POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?"

[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.

[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.