US Elections 2020

[broncofan]

I don't think there can be impeachment once his term is over. It's intended to get you out of office and takes place in two steps. The first step is like an indictment and the second a conviction. About a year ago with the Ukraine extortion case there was sufficient vote for the first step but not the second. Technically when the first vote passes they say you've been "impeached" and the second step removes you from power. Bill Clinton was also impeached but not removed. For some reason pundits have gotten in the habit of calling the entire process impeachment even though impeachment covers the first step and removal the second.

The part of the process that takes the longest is offering evidence. If his words prior to the storming of the capital and on twitter are sufficient, it can take place quickly.

The lasting effect of this process other than removal would be that the senate can prevent him from ever holding federal office again. Because he lost this election he hasn't reached his two term limit. If he's impeached and removed we don't have to worry about this dickhead running again in 2024.

[filghy2]

The difference is stark. We've seen this President has managed to make everything political. Perhaps yesterday's squad was the average force and not the beefed up force for his adversaries bc in his mind the fascists we saw yesterday were a liberating army. I exaggerate but he clearly sees them as on his side and would never choose country over self.

The chief of capitol police has now resigned - apparently they never planned for the possibility that the protest would turn violent like this!! They even removed barricades to let them get closer to the building.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/capitol-police-failure-trump-mob

I assume that capitol police would not be under Trump's control as Congress is s separate arm of government.

Given that right-wing political violence is likely to continue to increase - especially if Republicans keep losing elections - the complaisant attitude of police is going to be a big problem that will need to be addressed.

[filghy2]

Here's another contender for the dickhead of the day prize. Obviously 'very fine people' could not have done these things.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/07/antifa-capitol-gaetz-trump-riot/

[broncofan]

The chief of capitol police has now resigned - apparently they never planned for the possibility that the protest would turn violent like this!! They even removed barricades to let them get closer to the building.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/capitol-police-failure-trump-mob

I assume that capitol police would not be under Trump's control as Congress is s separate arm of government.

Given that right-wing political violence is likely to continue to increase - especially if Republicans keep losing elections - the complaisant attitude of police is going to be a big problem that will need to be addressed.
I just looked it up and you're right about capitol police. I didn't know much about them until yesterday but probably in more normal times that's a good thing. Lots of the people who were there are well known alt-right nazis and "groypers". I have been surprised that the FBI generally has done a good job monitoring these people even under Trump. I think they will be more effective under Biden but the problem isn't going away.
With respect to the attitude of the police, yes something was off about the way they handled this. They were clearly sympathetic to the nutjobs when their role is to protect the capitol.

A half hour ago Trump released a video saying some of the right things. He lied about deploying the national guard and he's clearly saying this to avoid consequences but we'll see what happens.

I see your next post is about Gaetz. He's an up and coming dickhead of note for sure. He wore a gas mask to Congress back in March.

Also, Josh Hawley had his newest book canceled by his publisher and is throwing a hissy fit on his twitter account and Ted Cruz is sparring with AOC. What a mess.

[broncofan]

Here's another contender for the dickhead of the day prize. Obviously 'very fine people' could not have done these things.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/07/antifa-capitol-gaetz-trump-riot/
Some well known alt-right nazis and groypers are among those who broadcasted themselves from Pelosi's office and elsewhere. At least I won't have to read their tweets except if their prison library has internet.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=broncofan;1954703
Also, Josh Hawley had his newest book canceled by his publisher and is throwing a hissy fit on his twitter account and Ted Cruz is sparring with AOC. What a mess.[/QUOTE]

A bit rich for Josh Hawley to protest "I will fight this cancel culture with everything I have" when he has been campaiging to cancel the results of the 2020 election his party did not win. The same party that has a 'cancel culture' all of its own when it comes to the Voter Regstration Act of 1965, Roe-vs- Wade, the Paris Climate Change Accords, the Iran Nuclear Deal and a raft of environmental protection laws and regulations that reach back through Obama and Clinton to the Environment Protection Act, passed by Congress and signed by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970.

I agree that 'cancel culture' is a challenge to us all, but let's at least acknowledge that with subtle means or crude, every generation seeks to write its own history, and re-write the past.

[broncofan]

The danger of Trump's words have been obvious all along. But if it took sedition for people to repudiate Trumpism we have gotten there. Hawley is the most obvious case of an opportunist who tried to ride this wave of right-wing populism. His timing was bad. It's important for us to remember that what happened could have been much worse and all of the people scattering right now supported him while he lit this fuse.

If we really want to make sure this doesn't get worse there can't be any instinct to let up or forget. There has to be accountability to the extent it can be lawfully achieved. That includes reminding people of the words and actions of every congressman who repeated this "big lie" about the election and tried to undermine the results of a perfectly legitimate vote.

And I am going to take some joy in the fascists who have for years spread poison and are now pictured in full view committing felonies. At the very least they will end up in prison.

