The Viper Room - NO SCRUBS

[Nick Danger]

Thread Guideline: Say anything you want about politics or religion here. Then be prepared for a counter-argument.

Semantics is a key here -when a politician uses the word 'fight', does he or she mean physical fighting with guns, fists, pikes and so on? Or vigorous debate?

I assume that in the Senate trial, the lawyers for Trump will dispute the meaning of his words on the basis that he referred to political fights not fist-fights. His supporters may have stormed the Capitol chanting 'Hang Mike Pence' -and Trump was tweeting against Pence after the riots began- but would he have endorsed the violent slogans? And can his words prove that this was the case?

Or the US may be in the position that what used to be 'mere rhetoric' has become more concrete because those who were on the fringes of politics have moved - or have been brought -closer to the centre, do not accept the outcome of democratic elections, and intend to do something about it that involves violence -there is a strain of thought, associated either with Mike Flynn or people who support him, who believed the storming of the Capitol would give Trump the occasion to declare Martial Law, and thus suspend the certification process in Congress, and seek a reversal or the election in selected States.

By changing the rules of the game, Trump and his supporters have begged many questions about the resilience of the democratic process, have they also changed the way in which language is now used, and is that also a consequence of three decades of sectarian politics?

I thought it was interesting that many of the Capitol rioters said, after the fact, that they felt like they were taking a direct order from the sitting President to do what they did.

I'm not deaf or blind, so I'm not going to pretend Trump's speech wasn't intentionally inflammatory. Matter of fact, I'd go one step further and say that Trump undoubtedly got some personal satisfaction from the fact that his words resulted in a riot.

But one step further than that would be to say that he hoped violence would be the result of his speech, and I don't agree with that. I don't think he's that smart, OR that stupid.

He'd begun this process of planting the seed of doubt about the election results and he had to follow through. My family is based in NYC, so I grew up with Trump. Used to really hate the guy actually. The one overriding characteristic of Donald Trump is lack of humility, a literal inability to admit that he's wrong. I personally find that to be an effective quality in a leader though it can be quite problematic as well.

The "Capitol Riots" speech was always going to happen. From the moment he first said publicly that he was going to contest the election, it was inevitable that he'd make that speech at the end of all things.

Pretty sure he's not going to be impeached over it. And yes, Stavros, I agree with you (for once) that semantics is the key to this thing. Trump's lawyers could easily play tens of thousands of videos in which politicians use the word "fight" as a euphemism for "vote" or "protest." It's pretty standard rhetoric and I don't think they can prove otherwise in a fair trial.

Nick Danger: "I would like to see you illustrate the "Circle of Death" in which Marjorie Taylor Greene's ramblings led to hate crime murders."

Have you forgotten Pizzagate, the forerunner to QAnon? This had real consequences - a guy turned up with a gun and fired shots at the restaurant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzag...spiracy_theory

The great replacement theory that she advocates has inspired a number of murders, most notably the Christchurch mosque massacre that killed 51 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ...sque_shootings

You're speaking as if Marjorie Taylor Greene's support of this Great Replacement Theory is a cause creating an effect. White supremacists do not take their cues from this woman, they are quite sexist in addition to being racist.

They take their cues from people like Adolf Hitler and David Lane.

Also, Pizzagate? Really Flighty? Have you noticed that every now and then, a conspiracy theory comes along that's so batshit insane that anyone with a 3-digit IQ can see it's a steaming pile of shit? You get to wondering why the media even continues to cover these things, right? They cover it because as long as there are all these crazy conspiracy theories floating around, "conspiracy theorists" will always be marginalized, and real conspiracies are marginalized right along with them.

[filghy2]

Also, Pizzagate? Really Flighty? Have you noticed that every now and then, a conspiracy theory comes along that's so batshit insane that anyone with a 3-digit IQ can see it's a steaming pile of shit?

I guess more than half of Republican voters must have an IQ of well under 100 then. QED

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9702261.html
https://www.newsweek.com/only-17-tru...y-poll-1540782

You keep trying to pretend this is just a few kooks at the margins when it's a disease that seems to have infected most of your party.

[filghy2]

You're speaking as if Marjorie Taylor Greene's support of this Great Replacement Theory is a cause creating an effect. White supremacists do not take their cues from this woman, they are quite sexist in addition to being racist.

The same argument could be made about every proponent of these ideas. Obviously there is no single master mind directing all this, but the more people espouse these ideas the more credence they gain with some people. In particular, when prominent people espouse them, or at least give the impression they are sympathetic, then it emboldens these people. There is no doubt that white supremacists have been emboldened since Trump came on the scene.

