Where were you in 2016 when the Democrats tried to stop the electoral college? Where were you in 2018 when BLM invaded the Senate Office Building to protest the Supreme Court Nominee? Do insurrectionists normally carry guns? Where were you during Trump’s inauguration when BLM set fire to Washington?
What fake arguments! I call bullshit on this whole partisan essay.
"The Democrats" didn't try to stop the Electoral College. A couple of members voiced objections, and were *immediately* gaveled out of order by Democratic Vice President Joe Biden.
BLM didn't "invade" the Senate. Protestors who bought tickets to attend the confirmation hearing stood up and protested during the hearings to disrupt them; nobody entered the building forcefully or unlawfully.
Insurrectionists don't have to carry guns, even though some of the protesters that day were armed.
And whatever protesters did during Trump's inauguration, they weren't egged on by Hilary Clinton or any members of the existing Presidential administration. Both sides of the aisle have their radicals, and that will never change. Goldberg is criticizing Trump for exploiting and encouraging them.
These arguments aren't fake. They are entirely legitimate. There is no left-wing equivalent to Trump, who attempted to upend our Constitutional order using the highest office in the land (and if you've been paying attention to recent revelations, you know this all goes much further than the January 6th insurrection - Trump was even toying with declaring martial law, for heavens' sake). You pointing out relatively inconsequential political stunts by activists and/or a couple of minor Congressional politicians doesn't even come close.
You agree that Democrats (many, not "a couple") objected to the counting of votes. So I am correct in that. I never said BLM invaded the Senate, I said they invaded the Senate Office Building to protest Kavanaugh, which they DID. They were unruly and threatening, much like the J6 protestors . So I am right on that. Trump NEVER asked people to enter the capitol building and so that is a straight up lie. Trump supporters also didn't plant bombs or burn down buildings at any time in history, so compared to the Democrat terror armies of Antifa and BLM they behaved in an exemplary manner. Show me the list of people charged with carrying guns. Nobody did that. That is a lie. One person had pepper spray. Should he do life? The Democrats have chosen to imprison people for a year in what amounts to a dungeon for illegal parading and disrupting Congress. They are political prisoners. Nobody has been charged with insurrection or terrorism. That is all made up to suit your idiotic narrative. You are not fooling anyone except yourselves. Go back to your cry closet. Bawl your eyes out.
"Trump supporters also didn't plant bombs or burn down buildings..." There is a photograph of someone planting (alleged) pipe bombs near the capitol on January 5th of 2021. Interestingly, this person has never been identified, let alone arrested. This as the FBI has tracked down grandmothers in Alaska and knocked their doors down for the crime of trespassing inside the capitol. Why is that?
The pipe bomber carried a cell phone. The FBI can get location data easy on this guy. That is how they know who was in the capitol bldg. The pipe bomb guy was a Fed. Just like Roy Epps was a Fed.
Ok amigo, lets get a couple of things straight here.
Firstly, I don't support anyone rioting, looting, or destroying property in protest. I'm quite critical of wokeness and I think that the BLM movement, sympathies notwithstanding, has become, as they say, "problematic". I'm not even a Democrat, and while I do generally consider myself liberal and a progressive capitalist, I have no problem criticizing the excesses of the left. I don't play for a team.
Which brings me to my second point. You need to stop thinking you can justify everything Trump or his supporters do by comparing it to something done by someone you consider to be playing for Team Blue. This is the real world, not a two-team pissing contest.
Our democracy is teetering on the brink here, and last I checked the people crying were the ones who can't accept that Trump lost and who are indulging in fever-dream fantasies of having their country stolen from them and what sort of extra-legal means they can use to steal it back. And all you seem to care about is how effectively you can own the other side. Trump can be as corrupt, mendacious, and authoritarian as he wants and it's all just partisan bullshit as long as there's some Democrat or woke activists you can criticize. That's not how reality works.
