nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

ancapailldorcha

This thread is a continuation of the megathreads for discussing the presidency of Donald Trump and any matters which relate to this.

Please keep discussion civil and constructive and bear the charter in mind before posting.

Update 23/9/20:

Threadbanned users:

Outlaw Pete
everlast75
mcmoustache
lawrencesummers
RIGOLO

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dohnjoe

Gbear wrote: »

What he seemed to do was make it more acceptable in the mainstream. Leading to a greater capacity to radicalise and motivate more overt action.

It's a symptom of a sick society. That said, if it's shorn of a figurehead, and if it's rebuked by the mainstream, the amount of cross-polination and vindication of these views will probably reduce the effects of it on everyone else.

Indeed, but we've had 4 years of Republican politicians kowtowing to him with record support among Republicans. Most will likely see the 6th as a "tactical blunder" rather than an inherent symptom of the madness taking over the GOP. There'll be some fancy speeches, a few senators speaking out, but none of this is going away anytime soon.

Gbear

kowloon wrote: »

If Trump hadn't won in 2016 how much of the current climate would still exist? It's all bubbling under the surface, and it won't disappear in ten days. Trump seems to have been the lightning rod for it, but how much of the discontent did he actually create? People will be writing essays on the role of Trump in all of this someday with a little more hindsight. Being in the moment is a little weird.

It's waxed and waned through history.
The Oklahoma City bombing happened in 1995, and it was from the same kind of ideology and militantism that led to the storming of the Capitol. Or Waco. Or Ruby Ridge.

Trump didn't make people suseptible to conspiracy theories, irrational fear of the government and extreme nationalism.

What he seemed to do was make it more acceptable in the mainstream. Leading to a greater capacity to radicalise and motivate more overt action.

It's a symptom of a sick society. That said, if it's shorn of a figurehead, and if it's rebuked by the mainstream, the amount of cross-polination and vindication of these views will probably reduce the effects of it on everyone else.

kowloon

looksee wrote: »

...so the blame landed just where it should.

Plenty of nuts still ranting about how Antifa started it all and ruined a peaceful protest. You couldn't make this up. (Actually, you could, and they have)

looksee

If even half a dozen BLM people had been counter protesting at the Capitol they would have been held responsible for the entire event (far right flags, badges etc notwithstanding), sensibly they heeded calls to stay away so the blame landed just where it should. Maybe if there had been no uninvited white supremacists etc at any of the BLM protests those protests might have been more peaceful?

[Deleted User]

Close to half of Trump/GOP voters are completely fine with what happened at the Capitol the other day. You can bet that a large proportion of the rest would still be willing to hold their nose.

Even CNN didn't manage to get across what happened on the Hill the other day. The savagery of the cop being killed, gallows being built, how close the terrorists got to the chamber.

wandererz

I suppose it could be said that in a "normal" "standard" presidential democracy that Hilary Clinton would have won the presidency based on the popular vote.

Trump accepted his nomination at the time and rejoiced even though he did not win the popular vote.

Yet now that the tables are turned against him he will not accept both the popular vote and the electoral college votes.

Petulancy at its best rather than Presidency.

kowloon

If Trump hadn't won in 2016 how much of the current climate would still exist? It's all bubbling under the surface, and it won't disappear in ten days. Trump seems to have been the lightning rod for it, but how much of the discontent did he actually create? People will be writing essays on the role of Trump in all of this someday with a little more hindsight. Being in the moment is a little weird.

ancapailldorcha

wandererz wrote: »

FAKE President
FAKE Presidency

Hilary was the legitimate President.

wandererz wrote: »

FAKE News

Mod: Cut this out please.

Dohnjoe

12gauge dave wrote: »

Why when hillary supporters rioted night in night out about 2016 election result and black lives matter rioting all year leads to no democrats getting banned on twitter?

Right wing riot once in 4 years and the president of the United States get banned from twitter?

Hillary conceded the day after the election. There were protests, but most were peaceful
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/trump-election-protests.html

Trump hasn't conceded the election, quite the contrary he has made repeated false and baseless claims that the election was fixed, culminating in inciting a mob to march on Congress.