[filghy2]

But we're talking months and months here. Even after it was determined that the incident wasn't what it seemed, the Democratic machine kept pushing for violence. Because they knew that was the only thing that was going to get them into office in 2020. It worked. I stand in awe of the power of a political party that owns the media. Even though they have absolutely zero good ideas on how to move forward from the crises of 2020 (other than to simply cave in to every special interest that holds out a cup), they won the White House and the Senate. Incredible really. If I were a Democrat I'd be on here crowing about our amazing powers of political skullduggery.

I thought this was a particularly silly claim. It's clear that Trump was delighted when violence occurred at some of the protests because he thought he would benefit from a law and order campaign. Many Democrat supporters were worried about that, including one who posts here sometimes.

Why would Democrats have wanted to distract attention from Trump's incompetent handling of the pandemic, which was the primary reason he lost? Elections around the world have shown that incumbents have generally benefited as long as they have done a reasonable job of dealing with the virus. Al Trump had to do was show that he cared and do some basic things right. Far from being a political genius, this man is a political dunce.

[Nick Danger]

I guess more than half of Republican voters must have an IQ of well under 100 then. QED

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9702261.html
https://www.newsweek.com/only-17-tru...y-poll-1540782

You keep trying to pretend this is just a few kooks at the margins when it's a disease that seems to have infected most of your party.

First of all I'm obliged to point out that those are two left-leaning publications you're linking. The Independent is not too awful but Newsweek is a joke, I wouldn't let my dog shit on Newsweek and I don't even have a dog.

Still, I don't totally disagree with you, or the articles you linked either. I'm well-aware that the Republican Party is comprised of two distinct types of Americans. Type A is your garden-variety productive citizen, who has worked hard for what he has and understands that a lifetime of hard work and financial responsibility is the only difference between him and the guy who's barely making it, wants to keep what he's earned, not particularly sympathetic to laziness or weakness, that guy. Me.

Then there's the Type B Republican. Not too smart. Not too prosperous. Has a lot of deeply-imbedded beliefs that he holds as sacred. Not easy to reason with, but easily convinced of practically anything if it comes from one of his trusted sources. Identifies as a Republican almost strictly because of moral or religious beliefs.

I'm not going to pretend we don't need Type B Republicans in order to be competitive with liberalism in this country. And I'll just leave it at that.

The same argument could be made about every proponent of these ideas. Obviously there is no single master mind directing all this, but the more people espouse these ideas the more credence they gain with some people. In particular, when prominent people espouse them, or at least give the impression they are sympathetic, then it emboldens these people. There is no doubt that white supremacists have been emboldened since Trump came on the scene.

I could relate this back to my response on the previous post, because the white supremacists you're talking about are Type B Republicans.

I think Trump thought he could get away with failing to repudiate white supremacists for one reason. Because there's a little racism in the heart of most wealthy white people. Obviously they're not all blatantly racist, not even mostly, but that's an effort of will. It's in there and if a racist thing happens to happen right in front of them, they'll usually let it slide.

Give you a perfect example - my own father. My father is a racist. He only knows one word for black people and it's the one you think it is. He's also got slurs for every other ethnicity from the Irish to the Puerto Ricans to the Japanese. He's old, obviously. And to be fair, he grew up in an Italian neighborhood of New York City which was strictly divided along racial lines. Not a single person I've ever met from that neighborhood is a bit different from my father.

Well, my dad's still out there, voting. It certainly didn't bother him when Trump acted like he didn't know who David Duke is. My dad is one of the worst of them but most older white people grew up in a different country than the rest of us. And that's Trump's base.

I thought this was a particularly silly claim. It's clear that Trump was delighted when violence occurred at some of the protests because he thought he would benefit from a law and order campaign. Many Democrat supporters were worried about that, including one who posts here sometimes.

Why would Democrats have wanted to distract attention from Trump's incompetent handling of the pandemic, which was the primary reason he lost? Elections around the world have shown that incumbents have generally benefited as long as they have done a reasonable job of dealing with the virus. Al Trump had to do was show that he cared and do some basic things right. Far from being a political genius, this man is a political dunce.

Can't agree with you about the pandemic thing, Flighty, I just have not seen the evidence that there is a competent way to handle this. It would be very, very difficult for anyone to convince me that we'd have had substantially more deaths in this country if we'd simply done nothing at all but continue with business as usual. Meanwhile the economy is going to shit behind our ridiculous counter-measures. On the other hand, I'm kind of a hardass who isn't going to die of covid so maybe I'm just being too harsh.

You know, governments and corporations make decisions all the time about how much human life is worth in cold hard cash. At various levels we are constantly risking our lives. When we drive a car, every time we get behind the driver's seat there's a certain % chance we are going to die, couldn't tell you what it is but it's a chance. Every time you walk out your front door you're taking a chance.

