia has become more popular among the far-right, and I predict it to become more popular in the coming years. So when I say things like burning more of the south would have been a good thing, its because we should have taken a stronger stance with regards to the power structures within the south that were left after the Civil War. Yes I know my comment was flippant but I stand by it. White militias such as the KKK and the White League waged war against the federal government for years after the war ended, trying to violently suppress Black voters and remove them from power. While Reconstruction was in force, those efforts largely failed as they were hunted and put down by federal forces. But after the federal forces left, it was open season on minorities, leading to the horrors of Jim Crow and other racist efforts. Our failure to properly handle Reconstruction led to the way we are now.

Besides, the Supreme Court case of Texas v. White (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White) ruled that states cannot unilaterally leave the US so a referendum is pointless anyways unless they want to fight over it. Again.

[Montmorency]

Just in: Anthony Brindisi (D) has conceded to Claudia Tenney (R) in #NY22.

Final 2020 election House result: 222D, 213R. Republicans came within 31,751 [efficient] votes of winning the majority.



You mean the destruction of a racist and murderous political construct didn't involve killing millions of actual people? Or are these inevitable victims that don't deserve any consideration but only "serve them right" attitude?

What I see is glorifying atrocities that accompany any war (and sometimes not only war). It is what they do in Russia now saying "We should have starved more Ukrainians in 1932-33" or "We should have killed all those Crimean Tatars instead of just benevolently sending them out to live in Siberia". And I'm appalled that similar hatetalk is heard from an Amercian who, moreover, is an admin at a social media outlet. And all forumers seem to support it and feel mildly humored. Not much of a stranger in a strange land. Something is really wrong with western values.

Whenever there are whites upholding hegemony over blacks, you appear on their behalf blaring for the baring of the neck for the knife or the bowing of the head for the boot. When can the weak, the innocent, the injured, expect some of your mercy or solace?

The chef's kiss of hypocrisy is lamenting the very "Western" values that most animate the condemnation of the persecution of such peoples as the Ukrainians and Tatars.


American traditional values (tm) and ''Communism'', I suppose? I don't disagree that they are just salty ultra-conservatives (politically correct fascists, we used to call them in the old days) that were disappointed in a centrist winning the bid for the presidency, but I still find the effort to deny the right to self-determination morally questionable. I also find Catalan nationalism vile, perhaps even worse than the cute Red Scare of our Texan cowboys, but I think Madrid should have let them have their stupid referendum anyways.

I don't think you can compare Catalan separatism, whatever its merits by consequence, with American falangism. When we recall that Catalans were particular victims of homegrown fascism, it even becomes perverse.

For the record, the Texas Republican expression of a right to secede has a long history as a publicity stunt and does not contain any substance or actionable intent. Republicans want to dominate the country, not break it up.

And realistically, Puerto Rico is the only territory that could escape US suzerainty, if a Democratic Congress forced the issue of its territorial status through a binding extreme-dichotomy referendum. Although, on the flipside I'm not sure it would be legally available for Congress to mandate a territory to hold a specific referendum. Maybe it could, would need to research the question.

[a completely inoffensive name]

American traditional values (tm) and ''Communism'', I suppose? I don't disagree that they are just salty ultra-conservatives (politically correct fascists, we used to call them in the old days) that were disappointed in a centrist winning the bid for the presidency, but I still find the effort to deny the right to self-determination morally questionable. I also find Catalan nationalism vile, perhaps even worse than the cute Red Scare of our Texan cowboys, but I think Madrid should have let them have their stupid referendum anyways.

It's stops becoming the right to 'self-determination' when the ends are to determine the lives of poor, colored people under their control.

[Gilrandir]

Whenever there are whites upholding hegemony over blacks, you appear on their behalf blaring for the baring of the neck for the knife or the bowing of the head for the boot. When can the weak, the innocent, the injured, expect some of your mercy or solace?



As usual, your interpretation of my words and ideas is absolutely wrong. But your post has nothing to do with what I said: unanimous support and glorification of depredation practiced by the winners of the Civil war. It is what in contemporary Russia epitomized by their можем повторить slogan.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But your post has nothing to do with what I said: unanimous support and glorification of depredation practiced by the winners of the Civil war.

"Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions."

[Montmorency]

As usual, your interpretation of my words and ideas is absolutely wrong. But your post has nothing to do with what I said: unanimous support and glorification of depredation practiced by the winners of the Civil war. It is what in contemporary Russia epitomized by their можем повторить slogan.

You write from the same place with regularity, the same sentiments in the same register, so the interpretation remains accurate. But as before, it comes from a place of comfortable ignorance, so I'll clarify something that I can admit in principle is worth emphasizing.

When we come to the conclusion that the South needed to experience a broader repression, it is not as a decontextualized expression of vindictiveness as you appear to seize on, but relative to the fact that the failure to eliminate or subordinate the traitor class that had - reminder - waged a brutal war against us became THE central sociopolitical dysfunction of the country's modern history. The Confederate vanguard, whom we didn't hang, pardoned, and rehabilitated in national politics, went on not only to re-enslave their African population, but to coopt entire national institutions and national culture to their vision. Therefore, your instinctive aversion to meeting the agents of violent tyranny with resistance counts as a decisive advocacy on behalf of the kinds of genetic atrocities you would purport to condemn.

[Gilrandir]

You write from the same place with regularity, the same sentiments in the same register, so the interpretation remains accurate. But as before, it comes from a place of comfortable ignorance, so I'll clarify something that I can admit in principle is worth emphasizing.