[broncofan]

My ignorance of American politics is probably about to show but can he still be impeached after he's left office?
Tip of the hat to you. I had never heard this discussed. This came up on my twitter feed and argues it should apply after a President leaves office. I don't know if there is a legal consensus either way but since impeachment has a remedy of preventing someone from holding office again it could be relevant here.

https://www.justsecurity.org/74107/the-constitutions-option-for-impeachment-after-a-president-leaves-office/ (https://www.justsecurity.org/74107/the-constitutions-option-for-impeachment-after-a-president-leaves-office/)

[KnightHawk 2.0]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/us-capitol-riots-arrest-pelosi-desk/index.html. The man seen in viral photograph at Speaker Nancy Pelosi's desk has been arrested ,and everyone of those domestic terrorists who took part in the siege of the US Capital should be arrested and prosecuted as well ,including Donald Trump and his family and Rudy Guliani for instigating and inciting the Insurrectiontists.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Missouri Senator Josh Hawley,one of the brainwashed Republicans who chosed to object to the certification of the 2020 Presidential Election,his ploy to be a Pro-Trump Hero has backfired and he shouldn't be allowed to vote on any piece of legislation anymore,and has shown his ignorance by going along with the delusional charade to overturn the results of the Presidential Election and throw out legally cast ballots. and is also one of the Republican Senators responsible for the disgusting and heinous act that took place on Wednesday January 6th. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/josh-hawley/index.html

[filghy2]

According to a recent poll 45% of Republican voters approve the storming of the Capitol, compared to 43% who disapprove. https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/01/06/US-capitol-trump-poll

This points to the problem mainstream Republicans have created for themselves by indulging or encouraging this nonsense. They know they have to distance themselves from the extremists because it turns off moderate voters, but they can't repudiate them completely because there are too many among their supporters. It's disingenuous to be shocked at something that is the foreseeable result of the direction the party has been taking for many years. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22217696/republicans-trump-capitol-hill-storming-mob-responsible

I recall that soon after the election some unnamed Republican was quoted as asking what the harm was in indulging Trump and letting him blow off steam for a few weeks. Did these people really expect that Trump would just move on and save them the risk of having to oppose him? Now they are on Trump's hate list anyway for refusing to follow him over the cliff and they face a choice between either a messy civil war or surrendering to the extremists.

[broncofan]

It's scary. We saw how they were able to sell their lies with covid even with almost every scientist saying they were wrong. Elections by their nature can't be transparent to every individual because there are thousands of precincts and millions of votes and thousands of vote counters processing ballots. Overall states do have audits and recounts and ways of ensuring that if there are rare cases of fraud it won't be systematic. But it's a process with a lot at stake that will already lend itself to paranoia.

There is no way to convince Republicans who can't figure out how they think the voter fraud took place that there wasn't voter fraud. You rebut one lie another fills the void. You'd think that when they hear one lie and then see it rebutted they would learn that their sources of information are untrustworthy and they are being played for the idiots they consistently seem to be. Yet while they won't get angry at people who are cynically manipulating them there is at least one Republican reading this who thinks none of this would have happened if I didn't call them idiots or if people didn't liken them to Nazis for behaving like a bunch of stupid, craven Nazis.

Corporations are, either for selfish reasons or some sense of social responsibility, starting to back away from these dangerous fools. The overall picture still doesn't look good but I will allow myself the enjoyment of watching the hatemongers' shock as they find out that the FBI really will arrest them for insurrection.

[sidney111]

I admit to not having read a lot of the thread, but the last few days have been shocking but I think things have been building for a long time, for me the most worrying thing is the loss of independent non partisan news, nowadays it seems everyone is giving there view/spin of news, you can find woke-left leaning-right leaning-alt right news with no problem at all.

And I’m not defending trump at all, but politicians from both sides are to blame here, and the main stream media and the fanatical sites that have appeared, all feeding the fire, mainly for the power, views/ clicks and the money those things bring, maybe Biden will bring things back to the middle ground, where I think the world needs to return to, but maybe I’m living in cloud cuckoo land lol.

[broncofan]

And I’m not defending trump at all, but politicians from both sides are to blame here, and the main stream media and the fanatical sites that have appeared,
Neither side is perfect but only the Republicans have knowingly spread misinformation that caused people to riot and kill. Once they caused neo-nazis to storm our capitol the President called them Patriots and continued to propagate the lie that the election was stolen from him. He did not concede an election once he lost the vote, lost 60 plus lawsuits, and unsuccessfully tried to extort the secretary of state in Georgia. His lawsuits were so frivolous that his lawyers could not even allege fraud in court without perjuring themselves.

Biden is nowhere near the fringes. But if there aren't consequences for stoking insurrection then we will not return to normal.

[broncofan]

The mainstream media is not biased because they aren't presenting the seditious point of view. You can't split the baby and say Trump has some points when everything he is saying is so made up that there isn't even internal consistency. One day he'll say ballots were shredded. The next he'll say machine parts were switched out. Another day he'll say dumpsters were filled with ballots. He'll say more people voted than were registered and it will quickly be pointed out that's not true and he'll move on. These are conspiracy theories that are self-proving; the fact that you argue against one only shows it's true etcetera etcetera.

