POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[Montmorency]

Disagree...well, sort of. It's been about raising money...

It's tomato-tohmahtoe really. Trump only raises half a billion or whatever since the election by leaning into the "steal" narrative. For Trump it's about ego management and personal benefit, which can range from collecting tithes to longshot overthrowing the government. For Republican elites it's about riding the Trump train for their own benefit and delegitimizing Democrats, though they too increasingly buy into the mythology for its own sake. The long-term effect is as you discuss.

"Riots and violence in the streets"...."you got to go to the streets and be as violent as antifa and BLM". Yep. Expect to see more politically motivated violence. Sooner or later there will be folks killed...

I've been a little surprised at the minimal post-election violence so far. Maybe Trump supporters and/or Americans in aggregate are just too passive to take the plunge.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I've been a little surprised at the minimal post-election violence so far. Maybe Trump supporters and/or Americans in aggregate are just too passive to take the plunge.

Rebellions tend to occur at the end of some crisis, as things are starting to rebuild and not during the crisis wherein folks are more focused on personal survival etc. See Davies, Gurr, etc. on Rebellion/Disorder patterns.

The conditions faced by the Trumpeteers do not rise to this level. So that vast majority will not go to the barricades.


The BLM post-Floyd flareup WAS an example. Conditions (at least prior to covid) had improved in terms of jobs etc., lessening survival worries, but the larger inequity concerns still persisted (and still do).

[Montmorency]

John Quincy Adams was an underrated president. 1828 campaign materials:

Now, “gentle reader,” prepare yourself to receive a shock, which I fear will prove more than you
can bear! Shortly after these unfortunate American Militiamen had been consigned to the earth, a peremptory order arrived from the monster Jackson, directing Col Pipkin to have them sent off immediately to him at New Orleans, nailed up in their coffins, or incur the penalty of having his head severed from his body, the first time he (Jackson) came in reach of him.—They were accordingly disinterred, and upon their arrival at head quarters—I shudder whilst I relate it! Would you believe it, “gentle reader,” this monster, this more than cannibal, Gen. Andrew Jackson, eat the whole Six Militiamen at one meal!!! Yes, my shuddering countrymen, he swallowed them whole, coffins and all, without the slightest attempt at mastication!!!!!! If you are disposed to doubt this statement, I can refer you to many of the most respectable officers, who were in service with him at New Orleans. And can you, my deluded countrymen, even think of making this horrible anthropophagian monster President of the United States? If you place him at the head of the government, what pledge can you have, that if he should at any time he displeased with his cabinet, that he will not have all four of his secretaries roasted, and eat them for his dinner!!!!

At least Republicans didn't say Hillary Clinton was literally Baba Yaga. (Though I heard we can't find Seth Rich's body because she swallowed it whole, bones and all, just like she did with her email server.)

Rebellions tend to occur at the end of some crisis, as things are starting to rebuild and not during the crisis wherein folks are more focused on personal survival etc. See Davies, Gurr, etc. on Rebellion/Disorder patterns.

The conditions faced by the Trumpeteers do not rise to this level. So that vast majority will not go to the barricades.


The BLM post-Floyd flareup WAS an example. Conditions (at least prior to covid) had improved in terms of jobs etc., lessening survival worries, but the larger inequity concerns still persisted (and still do).

Right, but that's an extreme end of the spectrum where status quo regimes get dissolved (e.g. perestroika and Soviet collapse). Why haven't there been any attacks by individuals or small cells? I can think of two reasons:

1. Shootings in many cities are way up this year, as previously observed, but they are petty street violence and not the mediatized mass shootings that have become prominent in the 21st century. In fact, there have been zero of those this year, to my knowledge. This is probably because of pandemic-related constraints on behavior that pare the target environment or otherwise problematize opportunities for attacks. On the other hand, there have still been plenty of mass gatherings this year, protests and counterprotests, including after the election.

2. Serious planned attacks have all been disrupted/dissuaded by law enforcement, such as with the plot against Governor Whitmer.
2.a. Plots against elected officials are some of the likeliest to be interdicted before fruition, so I'm not surprised we haven't seen those.


The only instance of mass violence so far (the DC street scuffles don't count) has AFAIK been the Nashville bombing, which from the information I have seen was apolitical crazy person stuff that doesn't reflect much on or from contemporary events.

