POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[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 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.


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.

[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?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Only 57 senators voted 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.


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.

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:

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 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 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.


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.

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 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 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....

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

https://www.businessinsider.com/impe...nes-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.....

[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 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.....

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.