When we come to the conclusion that the South needed to experience a broader repression, it is not as a decontextualized expression of vindictiveness as you appear to seize on, but relative to the fact that the failure to eliminate or subordinate the traitor class that had - reminder - waged a brutal war against us became THE central sociopolitical dysfunction of the country's modern history. The Confederate vanguard, whom we didn't hang, pardoned, and rehabilitated in national politics, went on not only to re-enslave their African population, but to coopt entire national institutions and national culture to their vision. Therefore, your instinctive aversion to meeting the agents of violent tyranny with resistance counts as a decisive advocacy on behalf of the kinds of genetic atrocities you would purport to condemn.

Hanging the prepetrators (which is what should have been done and what I absolutely support - contrary to what your warped imagination suggests) has nothing to do with "burning the South" which I understand as conducting scorched earth tactics and indiscriminate massacre of non-combatants. And if you revel in the latter, your resounding words in defense of the oppressed turn into hypocrysy.

[Hooahguy]

Only 57 senators voted (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56056310) to convict Trump, falling short of the 67 needed to convict. This clears the way for Trump to run again in 2024 (probably will run on full autocracy if I had to guess). Mitch of course making an appalling speech about how awful Trump is and how he definitely incited the insurrection, yet he still voted not to convict.

I'm deeply conflicted about the witnesses thing. On one hand, it wouldn't have made any difference and he still would have been acquitted, but also why bother go through all the trouble of voting on witnesses if you aren't going to call any?? Maybe there are more facts on the ground that arent apparent, but my initial impression is that this was a deeply inept move.
:wall:

I guess its time to try to apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

OTOH, in 6 months nobody will remember the specifics of the trial just like nobody remembers the specifics of the first impeachment trial. :shrug:

[rory_20_uk]

USA a Democracy? No. You can choose between the titles of a plutocracy or a kleptocracy.

But what exactly were we expecting a group of religious extremist xenophobes to achieve?

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Only 57 senators voted (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56056310) to convict Trump, falling short of the 67 needed to convict. This clears the way for Trump to run again in 2024 (probably will run on full autocracy if I had to guess). Mitch of course making an appalling speech about how awful Trump is and how he definitely incited the insurrection, yet he still voted not to convict.

I'm deeply conflicted about the witnesses thing. On one hand, it wouldn't have made any difference and he still would have been acquitted, but also why bother go through all the trouble of voting on witnesses if you aren't going to call any?? Maybe there are more facts on the ground that arent apparent, but my initial impression is that this was a deeply inept move.
:wall:

I guess its time to try to apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:


OTOH, in 6 months nobody will remember the specifics of the trial just like nobody remembers the specifics of the first impeachment trial. :shrug:

Mitch threatened to hold up COVID relief if they went through with witnesses. Biden White House sent the message to enter the testimony as evidence but to move forward with no witness calling.

[Hooahguy]

Mitch threatened to hold up COVID relief if they went through with witnesses. Biden White House sent the message to enter the testimony as evidence but to move forward with no witness calling.
Ok I guess that might explain things but I think it was still a big mistake to not call Rep. Herrera Beutler to testify at the very least who would have cooperated and not needed a drawn-out subpoena process like others would. While her testimony probably wouldnt have changed any votes, it would have been made far more public than a statement in the record, which nobody will care about or read. Dems needed to play hardball on this but they cut and ran when the GOP threatened to be what they have always been. Graham isnt going to stop trying to delay Garland's AG confirmation nor will Mitch try to be less of a bad faith actor. The GOP would do their most to obstruct with or without witnesses. Another mistake was not having any House Republicans as impeachment managers. Cheney and/or Kinzinger would have been obvious picks and probably carry more weight and show the bipartisanship nature of the impeachment.

The GOP is banking on wiping out the Dems in 2022 so the Dems need to wake the hell up and play hardball otherwise they wont have a shot. If Covid relief does go through and work then yes theres a shot to hold the trifecta but its slim.

[Montmorency]

OT: I just realized that the Second Punic War, albeit a near-generational conflict, probably resulted in upwards of a million fatalities. And that's just the fighting men in pitched battles, not necessarily including deaths from skirmishes or small-war, nor the civilian victims (many small towns and villages were sacked/razed by both sides in Italy), nor the little-documented intra-mural conflagrations within and between Italian city-states and Hispanic tribes amidst the general anarchy. To say nothing of the deaths from general brigandage enabled by the breakdown of authority and civil stability, the local famines, the inevitable outbreaks of disease among combatants and civilians alike. Now we're talking 2 million, easy. Could be much more. Impressive, at least 1% of world population (WW2 was around 3%).



Mitch threatened to hold up COVID relief if they went through with witnesses. Biden White House sent the message to enter the testimony as evidence but to move forward with no witness calling.

Can you cite on those points? What, especially, is Mitch McConnell's power to hold up reconciliation?




Hanging the prepetrators (which is what should have been done and what I absolutely support - contrary to what your warped imagination suggests) has nothing to do with "burning the South" which I understand as conducting scorched earth tactics and indiscriminate massacre of non-combatants. And if you revel in the latter, your resounding words in defense of the oppressed turn into hypocrysy.

Sure, we agree, and naturally no one here proposed indiscriminate slaughter of non-combatants. I would, however, revel in vicious reprisal against those innumerable individuals who upheld permanent violent insurgency against Republicans, Blacks, and the republic after the surrender, as well as their genteel Lost Cause political front. In the absence of which reprisal, an example of what became the exclusive norm (https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/02/11/opinion/stop-steal-fueled-white-fears-about-their-country-being-stolen/):


After he was acquitted for murder, J.W. Milam explained why he killed Emmett Till.