[Hooahguy]

I've been a little surprised at the minimal post-election violence so far. Maybe Trump supporters and/or Americans in aggregate are just too passive to take the plunge.

Well that remains to be seen, the Proud Boys are planning violence on Wednesday.

"Trump diehards from across the country have organized their travel to Washington on 'The Donald' forum," the Beast's report states. "One of the hottest topics on the site is how protesters can bring guns to D.C., which would count as a local crime in nearly all circumstances under Washington's strict gun laws. Others have talked about breaking into federal buildings or committing violence against law enforcement officers who try to stop them from storming Congress."

One comment that received approving nods stated, "I'm thinking it will be literal war on that day. Where we'll storm offices and physically remove and even kill all the D.C. traitors and reclaim the country."

The report notes that noted Trump supporter Proud Boy Joe Biggs, boasted on Parler, "Watch out, January 6 — you ain't gonna know who the f*ck it is standing beside you."

The Beast also reports that Trump fans are discussing dressing up as Antifa protesters so the anti-fascist group will be blamed for any violence.

I plan on not leaving my apartment for anything that day if at all possible. I am also nervous about counter-protesters. If it was a large and unified counter-protest effort I'd be ok with it as the Proud boys in the past have backed down in the face of significant numbers, but from what I have seen, its been small groups counter-protesting and they get overwhelmed by fascists (which I think contributed to the four stabbings last time), so I think in this case it might be best to hang back and dont let the fascists control the narrative.

[Gilrandir]

I've been a little surprised at the minimal post-election violence so far. Maybe Trump supporters and/or Americans in aggregate are just too passive to take the plunge.

Or wiser than some squash-the-bastards here. Like I said, the electoral frenzy is dying down and people are returning to normalcy. And would return quicker if it were not for those who mentally still live on the next day after voting and are surprised that there are more adequate people around them.

[Montmorency]

Every word of what you just said was wrong.




In other news, the Georgia government appears to have leaked an hour-long recording of the president trying to shake down the governor for 11,000 Trump votes.

[ReluctantSamurai]

@Monty

The content provided in the link (and any other journalistic source dealing with the very same topic) is the proof of why your opening sentence in the above post, is true. And you can bet the farm that Trump knew he was being taped, and therefore the oft-discussed self-pardon will be forthcoming before 20 Jan...

Like I said, the electoral frenzy is dying down and people are returning to normalcy

Oh, you mean like these folks:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...48c_story.html

Formal rallies are planned most of the day and will draw pro-Trump demonstrators to the Washington Monument, Freedom Plaza and the Capitol. But online forums and encrypted chat messages among far-right groups indicate a number of demonstrators might be planning more than chanting and waving signs.

Threats of violence, ploys to smuggle guns into the District and calls to set up an “armed encampment” on the Mall have proliferated in online chats about the Jan. 6 day of protest. The Proud Boys, members of armed right-wing groups, conspiracy theorists and white supremacists have pledged to attend.

Earlier this month, a day of largely peaceful demonstrations descended into violent chaos as night fell and small bands of Proud Boys dressed in the group’s signature black and gold garb roamed downtown looking for a fight. Several people, including passersby who said they did not know about planned protests that day, were injured.

I guess we'll see how "adequate" and "wise" the behavior of these folks will be...

In other news:

www.politico.com/news/2021/01/03/congress-rules-electoral-college-count-454023

And Roy went further on Sunday evening, forcing a vote on whether to allow Speaker Nancy Pelosi to seat the House members in the states Trump is challenging. The move forced Republicans on the record validating the results of the House elections that occurred on the same ballots that resulted in Biden's win in November. The result was a 371-2 vote in favor of seating all of the members.

Credit where credit is due. Chip Roy (R) Texas, called their bluff. If Biden's election is a fraud, so is yours. I'd be curious as to who cast the two nay votes.....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I am beginning to believe that he more or less HAS to try a self pardon. I do not see Biden taking a Jerry Ford approach to the issue -- especially as Trump does not seem to be willing to quietly fade from the scene as did RN. I do not see a 25th amendment letter working as I do not believe Pence would sign such a pardon as he wants to be President himself someday and I think pardoning Trump would ruin such an effort.