Yes, there is something to be said for setting moral precedents; "whataboutism" isn't always wrong. But you can't just draw any parallel you like. Activist riots in the streets or loud protests by people lawfully admitted to a Senate hearing do not set a precedent for attempting to undermine the certifying of a lawfully administered election. A few Democrats (*seven*, if you'd like the exact count) attempting to lodge unserious objections without even the required signatures do not set a precedent for *almost the entire House Republican caucus* to object to the election results without any valid reason. And Maxine Waters making some ill-considered remark does not set a precedent for the sitting President of the United States committing a blatant act of sedition in an attempt to upend our Constitutional order.
Unless people like you start opening your eyes and realizing that the actions and sympathies of a small sliver of extremist Democrats, however objectionable and obnoxious, do not justify an autocratic takeover of our republic by a political party which has succumbed to a personality cult and punishes members who don't blatantly lie to the American public about the integrity of our elections, our union is in grave peril.
Seems to me that you don't even have eyes to open - only ears to hear what you are told to hear and a mouth to speak what you are told to speak. You are a good soldier for tyranny.
Once again Neil, ping me when you have something substantive to say, instead of a generic quote that sounds like it came from "The Complete Idiot's Guide To: Online Trolling".
Actually, Maxine Waters ill-considered comments led to actual harassment of Trump staff, from Sarah Sanders on down. Rand Paul was almost killed by his own neighbor who hated Trump. Which is more of an insurrection--invading the Capital building for two hours or planting the seeds of a Russian hoax that ate up all the Washington oxygen for four years.
As for Trump, the loyalty that people show for him is a direct correlation to the hatred leveled against him by media, etc. If people love Trump, it is for two reasons: he's the first politician, Democrat or Republican, who actually listened to people who felt abandoned by their government; also, the steaming pile of hatred thrown at Trump for years, off the wall accusations, the normalizing of explosive rhetoric, and the singular determination to destroy the man and anyone who supported him forced a backdraft that set American politics aflame.
I voted for Trump in 2016 as a vote against Hillary. I just couldn't do it. Yes, I held my nose and voted for the strange orange man with the golden escalator, and felt weird about it. However, two years into his presidency and the buildup of false accusations, distortions (remember kids in cages, cages built by Obama?) and outright lies and I was in with both feet. If the Democrats and the liberal media think that Trump supporters are too loyal to him, they have only themselves to blame.
I don't know where you're getting that Waters' comments are what led to Sarah Sanders getting flak at a restaurant or Rand Paul's unfortunate incident. I could just as easily claim that Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric led to the El Paso shooter. He was certainly an inspiration to the Christchurch lunatic, as well as Cesar Sayoc, who sent pipe bombs to Democrats.
The accusation regarding Obama and cages is misleading; under Obama incarceration of children was used only in exceptional circumstances - when the parent was being charged with a crime or was somehow deemed a threat to the child, or when the child showed up unaccompanied. In particular, Obama did not have a policy of separating families; Trump did, and lied claiming that it was a policy he inherited from Obama. That's a false accusation and a distortion. The "kids in cages" accusation against Trump may be somewhat careless, but it represents a significant truth that Trump's defenders attempt to refute on a technicality. That's bumper-sticker politics for you.
I've already made clear in many posts here that the Russian "hoax" was not a hoax; I'm exhausted repeating it. But I'll note one interesting thing about it: the anti-anti-Trump reaction to the investigation is a microcosm of the anti-anti-Trump reaction overall, specifically with regard to your claim that it "ate up all the oxygen for four years". Just like the "Russia hoax" crowd wants the entire investigation into Trump to be about Carter Page and the Steele Dossier, so do they want Trump's entire corrupt tenure to be about the Russia investigation. That's a strawman.