“I like [n-words] in their place — I know how to work ‘em. But I just decided it was time a few people got put on notice. As long as I live and can do anything about it, [n-words] are gonna stay in their place,” he told Look magazine in 1956. Five months earlier, Milam and Roy Bryant had kidnapped, tortured, and shot Till, a 14-year-old Chicago boy who was visiting relatives in Mississippi. His mutilated body was found in the Tallahatchie River.

“[N-words] ain’t gonna vote where I live. If they did, they’d control the government,” Milam said. “Me and my folks fought for this country, and we got some rights.”

People like this in post-war Germany or Japan would have had no chance of escaping long prison terms and rebuke by the national political establishments; shortly after the war, they might have been shot in the street or by military tribunal.


We should have stayed the course on confiscating and redistributing basically ALL the plantation land (it was initiated in the months after the war but the Union immediately reversed course in the face of opposition) to the freedmen, and made their communities more robust by seeding poor whites on redistributed land among them*. As it was the Southern elite recovered entirely within like a generation, with an impoverished black serf class remaining on the land from slavery times to the present day. A prescient policy, understanding that the federal aegis of law and security would be withdrawn in time one way or another, would also have armed and organized these communities for autonomous 2nd Amendment operation (yes, the 2nd Amendment might in theory have been purposed to fight tyranny and save the country after all). Finding these defenses insuperable to terrorism and lynch mobs, white supremacists could then deliberate on whether they detested peaceful coexistence enough to risk war and death. Over time, a strong Black South could be expected to leave the extremists sidelined over generations.

*compared to siccing them on the western indigenes in a brutal colonialist free-for-all


That period never ended. A recent survey by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, found that nearly 40 percent of Republicans support politically motivated violence. Daniel Cox, director of AEI’s Survey Center on American Life, told NPR, “I think any time you have a significant number of the public saying use of force can be justified in our political system, that’s pretty scary.”

Tangentially, that's the first up-to-date polling on popular support for political violence since the election, of the sort discussed here before.


More than one in three (36 percent) Americans agree with the statement: “The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it.” Six in 10 (60 percent) Americans reject the idea that the use of force is necessary, but there is significant partisan disagreement on this question.

A majority (55 percent) of Republicans support the use of force as a way to arrest the decline of the traditional American way of life. Forty-three percent of Republicans express opposition to this idea. Significantly fewer independents (35 percent) and Democrats (22 percent) say the use of force is necessary to stop the disappearance of traditional American values and way of life.

Although most Americans reject the use of violence to achieve political ends, there is still significant support for it among the public. Nearly three in 10 (29 percent) Americans completely or somewhat agree with the statement: “If elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves even if it requires taking violent actions.” More than two-thirds (68 percent) of Americans disagree with this statement.

The use of violence finds somewhat more support among Republicans than Democrats, although most Republicans oppose it. Roughly four in 10 (39 percent) Republicans support Americans taking violent actions if elected leaders fail to act. Sixty percent of Republicans oppose this idea. Thirty-one percent of independents and 17 percent of Democrats also support taking violent actions if elected leaders do not defend the country.

However, although a significant number of Americans—and Republicans in particular—express support for the idea that violent actions may be necessary, there is a notable lack of enthusiastic support for it. For instance, only 9 percent of Americans overall and only 13 percent of Republicans say they “completely” agree in the necessity of taking violent actions if political leaders fail.

Dissolve ICE and shore up the non-partisan reliability of the FBI, CIA, and military. The latter is arguably the single decisive factor keeping the US from looking like Tanzania or Northern Ireland.

[Gilrandir]

Sure, we agree, and naturally no one here proposed indiscriminate slaughter of non-combatants.


Oh, really? How would you then interpret the phrase "we should have burned more of the South?" Like "we should have kindly asked inhabitants to leave their premises and go to a safe distance before setting fire to their homes and fileds"? And how does it dovetail into punishing the ringleaders and perpetrators anyway?

And if I were you I wouldn't use the comprehensive "we" since evidently other forumers (especially the author of the line who is keeping aloof silence) have a different opinion.

[Hooahguy]

Can you cite on those points? What, especially, is Mitch McConnell's power to hold up reconciliation?

I'm sure there are some procedural things they can do to stall the reconciliation process, but the thing is that they are going to do them anyways. I understand why the Dems would prioritize Covid relief over an impeachment trial that was doomed from the start, but it made zero sense to flip flop like that and the story distracted from the real story of 43 Republicans being sniveling cowards who betrayed their oaths. Like the GOP was pretty clear that they would draw out the trial if witnesses were called and the fact that the WH preferred to work on Covid relief wasn't exactly a new development either. I am fairly certain this will become a forgotten story by next month as the country moves on to other things but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sigh.

Also I seem to have missed this Gallup poll (https://news.gallup.com/poll/328367/americans-political-ideology-held-steady-2020.aspx) released last month regarding how Americans identify themselves ideologically.

In short, the breakdown is that 36% identify as conservative, 35% identify as moderate, and just 25% as liberal. I would have liked to see a breakdown of the moderate folks between moderates leaning right and left, because moderate is a super vague term nowadays.


Oh, really? How would you then interpret the phrase "we should have burned more of the South?"
You are taking that phrase way too seriously. You have ignored my previous explanations for some reason but you do you.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Can you cite on those points? What, especially, is Mitch McConnell's power to hold up reconciliation?

If Dems called witnesses, impeachment rules would have allowed:

1. GOP to call 100's of pointless witnesses, like Clinton and Ukrainian politicians. All of these would have had many pointless votes on subpoenas and admission.
2. Impeachment rules also McConnell to remove the 'bifurcated' schedule they were operating on which would have postponed all confirmations until the end of an endlessly protracted trial.