The people dressed in animal skins, sometimes in camouflage, carrying zip ties, waving the flag of treason and occasionally clothed in shirts mocking Nazi death camps are not going to have their viewpoints reflected in news articles written by people with functioning brains.

[filghy2]

I admit to not having read a lot of the thread, but the last few days have been shocking but I think things have been building for a long time, for me the most worrying thing is the loss of independent non partisan news, nowadays it seems everyone is giving there view/spin of news, you can find woke-left leaning-right leaning-alt right news with no problem at all.

You seem to be including the mainstream media in your criticism, so I'm wondering how you would define independent non-partisan media. The internet has obviously led to a proliferation of sources (including more extreme ones), but I don't think the mainstream media are more partisan than they have been in the past. The main thing that has changed is that we have a President who has done things that were unthinkable previously. When the President engages in consistent lying, hate-mongering and abuse of power do you think the media should refrain from criticising him in the interests of being non-partisan? I think they may have actually helped Trump in 2016 because they were trying so hard to appear non-partisan (eg the attention given to Hillary's emails).

I'm also wondering what are the left-wing equivalents of Fox News, OAN, Breitbart, Infowars, etc, which are mostly propaganda channels that promote lies and conspiracy theories?

The easiest way to see the difference between the two parties is to compare their reactions to the 2016 and 2020 elections. Sure lots of Democrats were unhappy about the result and many blamed interference by Russia. However, Russian interference was a finding by the intelligence agencies, not an allegation concocted by Democrats. Democrats accepted the outcome of the vote - they did not launch legal challenges, pressure electoral officials or vote against accepting the certified results. They cooperated in an orderly transition. There were some big protests but they were fairly peaceful - nobody attempted to storm the Capitol to stop the President being confirmed.

[sidney111]

Yes I do include the mainstream media (not saying there as fanatical) who have been on a slow descent since the fair and balanced reporting law was removed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine.

from the replies, it seems this moment will change nothing, and we will still be on the race to the extremes, for me that’s a shame, but being old and not living in the USA , won’t affect me a lot.

[sidney111]

This is a article that says some of what I mean, way better than I can https://www.nj.com/opinion/2021/01/i-dont-condone-the-violence-but-i-understand-why-americans-stormed-the-capitol-opinion.html

I also remember right after Donald Trump was elected, there were several news shows on how this happened, and on a lot of them they mentioned a book/paper (can’t remember the correct term for it) written by a respected female professor, who had travelled around the “rust belt” and other areas asking regular people their opinions over a period of months, I can recall the democrats saying this should be looked at on how the divide can be addressed.

Quite funny or sad that that intention,sentiment, will lasted about a week, you have to wonder if that professor thought why have I bothered.

[broncofan]

Yes I do include the mainstream media (not saying there as fanatical) who have been on a slow descent since the fair and balanced reporting law was removed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine.

from the replies, it seems this moment will change nothing, and we will still be on the race to the extremes, for me that’s a shame, but being old and not living in the USA , won’t affect me a lot.
Saying that insurrection is bad and it is the fault of those who promoted it with conspiracy theories is not enabling it. It's not extremism. You say you don't support Donald Trump but you must actually sympathize with his position if you think this is a both sides issue. He promoted conspiracy theories that had no basis in fact and were made entirely in bad faith because he could not tolerate losing an election.

You can say it doesn't affect you but you're the one who entered the debate without being willing to defend your opinion.

How do you think the insurrection at the capitol building should have been covered? What could Democrats have done to prevent Republicans from making completely false charges of voter fraud and trying to hang Mike Pence?

Just as a side note about the fairness doctrine: The fairness doctrine was revoked by a Republican appointee at the FCC. It's not clear whether it could have applied to cable news anyway without violating our first amendment.

[blackchubby38]

I admit to not having read a lot of the thread, but the last few days have been shocking but I think things have been building for a long time, for me the most worrying thing is the loss of independent non partisan news, nowadays it seems everyone is giving there view/spin of news, you can find woke-left leaning-right leaning-alt right news with no problem at all.



I think I have an idea on what you're trying to say and think its better illustrated in this point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oSf-kKv8hU

[blackchubby38]

I want to be really CLEAR about something. Trump, Giuliani, Hawley, Cruz, etc.... are responsible for what happened on Wednesday. The people who stormed the Capital are responsible for their own actions and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

But trying to understand how it could happen, along with everything else that has been going on in this country for the past 4 years, is not the same thing has condoning or making excuses for people's actions. Rather trying to figure how we can learn from our mistakes and move forward as a country. That point is made repeatedly in the video and is something I happen to agree with.

Because as scary as it might sound, someone worse and more competent than Trump can come along and exploit the divisions in our country and do a better job at succeeding where he and his cronies failed.

[sidney111]

I think I have an idea on what you're trying to say and think its better illustrated in this point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oSf-kKv8hU

That puts it a lot better than i can lol , thank you for posting it. I wish I could remember that professor’s name, if only for my curiosity of what she’s doing now.