Suffice it to say, if you think that the Russia investigation is the basis for all, or even most of the antipathy toward Trump, you are misinformed, just like many of Trump's supporters would like you to be. You could completely forget about Trump's Russia connections (which are very real, regardless of whether or not he was guilty of criminal conspiracy) and still have the most shamelessly destructive Presidency of modern times, and possibly ever. While many of my fellow progressives focus on Trump's xenophobia, sexism, race-baiting, and other obnoxious qualities, I always tell them it's a mistake to lead with that. Despite the seriousness of such issues, they are also issues with deep cultural discrepancies, thanks in no small part to progressive overreach over the years. There are other things I could name, like his incompetence, terrible judgement, poor understanding of economics, vainglorious gullibility, utter ignorance of American government and history, ... these are perhaps "typical" criticisms that might be leveled at other presidents (albeit not likely in tandem) that reflect on someone's overall qualification to execute the duties of a U.S. President.
But Trump's real issue is his narcissism and selfishness, which borders on sociopathy. Time and again Trump has put the interests of Trump before the interests of America, all while claiming (like a typical populist demagogue) that he was doing it "for the people". His DOJ fought to eviscerate the ACA and end the protection of pre-existing conditions while he lied and claimed he was preserving it; he showed open contempt for valued American relationships and trashed geopolitically strategic initiatives because of his vain need to remake everything in his image; he routinely complained about the caution with which vaccines were being developed because be believed it would hurt his chances of re-election; he pardoned actual war criminals (murderers) to use as political props; he pardoned a guy who should be in jail right now for fleecing Trump's own supporters with a "build the wall" scam; he abandoned our strategic position near the Turkey/Syria border after a call with the president of Turkey, where Trump has financial interests; he refused to divest himself of his businesses like every other President to avoid conflicts of interest; he lavished praise on autocrats who pretended to like and respect him while treating like dirt friends and allies unwilling to play sycophant; ... I could go on like this far longer than you'd care to read.
He has also systematically dismantled many of the norms and institutional guardrails that the American presidency has relied upon for all of its history. His normalization of outright lying, abuse of his powers for his own political purposes, making money off of his position as President, undermining the legitimacy of other branches of government, openly communicating expectations of favorable rulings from his Supreme Court appointments, purposefully retaining "acting" Cabinet officials so that he doesn't have to worry about Senate ratification, open nepotism, flouting the Hatch Act, urging government employees to flout the law (even with promises of pardons at times), etc.
I could go on, but let's just conclude with the offense that dwarfs all of these, by far: his attempt to undermine and subvert our electoral system, with completely baseless accusations that have been refuted at every turn, delivering a serious wound to the legitimacy of our democracy. Set aside how the scenes of January 6th changed the way that the rest of the world sees America - airing our dysfunction and dealing a huge blow to our reputation as a stable democracy. This attack was the tip of the iceberg - through the investigations of the Jan 6th committee we are learning all about the elaborate plans Trump and his minions were laying to attempt to subvert a valid election. Plans which were doomed to fail, but only for the integrity of Republicans of good faith, who have already become a distinct minority in Congress and in many party state chapters. Trump will try this again, with a party that is now far more corrupted than it was even a year ago - thanks to him.
I am reading this late, but you lay everything out so well. And, I fear as you do that next time he will succeed with the deep seated corruption and false narratives spreading today. Anyone with integrity is out; those who will spread the narratives are in.
Oh, and with regard to "Trump supporters also didn't plant bombs or burn down buildings at any time in history", I guess you weren't paying attention when Cesar Sayoc sent mail bombs to Democratic politicians. And I suppose you think that the numerous incidents of right wing terror that we've witnessed in recent years are all committed by people who somehow don't support Trump and are in no way motivated by his anti-immigrant rhetoric. The Proud Boys must be Jo Jorgenson supporters.
Like I said, both the left and right have their radicals and neither is incapable of violence. If you're intent on playing this game of "which side is worse", you will be hard pressed to make a case that the right, with its white nationalist militias and gun-waving militant Evangelicals is somehow less of a violent threat than the left.