In addition, McConnell would have moved forward with filibustering every open nomination yet to be filled after the trial. Essentially, he was willing to operate under a half staffed cabinet for 4 years since the Impeachment was toxic to GOP PR and internal politics. Biden has to get his nominations in before COVID relief if he wants any chance at effectively delivering on its provisions.

[Pannonian]

I'm sure there are some procedural things they can do to stall the reconciliation process, but the thing is that they are going to do them anyways. I understand why the Dems would prioritize Covid relief over an impeachment trial that was doomed from the start, but it made zero sense to flip flop like that and the story distracted from the real story of 43 Republicans being sniveling cowards who betrayed their oaths. Like the GOP was pretty clear that they would draw out the trial if witnesses were called and the fact that the WH preferred to work on Covid relief wasn't exactly a new development either. I am fairly certain this will become a forgotten story by next month as the country moves on to other things but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Sigh.


I'd have thought any future Democratic campaign would already be made. Show a summary of the case against Trump, then show the incumbent Republican senator voting against impeachment. "Do you want to re-elect this traitor?"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Only 57 senators voted (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56056310) to convict Trump, falling short of the 67 needed to convict. This clears the way for Trump to run again in 2024 (probably will run on full autocracy if I had to guess). Mitch of course making an appalling speech about how awful Trump is and how he definitely incited the insurrection, yet he still voted not to convict.

I'm deeply conflicted about the witnesses thing. On one hand, it wouldn't have made any difference and he still would have been acquitted, but also why bother go through all the trouble of voting on witnesses if you aren't going to call any?? Maybe there are more facts on the ground that arent apparent, but my initial impression is that this was a deeply inept move.
:wall:

I guess its time to try to apply Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:


OTOH, in 6 months nobody will remember the specifics of the trial just like nobody remembers the specifics of the first impeachment trial. :shrug:

Trump has a better argument against the 14th then he had against the Senate trying him following his departure from office. And the political support to make it happen is not there. The GOP is in political defense mode, wanting this to all just "go away" as quickly as possible. The forgetfulness of the body public for specifics is legion...and they seek to rely on it.

Conservative Radio Talk-show Hosts (who function as the Trumper brain-trust and ideology leadership) are calling for the Trumpers to complete the takeover of the GOP by absorbing the various party county offices and detachments and removing problematic GOP old guards through the primary system.

I told my son that they would choose to "double down" on Trump rather than back away and re-think from scratch...and he said that was a stupid choice. I reminded him they seem to revel in stupid on some levels.

[Hooahguy]

Well the GOP cant back away from Trump since a large majority of the GOP base are still rabid about him and wants him to run again in 2024. Only a matter of time until he starts holding rallies again too where I expect the rhetoric to be ugly, to put it nicely.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oddly, I am hopeful that the Trump wing fully assumes control of the GOP. It would then toss out all of the RINO's they so loathe. This would distill the GOP into a fully reactionary, staunchly anti-intellectual, and fairly racist-inclined political group.

THEN, we could refound the Federalist party as a home for conservatism that uses gray matter and I could get behind that.

Consequently, both of these political groups would fail of a majority and leave the Dems in a dominant political position. Maintaining that would likely allow the Dems to calve off their fruitbat leftist cadre and we'd hopefully end up with a dominant party that was mildly left of center with a decent conservative party reining in the worst flights of fantasy while working WITH the Dems to keep the fruitbat fringes out of meaningful power positions.

One can dream...

[Hooahguy]

Sadly I think you are being too optimistic. Power drives the GOP more than ideology, and a disappointing number of conservatives are seemingly fine with the dingbats corrupting the party if it means winning elections.

This is an argument I've been having repeatedly with my mother who voted for Trump in November despite not voting for him in 2016 because she was afraid of how left-wing Biden is (???). But at the same time she also loathes people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and thinks that people who claim the election was stolen are dumb. I keep telling her though that if she really feels that way, she cannot vote for any Republican who espouses those views even if you don't like their opponent. If you dislike their views but vote for them because you don't like the policies of the other candidate, then you are still signaling that its ok to say and do crazy things because they will still get elected. A short term devastating loss to the GOP would likely be far healthier for both the GOP and our democracy as it could be the shock to the system they desperately need to self-correct. But I am extremely pessimistic anything like that will happen.

[Gilrandir]

You are taking that phrase way too seriously. You have ignored my previous explanations for some reason but you do you.

I never knew that making fun of atrocities is acceptable here. Now I will feel free to act likewise.

[Montmorency]

Reminder that Democrats could have had any impeachment rules they pleased. There is literally nothing the Republicans could have forced them to do against their will.

What I will say is, I'm amused that Trump's advocates lost him 2 Senators from a rigged jury along the way.


Oh, really? How would you then interpret the phrase "we should have burned more of the South?" Like "we should have kindly asked inhabitants to leave their premises and go to a safe distance before setting fire to their homes and fileds"? And how does it dovetail into punishing the ringleaders and perpetrators anyway?

And if I were you I wouldn't use the comprehensive "we" since evidently other forumers (especially the author of the line who is keeping aloof silence) have a different opinion.

The ringleaders and perpetrators, besides having a massive proportion of the White population with them, were the primary property owners. Failure to confront them with proportionate force leads to the post-Reconstruction/Redemption status quo, and one can't confront them without proportionate force precisely because of their high and persistent level of both support and aggression after the war. Of course, I wouldn't actually want most of that land devastated to the extent it gets redistributed post-war; devastation is just a (universal) military expediency during the conventional phase of the conflict. The main thing is to break the will of those most personally invested in insurgency, or failing that physically destroy them. Whatever their racial philosophies, absent organized leadership most people default to non-aggression.