[broncofan]

The video presupposes that there is a way that the mainstream media could have responded to what Trump did that would have avoided the harm. If the media said there was systematic electoral fraud (which is false) that wouldn't have avoided the violence but would have encouraged more. If they opposed it more stringently, then they could be blamed for people lashing out.

I'm sure there are problems with the media in this country, but there was no way to cover what Trump did that would have reduced the fury of his followers. The job of the media is to report the truth. There is no way to present their actions except as wholly dishonest and dangerous.

Every mainstream news feed I've seen other than fox news has said the election fraud allegations are false. That is a non-partisan and factual view.

[broncofan]

That puts it a lot better than i can lol , thank you for posting it. I wish I could remember that professor’s name, if only for my curiosity of what she’s doing now.
When you post other people's views and say this is what I think it's easy to ignore the contradictions. The article you posted said that 68% of Republicans think the election was not fair.

The cause of that is not media polarization. It is people telling them things that aren't true. Q anon, OANN, Fox News have told people things that can't stand up to scrutiny. You can't blame media outlets that rebutted these lies for people choosing to believe them.

These views have all of the coherence of Republicans who say that if Trump is impeached the impeachment will be the cause of more violence. So much for the party of personal responsibility. If upholding the constitution causes people to violate it that's quite a paradox. If pointing out that Donald Trump is lying causes people to believe those lies well then we might as well not even try to be honest. Well done.

[Stavros]

That puts it a lot better than i can lol , thank you for posting it. I wish I could remember that professor’s name, if only for my curiosity of what she’s doing now.

Katherine J. Cramer?

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/16/13645116/rural-resentment-elites-trump

(https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/16/13645116/rural-resentment-elites-trump)

[Stavros]

This article from last November by Joan Williams is sort of like a companion to Cramer-

https://hbr.org/2020/11/how-biden-won-back-enough-of-the-white-working-class

But it begs the queston -can Biden deliver jobs in 'Middle America', ravaged by Covid -?

[sidney111]

Katherine J. Cramer?

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/16/13645116/rural-resentment-elites-trump

(https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/16/13645116/rural-resentment-elites-trump)

Damn that’s impressive ��

[sidney111]

This article from last November by Joan Williams is sort of like a companion to Cramer-

https://hbr.org/2020/11/how-biden-won-back-enough-of-the-white-working-class

But it begs the queston -can Biden deliver jobs in 'Middle America', ravaged by Covid -?

At the moment I’d say no, but if they go on a rebuilding American infrastructure plan, which I seem to vaguely remember reading about, possibly they could provide new jobs.

[filghy2]

Yes I do include the mainstream media (not saying there as fanatical) who have been on a slow descent since the fair and balanced reporting law was removed https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine.

from the replies, it seems this moment will change nothing, and we will still be on the race to the extremes, for me that’s a shame, but being old and not living in the USA , won’t affect me a lot.

You still haven't put up any evidence for your claim that both sides are equally responsible for what has happened - or at least that the other side bears a large share of responsibility. You can't enter a discussion, not provide evidence for your argument, and then complain when other people don't accept it.

If you think that what happens in the world's major democracy won't have any effect on you then I don't think you've thought about it very deeply.

[sidney111]

You still haven't put up any evidence for your claim that both sides are equally responsible for what has happened - or at least that the other side bears a large share of responsibility. You can't enter a discussion, not provide evidence for your argument, and then complain when other people don't accept it.

If you think that what happens in the world's major democracy won't have any effect on you then I don't think you've thought about it very deeply.

Well considering I’d just come from viewing the Tgirls with really hard full erections thread, you could be right

[broncofan]

Well considering I’d just come from viewing the Tgirls with really hard full erections thread, you could be right
I'm glad you're alright. People in this country who watched the Confederate flag marched through their capitol are a bit more upset about it.

I am not against trying to understand structural causes of things even when they have more obvious proximate causes. For instance, if someone commits a murder I don't think it's irrelevant whether their unhappy childhood played a role. Likewise, when someone commits a terrorist act it may be useful to understand what policies lead to more or less terrorism. But that doesn't mean I blame parties who did nothing wrong or that it ever supersedes the initial analysis of who committed the crime and who lit the fuse.

The liberal media or the mainstream media is not a guilty party. What could they do but tell the truth about the bald lies Trump was telling? Outlets that amplified these lies and Trump share blame with the people who committed insurrection.

Are there structural problems that can be addressed that might improve social harmony in this country? Sure. But that doesn't make media outlets that corrected lies wrong nor does it say anything about the traitors who stoked this violence.

[filghy2]

This article from last November by Joan Williams is sort of like a companion to Cramer-

https://hbr.org/2020/11/how-biden-won-back-enough-of-the-white-working-class

But it begs the queston -can Biden deliver jobs in 'Middle America', ravaged by Covid -?

I can't remember the source, but I recall some analysis after the 2016 election that showed that the main explanator or Trump voting was racial anxiety rather than economic deprivation. Trump voters actually had higher incomes on average than non-Trump voters.