You are just another deep stater accusing Trump of things he never did and his supporters of the fake crime of being white supremacist terrorists while excusing your well paid pals in the Democrat terror armies of BLM and Antifa for the actual crime of burning down the cities. There are no white supremacist militias and all all you glowies can stop trying to convince people that there are. Your propaganda is false and your own crimes are real, including by the way stuffing the ballot boxes on 3 Nov. I am not your amigo and you smug government people starting breaking America when you lied about Trump/Russia and used the security services to destroy the Trump administration. We are done with comity. We are done with TV news. We are done with Twitter. You can not fool us anymore. We see you.
I agree with everything you said except I do believe right-wing militias exist. I also think they are marginal and are every bit as despised by the vast majority of conservatives as they are by the liberals who fuel them.
Of course they exist. The Three Percenters and Oath Keepers aren't figments of our imaginations.
And I hope you are right about them being despised by most of the right. Certainly most of the left despises the punks in Portland and the people who destroy property in protests.
But what concerns me is that, according to polls, most Republicans believe Joe Biden won the 2020 election through fraud, and a disturbing percentage of them believe violence may be necessary to remedy this.
Yeah, the "amigo" was sarcasm. Would've assumed that was clear.
Also, I don't watch TV news, nor do I have a Twitter account, so if you're aiming those comments at me you're mistaken.
Also, I never accused his supporters of being white supremacists.
I said white supremacists support him, to counter your statements about Antifa/BLM, who are also just a segment of the left.
And your belief that people "lied" about Trump/Russia comes from you selectively conflating the overall narrative with aspects of it that were false (e.g. the Steele Dossier) and ignoring the overall truth (that Russia ran an organized campaign to help get Trump elected, and the Trump campaign willingly accepted this help, even if they did not meet the requirements for "criminal conspiracy").
As for who "broke" America, I can only assume you must be too young to realize that America has been "breaking" for some time. We've been at each other's throats now for a generation. Trump was the guy who came in and gave it all an air of normalcy and legitimacy - the first President who tried to exploit our cultural divisions for his political purposes instead of making some effort to unite us as Americans. He isn't a visionary who came in to "shake things up". He's a conman who unexpectedly won election to an office for which he was entirely unfit, and demonstrated that by playing with the Presidency like it was a toy instead of a sacred duty to discharge.
And you've clearly bought into it. Your denunciation of left-wing nonsense means very little if you are incapable of filtering out right-wing conspiracy theory bullshit. Stop putting stock in unfalsifiable accusations of the "deep state" and ignoring overwhelming evidence against "stuffing ballot boxes", or you will continue to be just as much a part of the problem as the people you clearly hate so much.
Señorito, I was drafted for the Viet Nam war. Nobody gives a shit about the few pennies that the Russians spent on a few Facebook ads in 2016, that is nothing. Nobody buys your imaginary white supremacists. All you government employees with your giant paychecks and your cushy retirements live off the backs of decent productive citizens and you hate the idea that we are done carrying you around. Trump was the only one who fought against you and your Woke elite masters on our behalf. We are done with your greedy sinecures and your dismissive hatred. We know what you are. We see you.
Whoa! A little bit judgmental are we? White nationalist militias? Gun waving militant Evangelicals? Militias are everywhere. Isn't Antifa a leftist, Communist militia? Isn't BLM a black nationalist militia? Bringing up "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" hasn't quite crashed into crazy land but it has skidded against the guard rails in spots. Oh, and I know tons of atheists who own guns; even a few Unitarians. Gun ownership crosses all boundaries and all races. What do you think that the black gangs in Chicago are using to blast children playing in their front yards--bows and arrows? And all those cops who are being ambushed and killed. Is it done by dirty looks and evil wishes? Hexes maybe? The thing about gun toting, rootin tootin Evangelicals is that for all the rhetoric, they don't actually shoot people. Not one of the rioters on Jan 6 brought a gun. They brought buffalo hats and face paint, but no one was shot except Ashli Babbitt. Now I admit that the members of Congress are not used to being shot at or even threatened with anything but bad press. Still, Jan 6 sparked a hell of a lot more pearl clutching and sky is falling panic than it did actual damage. Only one person died on either side as a result of some action during the "Insurrection," Ashli Babbitt who was trying to escape from the press of the crowd.