I'm confident I understood what I read from other patrons, because my level of reading comprehension is at least average.


I never knew that making fun of atrocities is acceptable here. Now I will feel free to act likewise.

Bruh, you've been ahead of the curve.

[Hooahguy]

I never knew that making fun of atrocities is acceptable here. Now I will feel free to act likewise.
Monty did a great job explaining to you once again the stance here. Hopefully you will understand this time around.


Anyways, to follow up on my previous comment about Trumpist influence within the GOP, a new poll (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3691) released today shows that a whopping 75% of Republicans want Trump to remain involved in the GOP. So there is zero chance that he gets driven out unless he chooses to leave for some reason or another, which would probably be catastrophic for the GOP. But within this poll contains a very interesting bit: 11% of Republicans do not think he should be allowed to hold office again, as well as 56% of independents. Now should Trump run in 2024 we can see if those numbers hold up. Another interesting thing is that both sides seem to view extremism growing in the US at the same rate (60%), but I'd bet that there is a disagreement as to the kind of extremism.

[Pannonian]

Monty did a great job explaining to you once again the stance here. Hopefully you will understand this time around.


Anyways, to follow up on my previous comment about Trumpist influence within the GOP, a new poll (https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3691) released today shows that a whopping 75% of Republicans want Trump to remain involved in the GOP. So there is zero chance that he gets driven out unless he chooses to leave for some reason or another, which would probably be catastrophic for the GOP. But within this poll contains a very interesting bit: 11% of Republicans do not think he should be allowed to hold office again, as well as 56% of independents. Now should Trump run in 2024 we can see if those numbers hold up. Another interesting thing is that both sides seem to view extremism growing in the US (60%), but I'd bet that there is a disagreement as to the kind of extremism.

The Democrats don't need to win over those 75%. Most of the independents, and a chunk of the 11%, will suffice.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Reminder that Democrats could have had any impeachment rules they pleased. There is literally nothing the Republicans could have forced them to do against their will.

What we just witnessed in this second impeachment, is the reason why the Dems will lose both Houses of the Senate in 2022, and the presidency in 2024.

First, there was no way that enough Republicans would've broken ranks and voted to convict. This is the reason McConnell, while desperately wanting to put a nail in Trump's coffin for a 2024 run, did not vote to impeach. He is as despicable as they come as a lawmaker, but he is also as savvy as they come. I'm sure his discussions with fellow GOP senators, behind closed doors, convinced him that even if he threw his vote in with the Dems, and bring several senators with him, there still wouldn't be enough votes to convict.

Second, the Democrats don't have an ounce of fight between the lot of them. Witnesses should have DEFINITELY been called. Can you imagine putting Mike Pence on the stand to answer questions about why his life had been put in danger by Trump loyalists? And which lawmaker was it that was leading those tours of Congress the day before the riot? There are cameras EVERYWHERE in that building and if any of those people caught on camera the day before showed up in footage the next day....oops.

Third, this shows that the majority of GOP senators are still afraid of Trump, even after he's out of office, and even more afraid of Republican voters. I think the seven who voted to impeach should be mentioned: Richard Burr, North Carolina; Bill Cassidy, Louisiana; Susan Collins, Maine; Lisa Murkowski, Alaska; Mitt Romney, Utah; Ben Sasse, Nebraska; Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania. While I don't agree with your politics, my hat is off to you for standing up for your country rather than your party and your careers....:hail:

Want the "real" reason the senators all wanted to go home?:

https://www.businessinsider.com/impeachment-senators-wanted-to-get-home-for-valentines-day-2021-2

Tongue-in-cheek aside, I think the kernel of truth in that statement is that perhaps Biden, who is a close friend of Coons, wanted the trial over with so that he can get the rest of his cabinet seated. Just my 2cents....

Get the damn COVID relief package passed, and make sure it includes the $15/hour minimum wage increase. If you have to take Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema into a back room and put a gun to their heads to get their vote.....DO IT. It will go a long way towards improving confidence in the Democratic Party.

[Gilrandir]

Monty did a great job explaining to you once again the stance here. Hopefully you will understand this time around.




Words "we should have burned more" are quite explicit without any third-part explanations.

[ReluctantSamurai]

What part of this statement don't you understand?


So when I say things like burning more of the south would have been a good thing, its because we should have taken a stronger stance with regards to the power structures within the south that were left after the Civil War. Yes I know my comment was flippant but I stand by it.

I knew immediately it wasn't a call to go all General Sherman on the remainder of the South that he didn't burn, but a harder stance on what eventually led to Jim Crow politics. I think everyone else in this discussion did, as well.

Stop pretending you are the single voice of "sanity" amongst the infidels and move on please.....:no:

[Hooahguy]

Second, the Democrats don't have an ounce of fight between the lot of them. Witnesses should have DEFINITELY been called. Can you imagine putting Mike Pence on the stand to answer questions about why his life had been put in danger by Trump loyalists? And which lawmaker was it that was leading those tours of Congress the day before the riot? There are cameras EVERYWHERE in that building and if any of those people caught on camera the day before showed up in footage the next day....oops.
...

Tongue-in-cheek aside, I think the kernel of truth in that statement is that perhaps Biden, who is a close friend of Coons, wanted the trial over with so that he can get the rest of his cabinet seated. Just my 2cents....