[filghy2]

Here's some sources on my point about racial anxieties underpinning support for Trump.
https://theintercept.com/2018/09/18/2016-election-race-class-trump/
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/economic-anxiety-didnt-make-people-vote-trump-racism-did/
https://www.prri.org/research/white-working-class-attitudes-economy-trade-immigration-election-donald-trump/
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Bowling-with-Trump_Fabian-et-al.pdf

This raises an obvious question. If the concerns of Trump voters are based on unfounded fears and/or prejudices, and can't be addressed without unfairly damaging the interests of other members of society, then how exactly are these to be addressed. In a democracy the interests of a minority cannot be allowed to take precedence over those of the majority. Trump's base is already significantly overrepresented in the electoral system - why do they deserve even more?

[Stavros]

Here's some sources on my point about racial anxieties underpinning support for Trump.
This raises an obvious question. If the concerns of Trump voters are based on unfounded fears and/or prejudices, and can't be addressed without unfairly damaging the interests of other members of society, then how exactly are these to be addressed. In a democracy the interests of a minority cannot be allowed to take precedence over those of the majority. Trump's base is already significantly overrepresented in the electoral system - why do they deserve even more?

An interesting set of links (I could not get The Nation to open), is the similar disconnect between reality and the voters. Many of the voters who chose to Leave the EU in the UK cited issues that were not direcly related to the EU. Some voted Leave beause they were opposed to Cameron's Austerity policies; some voted because they disliked immigrants -but from outside the EU-and often in areas where there was little immigration of any kind. One of the highest Remain votes was in London which has an above average cohort of immigrants from outside the EU.
On core issues, such as Sovereignty, many may have been swayed by Johnson's 'Take Back Control' slogan, but would not have been able to explain what it meant, and even fewer would have cited the more genuine anxiety that they did not want the UK to be part of the 'Ever Closer Union' that has been written into every treaty since Rome in 1957. Again, even when told there could be a risk to jobs in the UK, the sense that 'we' would be 'Taking Back Control' -of our borders, our laws, our money- was appealing, even where there was no evidence that it would make life in the UK better economically or protect jobs.

In the case of the US, where Race has been a defining issue since Jamestown, it is no surprise that this image people have of their country they see being 'stained' by people of the wrong colour. That there were times in the 19th century when their immigrant ancestors, from Hungary, Italy, Russia -to name just three- were seen as a threat does not register, just as the first anti-immigration laws were designed to halt the entry of the Chinese into the US, and in the 1920s, the Jews. But ask the question, Who does this country belong to? and the answer is not definitive. Trump banked on the view that his supporters see the US as a White, Christian country, and everyone not answering to that description is in some way a lesser American. And he relentlessly classified Americans according to a Yes or No question, until he asked the question Am I More Important Than the Constitution? And the answer came back: no.

In partisan terms, the Democrats have succeeded in building a coalition of the diverse groups that constitute the USA. At the Party Conventions in Chicago in 1968 and Miami in 1972, the party was seen as an incoherent collection of interest groups who insisted their cause was the right cause but did not speak to each other. Since then, they have been able to integrate those various interests, and appeal to a wider group of electors, even as the Republicans -Reagan aside- have relied on a smaller group of voters.

But if race is such an issue how does one account for the voters who chose Obama twice, then opted for Trump? It may be that the sense of belonging looks at Congress and takes the view they are out of touch, but I recall when Carter was elected they said he won because he was an Outsider from Georgia who would do things differently, and for all his successes in restoring the dignity of the Office that Nixon undermined, and the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel (and a real peace treaty between two warring states, not the financial thank you Jared Kushner is resposible for in 2020), Carter failed to build a working relationship with Congress, and was lumbered with the Iran Hostage Crisis at the end of his term.

Perhaps the sense of alienation from the centre of Government has always been there, so that economics and race are always the keys that unlock power, but not always at the same level of interest. Rebuiding the infrastructure of the US would demonstate locally where the tax dollars are going, but rebuilding the infrastructure has been on the agenda since Clinton and I don't know it has ever passed through a partisan Congress to actually happen, so I don't know if Biden will be able to do much about it without McConell's support, and I doubt he will get that.

So maybe its because people don't think the Government ever gets things done that is at the heart of their discontent?

[broncofan]

The problem for me is that it's not clear whether we're talking about what caused people to support Trump or what caused people to engage in insurrection.

Trump does represent a rejection of the elites. Instead of addressing points about subjects that are difficult to grasp he will call his opponents all sorts of names. For some people it is refreshing to see someone who takes him or herself seriously be belittled. For these people he is a hero because he's willing to say what they're thinking. The problem is that while he's been very effective at convincing some people he stands for them he has also been spectacularly corrupt, consistently dishonest, and has not attempted to solve any problems government usually addresses.

When he has violated norms, such as calling the media the enemy of the people, or declaring victory for himself in the middle of an election, his supporters like it because they dislike the people he dislikes. Sadly he also has systematically lied to them and violated our Constitution in every way imaginable. That's not a partisan view. He typically tells dozens of lies per week and then lies about the lies.