If Trump does self-pardon we will be in for an interesting SCOTUS decision. The SCOTUS, in the past, has generally taken a fairly consistent stance supporting pretty broad powers under the pardon section of the Constitution. In contrast of course is the principle that one cannot stand as a judge in one's own case which suggests that self pardons would be impossible. So is the pardon a form of judicial review exercised by the President (acting as a "judge") or a specific executive power independent of "judge" status?

My guess is the SCOTUS would rule against a self pardon, though not unanimously.

As to the Constitution's relevant portion:

...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[rory_20_uk]

Looks like he's going for some sort of Lawsuit Bingo - now he's decided to break the State Law in Georgia.

And of course the Federal government isn't going to do anything since punishing crimes isn't really their thing at the moment. Will Georgia also turn a blind eye and just murmur something about moving on and it's all in the past, possibly throwing in something about healing as well. Yes, there might be evidence that is approaching irrefutable but so what?

As an aside, may I say how wonderful it is to finally be able to say that relatively speaking the Government in the UK is doing a great job and has hardly any corruption.

[Pannonian]

Looks like he's going for some sort of Lawsuit Bingo - now he's decided to break the State Law in Georgia.

And of course the Federal government isn't going to do anything since punishing crimes isn't really their thing at the moment. Will Georgia also turn a blind eye and just murmur something about moving on and it's all in the past, possibly throwing in something about healing as well. Yes, there might be evidence that is approaching irrefutable but so what?

As an aside, may I say how wonderful it is to finally be able to say that relatively speaking the Government in the UK is doing a great job and has hardly any corruption.

It's the most financially corrupt UK government in living memory, as the NYT has shown. The only consolation is that it hasn't yet felt the urge to engage in electoral corruption. Plenty of grift, but not yet any attempt at defying elections.

[Pannonian]

I am beginning to believe that he more or less HAS to try a self pardon. I do not see Biden taking a Jerry Ford approach to the issue -- especially as Trump does not seem to be willing to quietly fade from the scene as did RN. I do not see a 25th amendment letter working as I do not believe Pence would sign such a pardon as he wants to be President himself someday and I think pardoning Trump would ruin such an effort.


If Trump does self-pardon we will be in for an interesting SCOTUS decision. The SCOTUS, in the past, has generally taken a fairly consistent stance supporting pretty broad powers under the pardon section of the Constitution. In contrast of course is the principle that one cannot stand as a judge in one's own case which suggests that self pardons would be impossible. So is the pardon a form of judicial review exercised by the President (acting as a "judge") or a specific executive power independent of "judge" status?

My guess is the SCOTUS would rule against a self pardon, though not unanimously.

As to the Constitution's relevant portion:

Would a substantial portion of the Repubs rule on the principle, or would they vote consistent with faction? Are they still united behind Trump?

FWIW, I've been looking up some prepper type sites and channels. They've got some strange interpretation of defending the country and constitution that means standing behind Trump. There was a particularly intriguing video on what to do with prisoners they capture during the breakdown. How common is this kind of thinking? Over here, one such video would probably put you in the nutter to be monitored by the MI6 category.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Would a substantial portion of the Repubs rule on the principle, or would they vote consistent with faction? Are they still united behind Trump?

Of late, Trump's appointees to the various federal benches have been just as likely to strike down the various frivolous election fraud lawsuits as have any other set of judges. The only time SCOTUS addressed the issue was to kybosh the Texas AG suit as having no standing (as in not worthy of sitting in judgement over at all). Once appointed to the bench (for life, barring impeachment) most take their jobs pretty seriously and with an emphasis on the law and on history -- not political games play. J.P Stephens was self identified as a conservative and a republican when appointed to the SCOTUS. His record trended toward the "liberal" side for many of his decisions. Warren, CJ nominee by Eisenhower, was Dewey's GOP running mate in 1948, a known fiscal conservative, though considered moderate on social issues. On the court he voted with the majority in Brown v Board, Miranda, and loving v Virginia. He led what many consider the most progressive/liberal SCOTUS in history. I would not look for the SCOTUS to pick party over the Constitution at Trump's desire.

FWIW, I've been looking up some prepper type sites and channels. They've got some strange interpretation of defending the country and constitution that means standing behind Trump. There was a particularly intriguing video on what to do with prisoners they capture during the breakdown. How common is this kind of thinking? Over here, one such video would probably put you in the nutter to be monitored by the MI6 category.