Get the damn COVID relief package passed, and make sure it includes the $15/hour minimum wage increase. If you have to take Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema into a back room and put a gun to their heads to get their vote.....DO IT. It will go a long way towards improving confidence in the Democratic Party.
Agreed. It didnt seem like it was taken as deathly serious as it needed to be. The response to this I've heard is that witnesses would be fighting tooth and nail to not come and testify (which is likely true), but then my response would be to put the trial on hold as this stuff gets litigated, pass Covid relief and whatever cabinet positions Biden needs, and then return to the trial when the witnesses are ready. The more spotlight that shines on Trump's crimes the better.

We cannot let the public forget about 1/6, especially as the latest polling (https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/02/16/republicans-cant-quit-trump-491756) has Trump at 53% support for the 2024 primary and my gut says that he will run.

[Gilrandir]

What part of this statement don't you understand?



I knew immediately it wasn't a call to go all General Sherman on the remainder of the South that he didn't burn, but a harder stance on what eventually led to Jim Crow politics. I think everyone else in this discussion did, as well.

Stop pretending you are the single voice of "sanity" amongst the infidels and move on please.....:no:

The phraseology one uses is symptomatic of his attitude even if the person doesn't admit it explicitly. So burning more of the south =/= taking a stronger stance against political structures.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The phraseology one uses is symptomatic of his attitude even if the person doesn't admit it explicitly. So burning more of the south =/= taking a stronger stance against political structures.

So you prefer to evaluate his attitude/stance/ethos based on this one (perhaps less than adroit) use of hyperbole rather than the large bulk of his posts which tend towards the reasonably well expressed, classically liberal stances on most issues? This is not Tribesman or DevDave of whom we discuss here. All of us, at least those with some body of posts, have a few outliers, but the judgement and evaluation should reflect an acknowledgement of the tenor of their track record as a whole as well.

By my estimate, your behavior would be that of a poor, or at least very selective, listener.

[Idaho]

I never knew that making fun of atrocities is acceptable here. Now I will feel free to act likewise.

"I willfully misread others which in turn gives me the right to express my own objectionable views while claiming they are not my views but a response to others"

You are a deeply tedious reactionary.

[Gilrandir]

So you prefer to evaluate his attitude/stance/ethos based on this one (perhaps less than adroit) use of hyperbole rather than the large bulk of his posts which tend towards the reasonably well expressed, classically liberal stances on most issues? This is not Tribesman or DevDave of whom we discuss here. All of us, at least those with some body of posts, have a few outliers, but the judgement and evaluation should reflect an acknowledgement of the tenor of their track record as a whole as well.

By my estimate, your behavior would be that of a poor, or at least very selective, listener.

It is sad that people here who claim to uphold democratic values condone and even become apologists for such verbal behavior. Especially those who hail from the South that appeared to have been ravaged insufficiently. I'm sure that if a business owner whose store had been plundered by BLM rioters said that he was sorry they hadn't KKKed them more the forumers would swoop at him immediately, but in this case most feel just amused at rgretting the small scale of the Civil War atrocities or consider them worth a joke.

In view of this I believe that my sojourn here has to come an end.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In view of this I believe that my sojourn here has to come an end.

Bye, Felicia.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am at something of a loss that my post would have been the proverbial straw for him. I was contradicting him, but I thought to have done so with a degree of politeness and with some acknowledgement of this most recent point of his.

[ReluctantSamurai]

You said absolutely nothing wrong, and were far more polite than I have been these last few months to this individual. If one continues to receive negative feedback on interactive conversations, and simply ignores everything said, there's nothing else anyone can do....:shrug:

[Montmorency]

Once again we return to the unshakable instinct that siccing the KKK on AAs and allies is equivalent to siccing the feds on the KKK and allies, an instinct incompatible with the equal moral worth of racialized persons. At least some other patrons who have frequented the Backroom never pretended to evenhandedness.

More Southerners needed to die or be socially purged, is the fundamental here, though operationally it's more specific than that. If you have a problem with that, you functionally endorse one of the most brutal apartheid regimes in history. It's nothing more complicated, and your discomposure at a euphemistic expression of desiderata is just the sort of anti-substance that has become characteristic of your musings on American history and racial politics.

Gilrandir's greatest flaw is his presumption that abstractions detached from facts are a productive basis for reasoning even when the tension of the two produces absurdity, depravity, or incoherence. His second-greatest flaw is his lack of respect for interlocutors such that informing him of fatal errors of logic or ethics cannot shake into reflection the sufficiency of his priors.

I feel bad for ever having laid scunion on him; it doesn't look like he learned a thing from it to make the bile in the gorge worthwhile. Even so, it's disappointing to lose personality. I've always been prepared to take Gil seriously when he wasn't being real dumb.


We cannot let the public forget about 1/6, especially as the latest polling has Trump at 53% support for the 2024 primary and my gut says that he will run.

Damn, hell of a thing if Trump retains that level of automatic support for the next 3 years even absent a social media or cable media presence. Being cut off from social media has clearly hurt him and his brand, but it might not even matter as to party politics in the final analysis. Or at least I don't know that it won't. Maybe the rest of the GOP being such non-entities happens to hinder any replacement (e.g. Hawley and Cruz as the biggest names) for Trump gaining more national prominence, allowing him to maintain the mental real estate of Republican base voters in absentia. We'll have to see how it plays out.