Once Trump started to develop a following many of his supporters took leads from him. When he tells them he's been cheated, even if he can't make it sound plausible, they are fanatical in their support. The people who are in the best position to do anything about it are members of his political party. But they have been intimidated by the messianic conspiracy theorists who threaten them if they even consider taking a reasonable view.

Those across the aisle and in the media are left trying to point out the many errors: that hydroxychloroquine is not a miracle cure for covid, that a vaccine will not be available in three months, that covid is not "a flu", that nobody shredded ballots, that dominion machines were not rigged, that there isn't a conspiracy in all of the cities with large Black populations to cheat him. If Republicans cannot find the courage to do this themselves, whatever that sacrifice costs them politically, then the only thing Democrats can do is try to enforce the law and follow the Constitution.

I would like to hear from somebody something concrete about how Democrats or the media could have responded to Trump trying to suppress the vote pre-election, claiming victory during the election, and going into full-on conspiracy theory mode after the election with the most brazen plans to destroy our democracy. Seriously? A less strident tone? Don't contradict him so much or you contribute to the polarization? I couldn't figure out what the effective response is to a deluge of nonsense. I know for sure it's not to acquiesce to the falsehoods.

[filghy2]

One issue that probably hasn't received the attention it deserves is who is running the country at present. The USA now seems to have no effective Federal government and won't for the next 9 days. What happens if there is some crisis in that time requiring the President to make decisions? We seem to have a situation in which members of the administration know that Trump is mentally incapable of doing his job, but won't formally do anything about it.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/opinion/is-trump-actually-still-in-control/ar-BB1cEDWz?ocid=msedgdhp

[Laphroaig]

Donald Trump just became the first American president to be impeached twice. Oh well, that's one way to ensure his place in the history books...

[KnightHawk 2.0]

It is way too late for Elaine Cho,Betsy DeVos,Hope Hicks,Chad Wolfe and other Trump Administration Officials to resign now and save their own asses,because they have enabled Donald Trump to commit impeachable offenses and abuse his powers for years and did absolutely nothing about it. They might as well stick around because within a week none of them is going to have a job,and nobody is going to hire them.

[filghy2]

Donald Trump just became the first American president to be impeached twice. Oh well, that's one way to ensure his place in the history books...

Only 5% of House Republicans thought that inciting an armed mob to storm the Capitol and then obstructing the security forces' response justified impeachment.

Some good news is that Republican voters' support for Trump seems to be falling away finally. https://www.vox.com/2021/1/15/22232847/poll-trump-approval-29-percent-republicans-support-collapsing-impeachment
Hopefully this will help at least 17 Senate Republicans to find some courage. I'm sure many of them would love to see Trump disbarred from running again - they just don't want to be seen to support it.

[Laphroaig]

Only 5% of House Republicans thought that inciting an armed mob to storm the Capitol and then obstructing the security forces' response justified impeachment.

Some good news is that Republican voters' support for Trump seems to be falling away finally. https://www.vox.com/2021/1/15/22232847/poll-trump-approval-29-percent-republicans-support-collapsing-impeachment
Hopefully this will help at least 17 Senate Republicans to find some courage. I'm sure many of them would love to see Trump disbarred from running again - they just don't want to be seen to support it.

Would be interesting to see what the ratio of Republicans to Trump supporters actually is. Twitter isn't exactly a great barometer, but a lot of Trump supporters on there saying they'll never vote Republican again. I suspect the real "silent majority" are the Republicans sighing with relief that Trump is gone and hoping that the next candidate will be more conventional republican, for want of a better phrase.

[filghy2]

There's some more discussion of recent polls here. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/since-the-capitol-attack-trumps-approval-rating-has-plummeted-at-a-record-rate/?ex_cid=trump-approval

While there's been a significant fall, around 2/3 to 3/4 of those identifying as Republicans still approve of Trump. A similar proportion of those approving say they strongly approve. So it looks like the majority of Republican voters are still pretty strong fans of Trump. Therein lies the problem for saner Republicans wanting to take back control of the party.

[broncofan]

Today a man was arrested with a fake inauguration credential and all kinds of ammo and weapons. A few days ago we heard from Sidney111 that the insurrection at the capitol was a both sides issue. Unfortunately he did not want to discuss it but just to post articles without challenge.

It seems to me one person could de-radicalize millions by admitting that the election fraud claims are false and that Joe Biden won. That person is Donald Trump. By needing to lie to millions of his fervent supporters he feeds the hatred that led to violence at the capitol and could lead to violence at the inauguration.

If a person could listen to Trump's call to Brad Raffensperger and not think that was unacceptable behavior then they will be difficult to reach. Or if they think Trump's response after the capitol breach was okay, then there's nothing to discuss. I will not find common ground with people who have no use for objective reality or basic fairness and we're not in a position where that kind of bullshit has to be placated either.

In other news, Mr. Camp Auschwitz, Confederate flag guy, and neo-nazi Baked Alaska have been arrested so far. They will join zip-tie guy in the pen where they belong.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/virginia-man-arrested-at-dc-checkpoint-with-gun-500-rounds-of-ammo_n_60035049c5b62c0057bd79dc?ncid=tweetlnkushpm g00000067

[filghy2]

Today a man was arrested with a fake inauguration credential and all kinds of ammo and weapons.