That kind of thing quickly gets you on the FBI's "let's keep tabs on these folks" list. And yes, the core 20% of Trumps supporters are fringer nut jobs who really do equate defending the Constitution with the curtailment of Socialism or near socialism. They also interpret anything a European [or a Brit ] would think of as a Social Democrat (Centrist, minimally to the left of center) as a Commie Socialist who is out to destroy the country. Trump is their hero because he is the "outsider" fighting back against all the bureaucrats -- really, you cannot make this stuff up. I've read fiction by Nuttall and Kratman that are less distorted and less lauding of reactionary conservatism. Sadly, Limbaugh and Hannity have swayed many who are ignorant but not outright nutjobs in support of this agenda as well. And it is THAT coalition -- nutjobs and dittoheads -- who are the active elements of the current GOP.

One of the reasons why I am no longer a member of that party.

[Montmorency]

Would a substantial portion of the Repubs rule on the principle, or would they vote consistent with faction? Are they still united behind Trump?

So far it seems as though the majority of House Republicans will side with Trump on Jan. 6, but only a minority of Senate Republicans. It will be as good a poll of our politics as the runoff elections in Georgia tomorrow.

Of late, Trump's appointees to the various federal benches have been just as likely to strike down the various frivolous election fraud lawsuits as have any other set of judges. The only time SCOTUS addressed the issue was to kybosh the Texas AG suit as having no standing (as in not worthy of sitting in judgement over at all).

While technically true, we shouldn't take this as evidence for their jurisprudential integrity in general. Of the dozens of Trumpist election suits so far, I believe all but one of them were dropped, rejected, or dismissed. IIRC the one ruling in Trump's favor was on a narrow technical question. In other words, if (effectively) every Trump-appointed judge and every non-Trump appointed judge rules against Trump on a particular category of question, all we can take away is that we should be comparing Trump judges to non-Trump judges in other respects, where they are not univocal. Posing a matter like 'I am injured that the court will not suck my dick' will always find the same result, and that makes the like minimally-informative.

The limit of legal realism as an interpretive framework is that judges won't do literally anything for their team, especially where (see below) the team and the individual are distinguished. With what Trump was giving them to work, a partisan strategy might as well have gone to the heart of the matter and declared the existence of Democrats unconstitutional.

Once appointed to the bench (for life, barring impeachment) most take their jobs pretty seriously and with an emphasis on the law and on history -- not political games play. J.P Stephens was self identified as a conservative and a republican when appointed to the SCOTUS. His record trended toward the "liberal" side for many of his decisions. Warren, CJ nominee by Eisenhower, was Dewey's GOP running mate in 1948, a known fiscal conservative, though considered moderate on social issues. On the court he voted with the majority in Brown v Board, Miranda, and loving v Virginia. He led what many consider the most progressive/liberal SCOTUS in history.

Republicans loathed Warren, Souter, and Stevens! That's why the conservative movement made sure no further Republican appointees would replicate their defections. "Impeach Earl Warren" was before your time, but...

Judges like Warren, Souter, Stevens, and so on, can't exist any longer and haven't since the 20th century, because the Federalist Society selects for and inculcates reliability.

I would not look for the SCOTUS to pick party over the Constitution at Trump's desire.

The critical thing is that we can observe Republican judges will and do pick party over Constitution/law, or minimally ideology over Constitution, but they are agents of the institutional elite of the GOP - they are not quite the nutjobs and dittoheads who identify God and country with the person of Trump.

If there is a McConnell/Roberts faction of the GOP, they are very much independent of Trump the man. The judges know that fruitlessly exhausting institutional and political capital on assuaging Trump's insecurities (or worse, committing to violent power struggle) will damage the long-term interests of their movement.

That kind of thing quickly gets you on the FBI's "let's keep tabs on these folks" list.

Not quickly enough. And as we know the Trump administration has for its part kept its thumb on the scale of law enforcement when it comes to white supremacists. But the phenomenon Pann happened upon has proliferated since the Clinton era in particular, in no small part due to Limbaugh's agitations.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Or wiser than some squash-the-bastards here. Like I said, the electoral frenzy is dying down and people are returning to normalcy. And would return quicker if it were not for those who mentally still live on the next day after voting and are surprised that there are more adequate people around them.