Next big sociological study of the hard core of Trump supporters, composing the majority of the Republican Party base. Interviewed last December, then again in January.
https://sites.uw.edu/magastudy/


The Panel Study of the MAGA Movement (PSMM) is a survey designed to assess the attitudes and behavior of the people who consider themselves part of the “Make America Great Again” movement, popularized by the Trump campaign in 2016. Understanding them is paramount. For as the base to which former President Trump played (and plays), the MAGA movement ultimately motivated his challenges to American democracy. For example, exhorted by then-President Trump, many in the MAGA movement participated in the Capitol riot, an effort to stifle the peaceful transfer of power, a staple of democracy. As the principal source of perhaps the most divisive period in American history, we thought it wise to conduct a systematic, thorough investigation of the movement. As such, the PSMM permits us to distinguish between movement supporters and activists, among other things. Ultimately, ours is a study that gauges the opinions and behavior of MAGA supporters before and, more importantly, after the events of January 6, 2021. Collected in late December, data from Wave 1 of our survey interrogates respondents on a range of issues, including attitudes toward: BLM, protests in general, Covid-19 attitudes, beliefs about the 2020 election outcomes, political mobilization, racism, sexism, and nativism, among other things. We followed up Wave 1 roughly three weeks later, re-interviewing the same respondents, in the aftermath of the Capitol Riots. In Wave 2, we repeated many of the same items from Wav 1, as a means of assessing post-riot opinion change. However, we also included an extensive battery of questions on democracy, and attitudes toward the riot, as well as a few experiments, ones that manipulated alternative explanations of the riot. As the results make clear, the MAGA movement is a clear and present danger to American democracy. Details on data collection and sampling methods are provided here.

We assembled this preview of our findings for the benefit of the public. As such, the findings presented here are relatively simple. We reserve more sophisticated analysis for the appropriate academic outlets. With the exception of our findings as they relate to the Capitol Riots, the results presented below belong to the first wave of data collection. For more detailed analysis please refer to the site menu. (By way of caveat, there is no way to know whether or not our survey is representative of the MAGA movement. It may very well be true that some number of MAGA types don’t trust academics, and declined to take the survey.) The demographic composition of the MAGA movement is overwhelmingly white, male, Christian, retired, and over 65 years of age. They’re attracted to the following groups, ones that include gun rights, charities, pro police, anti-lockdown, pro-life, and “stop the steal.” They’re extremely politically active, all in support of the Republican Party. However, only roughly 60 percent are solid Republicans, the rest either “lean” Republican or Independent. The MAGA movement overwhelmingly believes Trump’s election fraud claims, would have supported him for a “third term”(had it been an option), and don’t believe that voting should be made easier. They’re also of the opinion, to a large degree, that Covid-related restrictions should be eased, that Americans are overreacting to the pandemic, and that Trump told the truth about the threat to American public health posed by the pandemic. Further, responses to our survey suggests that MAGA is populated with a good number of racist, sexists, and nativists. Finally, on the Capitol Riots, the vast majority of MAGA supporters blame Antifa for the riots, not Trump (he bears almost no responsibility, according to them); only 3 percent of them think he should be impeached, versus the 97 percent who think he deserves a walk. These findings are but the tip of the proverbial iceberg. We have much more to share. For us, the implications are clear: our country is in grave danger since one of the two major parties is essentially captured by the MAGA movement. We invite you to draw your own conclusions from these preliminary findings. (Be advised that we will continue to update the site as we complete more analysis, especially on the second wave where we will document attitudes from before and after the riot.)

Some highlights: Overwhelmingly white, mostly Christian, mostly men, at least half retired, at least half over 65 in age, but closer to forming a broad cross-section of society when it comes to income and education. Overwhelmingly Republican loyalists, which suggests the absence of Trump won't hurt the Republican Party as much as hoped. Typical attitudes on race, gender, and immigration. Antifa did January 6, undermining the patriots who were there that day to protest the Steal.

Lots of conspiracism.

https://sites.uw.edu/magastudy/files/2021/01/democracy_vars.png
https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.uw.edu/dist/9/10784/files/2021/01/covid_vars.png
https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.uw.edu/dist/9/10784/files/2021/02/status_plot.png


Anecdotally, here is the family of a Republican representative who voted to impeach Trump writing to disown him. Handwritten letter (https://www.mediaite.com/news/gop-rep-kinzinger-receives-stunning-letter-from-relatives-over-his-trump-opposition-you-have-lost-the-respect-of-lou-dobbs/):


A new profile on Congressman Adam Kinzinger, one of the few House Republicans who voted to impeach Donald Trump, reveals that several family members actually sent him a handwritten letter criticizing his condemnation of the former president’s actions that led to the riots at the Capitol.

Kinzinger spoke to the New York Times about his efforts to get the GOP to move on from Trump, but the report also highlights how he’s received criticism not just from fellow Republicans but from family members.

The letter reads in part, “Oh my, what a disappointment you are to us and to God!… You have embarrassed the Kinzinger family name!”

The Times says this letter — which accuses him of joining the “devil’s army” — came from 11 members of his family.

At one point the letter says, “You should be very proud that you have lost the respect of Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Greg Kelly, etc., and most importantly in our book, Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh and us!”

[Pannonian]

Next big sociological study of the hard core of Trump supporters, composing the majority of the Republican Party base. Interviewed last December, then again in January.
https://sites.uw.edu/magastudy/



Some highlights: Overwhelmingly white, mostly Christian, mostly men, at least half retired, at least half over 65 in age, but closer to forming a broad cross-section of society when it comes to income and education. Overwhelmingly Republican loyalists, which suggests the absence of Trump won't hurt the Republican Party as much as hoped. Typical attitudes on race, gender, and immigration. Antifa did January 6, undermining the patriots who were there that day to protest the Steal.

Lots of conspiracism.

You don't need the hard core of the Trump support. All you need is enough of the non-fanatics to get your candidates elected.

[ReluctantSamurai]

You don't need the hard core of the Trump support. All you need is enough of the non-fanatics to get your candidates elected.

If this were true, then why are GOP lawmakers scared stiff to do anything to piss them off?