Dohnjoe

wandererz wrote: »

FAKE President
FAKE Presidency

Hilary was the legitimate President.

Nope, Trump legitimately won.

wandererz

Cut

Dohnjoe

Blowfish wrote: »

Doesn't matter, the dems are thinking more long term. In 10/20 years time, when a GOP presidential candidate decides to run on being the 'law and order' candidate, the first thing that'll be asked is how they are supposed to claim they support 'law and order' if they didn't impeach the person who incited a mob to overthrow the US government.

Trump ran being a consummate hypocrite, he was one of the most popular GOP candidates ever, he swept the field. He can spout "law and order" in the same sentence he incites a mob and many Republican voters don't see the contradiction. The 6th of Jan was one of the most shameful events in US history, yet over 60% of Republicans think he did nothing wrong.

Any GOP senator who votes to impeach will be remembered as a traitor by a majority of Republican voters, now and in 10 years, how many are going to take that risk?

Blowfish

Dohnjoe wrote: »

90% of Republicans support Trump. Any GOP senate member who votes to impeach Trump will be seen as a traitor by a significant portion of that base.

Doesn't matter, the dems are thinking more long term. In 10/20 years time, when a GOP presidential candidate decides to run on being the 'law and order' candidate, the first thing that'll be asked is how they are supposed to claim they support 'law and order' if they didn't impeach the person who incited a mob to overthrow the US government.

Dohnjoe

Christy42 wrote: »

Still good to have it on record which representatives are at worst, mildly miffed over an attempted nazi coup. I am sure a few opponents down the line will be able to make some ads over it. Now he still has support, like Nixon did. Let's see how it is in the future.

90% of Republicans support Trump. Any GOP senate member who votes to impeach Trump will be seen as a traitor by a significant portion of that base.

Christy42

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Some polls coming out reported in the Guardian. Only 13% of Republicans polled want him out before term ends. Absolutely no chance of getting two-thirds of the Senate.

Still good to have it on record which representatives are at worst, mildly miffed over an attempted nazi coup. I am sure a few opponents down the line will be able to make some ads over it. Now he still has support, like Nixon did. Let's see how it is in the future.

duploelabs

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Some polls coming out reported in the Guardian. Only 13% of Republicans polled want him out before term ends. Absolutely no chance of getting two-thirds of the Senate.

That 57 of the votes, only 9 more needed

Dohnjoe

Some polls coming out reported in the Guardian. Only 13% of Republicans polled want him out before term ends. Absolutely no chance of getting two-thirds of the Senate.

StringerBell

Igotadose wrote: »

Some will vote to impeach - Romney, Murkowski, Toomey maybe. That's 3. Maybe as many as 10. But you need 66 which is 17(?) if all the Democratic senators vote to impeach.

But they won't kick him out. Still, the impeachment needs to go forward and their names recorded for history.

There was some interesting discussion about the process in the senate. That you need 2/3rds of the voting members, but it doesn't specifically state there needs to be a full senate apparently. 20 GOP senators could not show up for the vote, abstain if they don't feel they can vote to impeach and allow the senate to impeach anyway.

I don't think it is much more likely to happen but it was something I didn't know was possible (maybe it isn't, I only caught the beginning of a conversation on it I haven't looked into it myself yet)

duploelabs

basillarkin wrote: »

Impeachment won't succeed. Better off trying to get him on criminal charges when he leaves office. The geogria sos phonecall should be enough for that alone.

There's plenty of enough indictments for Trump to deal with when he leaves office before the incitement to sedition comes into play so why not set a precident for future presidents that this is not on

aloyisious

Gbear wrote: »

I can absolutely see him getting interviews on 60 minutes, or CNN, or be interviewed in papers about his time in the White House.

He should never get that opportunity, and certainly not without at least heavily editing and fact checking him as he goes, or giving context for his nonsense.