Btw, I vote that the remaining 6 people in this forum vote to kick you out for gaslighting the state of American democracy for 4 years.

[Gilrandir]

Girlandir's contributions have aged as well Ukraine's occupation of Crimea.

You mean like Greece's occupation of Constantinople?

Btw, I vote that the remaining 6 people in this forum vote to kick you out for gaslighting the state of American democracy for 4 years.

It's no wonder that only six people remain on the forum with such an attitude. When people here in 2014 made wrong assumptions as to the development of Russia-Ukraine war no one wanted to kick them out. And kicking out seems to be becoming the hallmark of democracy both here and in the US.

[Ser Clegane]

This whole episode makes you want to weep in disgust and frustration. Unbelievable (but unfortunately not surprising anymore) that it comes down to this and that so many representatives play(ed) along with this madman...

I hope that this might be a deathblow to "Trumpism" even though this might be wishful thinking.

All the best to you guys in the US - difficult times ahead

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They will think they didn't "Trump" hard enough instead. The other choice, Sir C, is too rational.

There are too many members of the Trump cadre who are, functionally, separatists now. They no longer want to continue governance as it has been.

Civil war? I think not, but others I know fear it.


But we will be a long time recovering from this (not just yesterday, that was only a crystalizing moment). "America's Century" is over. That has been growingly true since our victory in the Cold War. What way forward?

Perhaps as we remaining "cold warriors" die off (not you younglings but my generation) a newer and better definition of that "shining city upon a hill" can be brought to be.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The difference between being a Black American, and a White American:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/po...tol/index.html

“The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you have succeeded in inducing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you’re someone,” Wooster says, mockingly. “You hear them shouting ‘Heil, Spode!’ and you imagine it is the Voice of the People.”

[Crandar]

YouGov poll. Vast majority of the Republicans doesn't consider the storming of the Capitol as a threat to democracy. Now, I don't find this very worrying, but the fact that 45% support the storming, while only 43% oppose it is a tad ridiculous. Overall, I'd rate it as a very amateurish coup attempt, near our Pyjama coup.

You mean like Greece's occupation of Constantinople?

Not that bad, but you get the gist.

[rory_20_uk]

Will American politicians finally stop with the ridiculous "America is the best country in the world" shtick.

[Hooahguy]

I think for most sane people in the US, that belief went away in November 2016.

[Gilrandir]

Not that bad, but you get the gist.

No I don't. The only thing I get is that you delight in constantly reminding me that the Crimea is occupied by Russia. Still I don't get why the occupation should delight you.

[ReluctantSamurai]

the party is not feuding over any sort of grand policy agenda. It’s simply a personal loyalty test.

The earlier posted meme said it all:

"I just want to own the libs. Beyond that, I have no politics."

[Crandar]

No I don't. The only thing I get is that you delight in constantly reminding me that the Crimea is occupied by Russia. Still I don't get why the occupation should delight you.

Your defensiveness makes you an irresistible target. Relax a bit, Ukraine will survive, even if you don't protect her honour every time. Did I get mad that the Greek army was expelled from Istanbul and Anatolia? No, in fact, I'm glad that our invasion and attempted annexation of foreign lands failed, which also renders me less vulnerable to jabs at national sensitivities.

Anyway, back to topic, our Caucasian brothers were also featured in Wednesday's Capitol affair.

I think for most sane people in the US, that belief went away in November 2016.

Exceptionalism is one of the main factors that the Trump phenomenon was allowed to gain such extraordinary influence. For a developed nation, America seems too much indoctrinated with chauvinism and militarism, both of which are inherently far-right principles and contribute to make xenophobic and racist messages more easily digestible to the wider public. Even here in the backwards Balkans, people are less obsessed with the uniqueness of the nation, the army and the veterans. The most long-term way to safeguard the republican foundations of your institution is to reconsider the values that mainstream/pop culture and the education system transmits to the citizens. The situation has improved since the Cold War, but in a very slow pace, judging from how absurdly nationalistic concepts like American supremacy and exceptionalism are still taken seriously by both sides of the political spectrum.

An even clearer video of the shooting. Watch at your own discretion. A question that might sound stupid to our American members: If I understood correctly, the person who shot her is said to have been a police officer, but I got the impression that he was not dressed in uniform. Doesn't this mean he belonged to the secret services or are police officers also allowed to wear suits, while on duty?