POTUS/General Election Thread 2020 + Aftermath

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.....

[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.

[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.

[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.