I'm not a runner and hider, Flighty. I'm a confronter and let's get it doner. I don't have much sympathy for blind fear, and IMO we, humans, are handling this thing like a bunch of cowards. How long are we going to shut down the planet to save A FEW lives? There are 8 billion goddamn people on this planet, we can lose some. When it's someone's time, it's their time, that's it.

But like I said, I'm prepared to admit that sounds a bit harsh.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1958200]

I'm well-aware that the Republican Party is comprised of two distinct types of Americans. Type A is your garden-variety productive citizen, who has worked hard for what he has and understands that a lifetime of hard work and financial responsibility is the only difference between him and the guy who's barely making it, wants to keep what he's earned, not particularly sympathetic to laziness or weakness, that guy. Me.

Then there's the Type B Republican. Not too smart. Not too prosperous. Has a lot of deeply-imbedded beliefs that he holds as sacred. Not easy to reason with, but easily convinced of practically anything if it comes from one of his trusted sources. Identifies as a Republican almost strictly because of moral or religious beliefs.

On the basis of the above, and the fact that you claim the massacre at Sandy Hook was a 'staged' event, you clearly believe all or any of the worthless drivel on which your view is based. My estimate thus ranks you, on the basis of your own score, as AB Negative.

[filghy2]

Still, I don't totally disagree with you, or the articles you linked either. I'm well-aware that the Republican Party is comprised of two distinct types of Americans. Type A is your garden-variety productive citizen, who has worked hard for what he has and understands that a lifetime of hard work and financial responsibility is the only difference between him and the guy who's barely making it, wants to keep what he's earned, not particularly sympathetic to laziness or weakness, that guy. Me.

Then there's the Type B Republican. Not too smart. Not too prosperous. Has a lot of deeply-imbedded beliefs that he holds as sacred. Not easy to reason with, but easily convinced of practically anything if it comes from one of his trusted sources. Identifies as a Republican almost strictly because of moral or religious beliefs.

I'm not going to pretend we don't need Type B Republicans in order to be competitive with liberalism in this country. And I'll just leave it at that.

You seem to be suggesting that the Republican party is as it's always been, but I don't think that's the case. What seems to have changed is that the extremists no longer fear that expressing their extremism will have adverse consequences from fellow partisans. I don't think the amount of active bigotry is fixed - most people will either rein in their worst instincts or give vent to them, depending on what they think the financial and social consequences will be.

There have always been some extreme elements around the Republican party. In the 50s and 60s there was the John Birch Society, whose founder claimed that even Eisenhower was a Communist stooge. However, there was more active pushback from the mainstream party against those extremists than there is at present.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ociety/617922/

If you want the Republican Party to regain power next time you had better hope they do more to isolate the crazies because they can't win without the support of moderate, independent voters, Association with extremism is poison with those voters. This is the big problem with so many Republicans believing the stolen election lie. If you can't admit you lost then you can't ask why you lost and address the reasons for that.

[Nick Danger]

On the basis of the above, and the fact that you claim the massacre at Sandy Hook was a 'staged' event, you clearly believe all or any of the worthless drivel on which your view is based. My estimate thus ranks you, on the basis of your own score, as AB Negative.

HA! You're a funny guy, Stavros. Funny like a clown. Kinda makes me wonder why you go to the trouble of acting like such a stiff in most of your posts.

I'm absolutely willing to have the Sandy Hook debate with you, Stavros. But if you want to do that, make sure you understand that it's a real debate, a long conversation, and it's no joke. There is a LOT of evidence that it's a hoax, and zero evidence that it happened. There is, in fact, zero evidence that the children ever existed. It's EXTREMELY difficult to hold up the government's version of the events of that day in real-time debate.

To put it in perspective for you, I'm well-aware that if the Sandy Hook Massacre actually DID happen, and I maintain it didn't, that makes me one of the world's biggest assholes. It's dead children we're talking about here. A person would have to be very sure it was a hoax. VERY. SURE.

I'm gonna link the best video I've seen on the subject of the Sandy Hook hoax. If you do decide you want to have that argument with me, I suggest you watch this first:

https://archive.org/details/WeNeedTo...015Documentary

You seem to be suggesting that the Republican party is as it's always been, but I don't think that's the case. What seems to have changed is that the extremists no longer fear that expressing their extremism will have adverse consequences from fellow partisans. I don't think the amount of active bigotry is fixed - most people will either rein in their worst instincts or give vent to them, depending on what they think the financial and social consequences will be.