In other news, Mr. Camp Auschwitz, Confederate flag guy, and neo-nazi Baked Alaska have been arrested so far. They will join zip-tie guy in the pen where they belong.

We should be thankful that these people so often bring themselves undone with their brazen stupidity. The Capitol occupiers plastered their faces all over the internet, and now we have these guys getting arrested while openly carrying guns (another one yesterday). It seems the same delusionism that motivates their actions also undermines their ability to succeed - given that competence in anything requires a capacity to make realistic assessments.

[broncofan]

We should be thankful that these people so often bring themselves undone with their brazen stupidity. The Capitol occupiers plastered their faces all over the internet, and now we have these guys getting arrested while openly carrying guns (another one yesterday). It seems the same delusionism that motivates their actions also undermines their ability to succeed - given that competence in anything requires a capacity to make realistic assessments.
This one realtor lady who was screaming about revolution and broke a window personally requested a pardon from Trump. Her excuse was that he gave her permission which is an interesting one because if he accepts it that won't exactly help him. It also doesn't help her since I'm pretty sure our Constitution doesn't allow the President to deputize a Real estate agent to dissolve Congress. Mind you I haven't read the federalist papers so who knows.

I'm glad the senate trial of Trump is held in abeyance because it means Trump is less likely to pardon the seditionists. It's important they serve time imo.

You're right about the people so far who have tried to carry out these attacks. I think a lady today claimed she was in Trump's cabinet which maybe wasn't the best cover story. That's the latest one but it's not really news until it's organized and a slightly bigger threat.

But again, any other President in the last 50 years would have released a statement by now legitimizing Biden's win.

[Laphroaig]

This one realtor lady who was screaming about revolution and broke a window personally requested a pardon from Trump.

It's almost unbelievable until you hear her say it.

https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/1350253097818329089

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1350283872920072195

[KnightHawk 2.0]

It's almost unbelievable until you hear her say it.

https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/1350253097818329089

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1350283872920072195The only thing she deserves is a one way trip to federal prison for participating in a domestic terrorist attack.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

This one realtor lady who was screaming about revolution and broke a window personally requested a pardon from Trump. Her excuse was that he gave her permission which is an interesting one because if he accepts it that won't exactly help him. It also doesn't help her since I'm pretty sure our Constitution doesn't allow the President to deputize a Real estate agent to dissolve Congress. Mind you I haven't read the federalist papers so who knows.

I'm glad the senate trial of Trump is held in abeyance because it means Trump is less likely to pardon the seditionists. It's important they serve time imo.

You're right about the people so far who have tried to carry out these attacks. I think a lady today claimed she was in Trump's cabinet which maybe wasn't the best cover story. That's the latest one but it's not really news until it's organized and a slightly bigger threat.

But again, any other President in the last 50 years would have released a statement by now legitimizing Biden's win.Agree that any other president in the last 50 years would have released a statement by now legitimizing Biden's win. And in 3 more days Trump's term comes to end,and Biden's term begins.

[Stavros]

It's almost unbelievable until you hear her say it.

https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/1350253097818329089

https://twitter.com/RexChapman/status/1350283872920072195


Her mistake was to go public. She may fare better having a quiet word with Rudolph Giuliani Jr, "let Donald know I'm willing to negotiate, and cut him in on a tasty apartment block in Fort Worth...but I can't go over $1 million..."

[filghy2]

It may turn out to be a good thing that the Senate trial has been postponed until after Biden's inauguration because it gives Trump an incentive to behave. Even he must know that inciting more violence or pardoning the rioters would induce more Republican senators to vote for his conviction.

[Laphroaig]

Her mistake was to go public. She may fare better having a quiet word with Rudolph Giuliani Jr, "let Donald know I'm willing to negotiate, and cut him in on a tasty apartment block in Fort Worth...but I can't go over $1 million..."

There are rumours that people are paying Trump for pardons. At this point I haven't read a reliable source for that but I wouldn't put it past him.

[Laphroaig]

It may turn out to be a good thing that the Senate trial has been postponed until after Biden's inauguration because it gives Trump an incentive to behave. Even he must know that inciting more violence or pardoning the rioters would induce more Republican senators to vote for his conviction.

Does the delay also mean that the trial will commence with a Democrat rather than Republican controlled Senate? I'm not sure how much difference it makes to the raw numbers though.

[broncofan]

Does the delay also mean that the trial will commence with a Democrat rather than Republican controlled Senate? I'm not sure how much difference it makes to the raw numbers though.
Ossoff and Warnock get sworn in on January 22nd which means 50 Senators will be Democrats. To remove a President from office in the Senate (or keep him from running again), you need 2/3 vote, which is 67 Senators though. So even though time helps a little bit it's going to be difficult to move 17 Republicans given how few voted for impeachment in the House out of a much larger number.

I'm interested but don't know how much control of the process Democrats will have. Last time Democrats' ability to call witnesses and present evidence was stymied by Republicans who did not want to cooperate. There is a benefit in being able to have a thorough public investigation, though I'm sure the Department of Justice will conduct its own as well for the purposes of criminal charges against anyone who should be prosecuted.