[Pannonian]

If this were true, then why are GOP lawmakers scared stiff to do anything to piss them off?

Primaries.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Primaries....~:confused: With about 30-35% of the GOP base being hard-core Ever Trumpers, explain why GOP lawmakers don't need them to get elected/reelected? The recent actions of current GOP members of Congress would suggest that they view that base as critical to their continued positions.

[Pannonian]

Primaries....~:confused: With about 30-35% of the GOP base being hard-core Ever Trumpers, explain why GOP lawmakers don't need them to get elected/reelected? The recent actions of current GOP members of Congress would suggest that they view that base as critical to their continued positions.

Democratic candidates don't need to appeal to hard core Trumpers to win their primaries.

[Hooahguy]

Primaries tend to really only attract the committed voters of both parties. And the Trumpists undoubtedly make up the lion's share of the GOP primary voters now, hence why primary threats are nothing to scoff at.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Democratic candidates [...]

Ahh...I assumed you were talking about GOP candidates:oops:

[ReluctantSamurai]

This would be laughable if it wasn't so incredibly ridiculous:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/23/sidney-powell-trump-election-fraud-claims


A key member of the legal team that sought to steal the 2020 election for Donald Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) is defending herself against a billion-dollar defamation lawsuit by arguing that “no reasonable person” could have mistaken her wild claims about election fraud last November as statements of fact.

In a motion to dismiss (https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/20519858/3-22-21-sidney-powell-defending-the-republic-motion-to-dismiss-dominion.pdf) a complaint by the large US and Canadian voting machine company Dominion, lawyers for Sidney Powell argued that elaborate conspiracies she laid out on television and radio last November while simultaneously suing to overturn election results in four states constituted legally protected first amendment speech.

In her defense against the Dominion defamation lawsuit, Powell argued that whatever “reasonable persons” thought of her wild claims, Dominion had failed to demonstrate that she herself thought them to be false as she spoke them – a key distinction in defamation cases.

The Kraken turns out to be nothing more than a common Squid, afterall....:rolleyes:

[rory_20_uk]

So tha means she surely should be immediately disbarred for filing suits she knew to be factually inaccurate - which itself is a criminal act.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

So tha means she surely should be immediately disbarred for filing suits she knew to be factually inaccurate - which itself is a criminal act.

~:smoking:

To be fair, my recollection is that the pro-Trump court filings were more prudent in their language and framing than the TV/social media statements of the proponents. Should still all be disbarred though, because repeatedly filing frivolous or vexatious claims to the courts is still fraudulent practice. That they consciously ratcheted down their intensity for pretextual reasons only makes it worse, as does the seditious overall objective of wrongly overturning the election.

[Hooahguy]

House GOP members form America First caucus (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/548731-pro-trump-lawmakers-form-caucus-to-promote-anglo-saxon-political-traditions):


Several House Republicans, led by Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.) and Paul Gosar (Ariz.), are forming a caucus that calls for a "common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions."

A policy platform for the group, which calls itself the America First Caucus, declares that "a certain intellectual boldness is needed" in order to "follow in President Trump’s footsteps, and potentially step on some toes and sacrifice sacred cows for the good of the American nation."

Yeah this screams white nationalism. God I hope the Dems hold onto the House in 2022 because the thought of these people having any power whatsoever makes my skin crawl.

[Montmorency]

"common respect for uniquely Anglo-Saxon political traditions."

We all thought this shit died by the end of WW2 (which I mean in multiple senses).

But after all, racism is a form of stupidity. (dude (https://twitter.com/somegreybloke/status/1383007851552112641))

https://i.imgur.com/V3ttd6j.png
https://i.imgur.com/xeLrqgw.png

See also (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04/biden-infrastructure-senate-republicans-gas-tax.html):


The Democrats are “the party of the incredibly wealthy coastal elites,” while Republicans are the party of “the great American middle.” The former fight for out-of-touch “urbanists” and “woke” corporations, while the latter stand with the forgotten men and women of rural America.

If you’ve watched a Republican campaign ad or read a conservative pundit at any point in the last four years (and/or four decades), you’ve heard some iteration of this message. Anti-metropolitan populism is as ubiquitous in GOP rhetoric as salt is on French fries. In fact, Republicans are so unabashed in their rural chauvinism that they routinely argue that America’s political institutions should not give equal representation to people who live in cities. Just last year, Tom Cotton argued that Washington, D.C., does not deserve Senate representation because, while it may be more populous than Wyoming, “Wyoming is a well-rounded working-class state,” while D.C. is a city of “bureaucrats and other white-collar professionals.”

All of which makes the current sticking point in negotiations between Democrats and Republicans on infrastructure a bit remarkable: While Joe Biden would like to finance new infrastructure by raising taxes on wealthy corporate shareholders (who disproportionately live in large coastal cities), moderate Republicans are demanding that he “pay for” new roads and bridges by raising taxes on Americans who drive a lot (who disproportionately live in rural areas).

[Hooahguy]

'I never thought leopards would eat MY face,' sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.

[Hooahguy]

Interesting data out (https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1395376081109192709) about the impact of peaceful vs non-peaceful BLM protests over the summer and how it negatively impacted Biden (and I assume Dems as a whole). Article is behind a paywall, but the twitter thread sums it up nicely. The results are predictable, as the average American likely doesnt take kindly to people rioting in their neighborhoods, nor are they very receptive to people saying that less policing is the answer after said riots. I do believe that MLK's quote about white moderates valuing peace over justice rings true, but said white moderates vote too, so Im not surprised.

[Crandar]

The Economist's paywall can be circumvented by using outline (https://outline.com/AV9h33). Very useful site, although it doesn't work with every kind of paywall.