There have always been some extreme elements around the Republican party. In the 50s and 60s there was the John Birch Society, whose founder claimed that even Eisenhower was a Communist stooge. However, there was more active pushback from the mainstream party against those extremists than there is at present.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ociety/617922/

If you want the Republican Party to regain power next time you had better hope they do more to isolate the crazies because they can't win without the support of moderate, independent voters, Association with extremism is poison with those voters. This is the big problem with so many Republicans believing the stolen election lie. If you can't admit you lost then you can't ask why you lost and address the reasons for that.

A few things have changed in this country since the Eisenhower administration, Flighty. Brylcreem is no longer the average young man's hair styling gel of choice. Buddy Holly died. Studebaker went out of business. I Love Lucy got cancelled.

Our nation's political parties have changed a bit too. Matter of fact, they are constantly changing and there's change underway right now.

There are 4 essential ideologies in American politics. Two concern the economy, and two concern morality.

Liberal fiscal policy: Government as charity.
Liberal morality policy: Everyone should be able to live as they please.
Conservative fiscal policy: Enforced personal responsibility.
Conservative morality policy: Lawmaking as an extension of Christianity.

Over the decades, each of the two political parties have latched on to 2 of these 4 essential ideologies to obtain voters, and the other party has latched onto the other 2. They have both occasionally taken a swim toward the middle but have ultimately found no one else swimming there.

Before 1912 and Teddy Roosevelt's Independent presidential run, it was the Republican Party that upheld liberal policies. And it wasn't until FDR's New Deal that Democrats became identified with the welfare state.

It's always been interesting to me that no party has ever represented me fully. I believe in liberal morality AND conservative fiscal policy. Personally I think most people feel that way, but it's not as if I have my finger on the pulse of the nation.

In the end nobody gets what they really want, and everyone has to make a difficult choice. My choice is, the economy is the most important thing. Within a weak economy, very little else is possible. Other people see things differently and have different priorities.

I have no problem with every single voter voting in his own best interest. That's exactly as it should be and if we had that, we'd have the best possible government that served the most possible citizens. Unfortunately we have a media problem in this country. The media convinces some people to vote for other people's interests, shifting the balance of power in unsustainable ways.

[filghy2]

There are 4 essential ideologies in American politics. Two concern the economy, and two concern morality.

Liberal fiscal policy: Government as charity.
Liberal morality policy: Everyone should be able to live as they please.
Conservative fiscal policy: Enforced personal responsibility.
Conservative morality policy: Lawmaking as an extension of Christianity.

Over the decades, each of the two political parties have latched on to 2 of these 4 essential ideologies to obtain voters, and the other party has latched onto the other 2. They have both occasionally taken a swim toward the middle but have ultimately found no one else swimming there.

Before 1912 and Teddy Roosevelt's Independent presidential run, it was the Republican Party that upheld liberal policies. And it wasn't until FDR's New Deal that Democrats became identified with the welfare state.

It's always been interesting to me that no party has ever represented me fully. I believe in liberal morality AND conservative fiscal policy. Personally I think most people feel that way, but it's not as if I have my finger on the pulse of the nation.

In the end nobody gets what they really want, and everyone has to make a difficult choice. My choice is, the economy is the most important thing. Within a weak economy, very little else is possible. Other people see things differently and have different priorities.

I have no problem with every single voter voting in his own best interest. That's exactly as it should be and if we had that, we'd have the best possible government that served the most possible citizens. Unfortunately we have a media problem in this country. The media convinces some people to vote for other people's interests, shifting the balance of power in unsustainable ways.

There's another dimension missing from your potted history of US politics, and that is white identity politics. The Democrats used to be the white identity party until the civil rights legislation of the Johnson administration, after which the Republicans embarked on the southern strategy to win over disgruntled working class whites.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

I doubt that most of those people enthusiastically cheering Trump at the MAGA rallies were there because they wanted smaller government or enforcement of Christian morality. They were mainly there because they hate the idea of the US ceasing to be a country dominated by white folks. There is loads of research showing that this was the main factor behind Trump's support.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/...-anxiety-study

It's interesting that you consistently try to downplay this element.. It's also odd that complain that the media is somehow convincing people to vote Democrat against their true interests when the whole point of the southern strategy has been to convince the white working class to vote for the party that favours the interests of the rich.

[filghy2]

Conservative fiscal policy: Enforced personal responsibility.

What exactly is your definition of conservative fiscal policy? Surely it can't have escaped your notice that every period of Republican rule since Reagan has seen increases in budget deficits? It was Dick Cheney who claimed that deficits don't matter.

The actual Republican fiscal policy is to cut taxes for rich people whenever they get the chance, never mind the deficit, and then switch to claiming deficits are a huge problem whenever there's a Democrat administration.