[Stavros]

I have just read this very long, very detailed account of the campaign against the election mounted by lawyers Giuliani, Powell and Wood. It raises a simple question -why would lawyers for whom evidence is the key to judgment, make no attempt to verify their own claims so that they stand up to scrutiny? In the case of the voting machines, the evidence is either so absurd or non-existent one wonders how anyone can give it five minutes of credibility. In the case of Wood, he appears to be a deranged lunatic-when they sued him, members of his own law firm

"..."quoted long passages of apparently taped phone calls in which Wood had repeatedly referred to himself as “Almighty Lin” and had hinted at a special relationship with God. “I represent Moses,” he told them. “I represent Ananias the believer. I’m like the power of King David.” ".

It is a very detailed but fascinating study, but such are the intricacies of libel law in the US it is not clear out of the plethora of cases which, if any will result in firm convictions-.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-fox-news-sued-by-dominion-smartmatic-102628439.html

[broncofan]

It is a very detailed but fascinating study, but such are the intricacies of libel law in the US it is not clear out of the plethora of cases which, if any will result in firm convictions-.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/rudy-giuliani-sidney-powell-fox-news-sued-by-dominion-smartmatic-102628439.html
Libel law in the U.S. is different from libel law in the UK in at least two obvious ways. First, in the U.S., when the plaintiff is a public figure, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the injurious statements were false. I've stated before but in my view this isn't the more significant difference because the burden of proof is "preponderance of the evidence", which means more likely than not. But it matters a bit and matters in terms of who has to make their case and who merely defends.

The more important difference I think is that when the plaintiff is a public figure, they also have to show the defendant acted with "actual malice". The standard of actual malice requires that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was false. This is the more significant hurdle because it's not enough that you made a false, reputation damaging statement and that the plaintiff proved it was. They also have to show that you either knew it was false or that it was so reckless that you should be liable. This link I provide says that the burden of proof for showing that they acted with "actual malice" is clear and convincing evidence.

It's usually tough to show someone knew their statement was false but you can show they acted with reckless disregard if they based their statement on nothing. I would think Dominion is on fairly good footing legally but that doesn't mean everyone who deserves to win a lawsuit wins every time. That's why there are settlements but Dominion has said they are determined not to settle.

This is a decent link for U.S. defamation law (libel and slander the two sub-sets) in case I didn't explain it well. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

[broncofan]

The more important difference I think is that when the plaintiff is a public figure, they also have to show the defendant acted with "actual malice". The standard of actual malice requires that the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for whether it was false. This is the more significant hurdle because it's not enough that you made a false, reputation damaging statement and that the plaintiff proved it was. They also have to show that you either knew it was false or that it was so reckless that you should be liable. This link I provide says that the burden of proof for showing that they acted with "actual malice" is clear and convincing evidence.
I read the article you posted and it's a very good read. I see now that they did include the actual malice standard but I can add a little bit to it I think.

They state the standard requires proof of reckless disregard for whether a statement is false and that this is a high standard. They are correct but saying it that way makes it seem like it's always a very tough affirmative showing. But contrast "reckless disregard" with a lower burden of fault such as "negligence". When someone is negligent they are merely careless. If someone makes a false statement and they are negligent about it being false that might mean they heard something and could have done some research to verify it but were too lazy or preoccupied. They then said it without putting much thought into it.

On the other hand, someone who is reckless doesn't really care much about whether what they're saying is true. There is an assumption they're acting in bad faith and trying to cause damage. So maybe while you can't show they knew what they were saying is false, you can show they didn't care whether it was true or not. The number of false statements Trump's lawyers made, the fact that the statements were calculated for maximum damage to Dominion and political advantage for Trump, and were not even plausible makes reckless disregard seem like their exact mode of operating. That's my view but we'll see what comes out in court.

[Stavros]

They state the standard requires proof of reckless disregard for whether a statement is false and that this is a high standard. They are correct but saying it that way makes it seem like it's always a very tough affirmative showing. But contrast "reckless disregard" with a lower burden of fault such as "negligence". When someone is negligent they are merely careless. If someone makes a false statement and they are negligent about it being false that might mean they heard something and could have done some research to verify it but were too lazy or preoccupied. They then said it without putting much thought into it.


What I find interesting in your post and the section I highlighted in Bold, is that in the cases of Giuliani, Powell and Wood, they are lawyers of many years experience, so the assumption must be that they conducted due diligience on their cases before presenting them in Court, but in fact I think it can be proven they did not. In one astonishing case, Giuliani presented an Affidavit to a Court in Michigan detailing election fraud in counties that, as named, were in Minnesota not Michigan, if that is not negligence I don't know what is, but is this the kind of negligence that cannot be excused by Giuliani that a member of his staff was at fault not him?

If they can be proven to have used the law for political reasons, and in the process violated basic legal practice, such as checking facts, due diligence on the ownership of the election machines, etc, would this not weaken their defence?