Eg,

"We had a great election, but the fraud... the fraud it was terrible." - Trump

"This is a lie. 5 people died as a result of this lie in the terrorist attack on the Capitol building". - Aside from the producer/interviewer

That's the reality; as shown by people commenting yesterday that the twitter ban denied him free speech. You'll have to expect him to tell lies, correct him on them yourself for the record & have him reply "fake news - loser".

Gbear

pixelburp wrote: »

I can't see Trump being invited to too many mainstream conferences or talks - not least because the man has no eloquence despite Stephen Miller's assertions to the contrary -, but assuming he doesn't flee the country or be jailed, could see him as Main Speaker at a plethora of Conservative, and/or those disparate "family values" bigot conferences. He'll dine out among that demographic if he wants to, along with guest appearances on Newsmax et al

I can absolutely see him getting interviews on 60 minutes, or CNN, or be interviewed in papers about his time in the White House.

He should never get that opportunity, and certainly not without at least heavily editing and fact checking him as he goes, or giving context for his nonsense.

Eg,

"We had a great election, but the fraud... the fraud it was terrible." - Trump

"This is a lie. 5 people died as a result of this lie in the terrorist attack on the Capitol building". - Aside from the producer/interviewer

pixelburp

I can't see Trump being invited to too many mainstream conferences or talks - not least because the man has no eloquence despite Stephen Miller's assertions to the contrary -, but assuming he doesn't flee the country or be jailed, could see him as Main Speaker at a plethora of Conservative, and/or those disparate "family values" bigot conferences. He'll dine out among that demographic if he wants to, along with guest appearances on Newsmax et al

Gbear

basillarkin wrote: »

Impeachment won't succeed. Better off trying to get him on criminal charges when he leaves office. The geogria sos phonecall should be enough for that alone.

One doesn't preclude the other.

This is another way to ensure he can no longer hold elected office.

It's vitally important to US democracy that all tools are used to elminate Trump from public life.

That goes for civil society rejecting him - no book deals, no speaking engagements, no platform for his bull****.

It goes for the mechanism of democracy attempting to eliminate him from contention for power ever again.

It goes for civil law, in sueing him into oblivion.

It goes for criminal law, in sending him to jail.

Each one must be pursued independently and operate under the assumption that all the others will fail.

Windmill100000

basillarkin wrote: »

Impeachment won't succeed. Better off trying to get him on criminal charges when he leaves office. The geogria sos phonecall should be enough for that alone.

Those transcripts are absolutely brutal, begging to find him votes from anywhere....

Ellian

basillarkin wrote: »

No they still don't have nowhere near enough votes

If I knew I didn't have the votes personally I'd still do it. Just to have everyone nail their colours to the mast. Or to try and weasel out of it, and have that dodge as a matter of public record.

basillarkin

Water John wrote: »

The impeachment vote in the Senate will be after the inauguration with McConnell no longer in charge. does that make a difference to the outcome of the vote?
Chickens coming home to roost for the GOP comes to mind.

No they still don't have nowhere near enough votes

Water John

The impeachment vote in the Senate will be after the inauguration with McConnell no longer in charge. does that make a difference to the outcome of the vote?
Chickens coming home to roost for the GOP comes to mind.

basillarkin

Impeachment won't succeed. Better off trying to get him on criminal charges when he leaves office. The geogria sos phonecall should be enough for that alone.

[Deleted User]

In relation to an impeachment, it would be within GOP interests to back it tbh. Otherwise they run the risk of him splitting the vote in 2024 as an independent.

aloyisious

For info only, there was a precursor to the Washington DC Capitol event held at the Capitol building in Oregon on 21st Dec last, that time with an Oregon GOP state rep, Mike Nearman, of that state's House opening a fire door and letting in intruders before Oregon State Troopers forced them back out over a nine minute VTR period. The building was closed to the public on Covid-19 rules with a special session of the state representatives in a special legislative session at the time. The recording was made available under a Public Records request.

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/2021/01/07/oregon-rep-mike-nearman-allowed-protesters-in-state-capitol-building/6583097002/