Get to know me James, and you'll find I'm one of the least judgmental people you'll know. It's one of the reasons I'm increasingly disgusted with the far left wing of progressivism.
But my statements about white nationalism and American Evangelicals aren't just opinions I've gleaned from my limited window on the world; these are conclusions of people who have studied the American Evangelical movement. I realize that there are lots of Evangelicals and I am painting with a broad brush here. I don't mean to color everyone who identifies as such.
But there has been a well documented, growing culture of hyper-masculinity and obsession with violence in service of religious aims among American Evangelicals over the last 20 years or so. It's real - you can see it in opinion polls, in the Christian religious imagery and speech on display at gatherings like Jan 6th, in the strange merging of Christianity and QAnon, and the Christ-like loyalty to Trump. The FBI has identified white nationalist terrorism as a growing and significant threat. Over the years it has mostly been "lone wolves" (Timothy McVeigh, Dylan Roof, John Timothy Earnest, Kevin Harpham, etc.) but many have been motivated by the ideologies of more organized groups.
Yes, you can point to left wing acts of violence. BLM is not a militia - it's a hashtag, backed by a clueless organization. Antifa doesn't even have the organization. I'm not going to defend either of them; if you think I'm taking the side of lawbreaking as protest (much less street gangs and thugs) you have the wrong idea about me.
The problem is, organizations like the Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, Proud Boys, etc. are organized and acting under the pretense of patriotism and defending American democracy. Stewart Rhodes, the head of the Oath Keepers, has been charged with sedition in his role on January 6th - he was actively organizing an infiltration into the Capitol building that day. And you're wrong about people not being armed - several people were charged with bringing guns with them that day, and in general there's no reason to expect that we'd know about others because people weren't searched and most of the arrests occurred after the fact. This is a serious issue - street gangs don't recruit online or through political ideology, and protests spontaneously turning violent is an unfortunately unavoidable (though thankfully infrequent) cost of living in a free society. They just aren't normally organized and instigated by the White House, however one wishes to blame politicians for ideology run amok.
I hope you are right about all of the rhetoric being posturing - but you're wrong in thinking that it hasn't already resulted in numerous acts of violence. I see little reason to think that it won't get worse - primarily because it has been effectively given the imprimatur of the leader of the Republican Party. Trump will give a disclaimer here or there to cover his ass (like his use of the term "peacefully" in the Jan 6th speech), but even if one naively believes he doesn't know what he's doing, his followers take all of that with a wink and a nod - just like the Proud Boys claimed to have "gotten the message" after Trump's "stand down and stand by" line during the debate. And in any case, his claims of having their "country stolen from them" has given them all the motivation they'll ever need. I'm not trying to sling arrows here; I'm legitimately worried.
How easy people forget that the whole purpose of Russian scandal was to claim that Trump DID not win fairly and millions of our countryman still think that it is true. In my mind, "Russian Hoax" played much bigger role then Jan.6th in undermining our political system. And can you please explain Maxine Waters who instructed her supporters to harass administration? Are you saying that arson and destruction in DC in 2016 win does not matter because it was outside? So far I did not see any proof that Trump actively encouraged any unlawful actions. Under the year of conspiracy theories coming true, may be we can wait to see actual facts before making our own arguments.
I'm getting tired of this ridiculous argument. The claim was not that Trump rigged the election. The claim was that Russia engaged in a wide ranging campaign of propaganda and misinformation to help Trump get elected, which was *absolutely true*. There really were Russian troll farms that invented fake stories spread through Facebook and other social media platforms. Numerous Russians were indicted and convicted for it.
Now, were Democrats happy about this? Of course not. Did they feel "cheated" in some general sense, especially given that once again they won the popular vote (this time by nearly 3 million votes in a low turnout election)? Sure. Did they hope to find something in the course of investigating him that would warrant impeachment? I certainly did.
But they did not fabricate claims that Trump or the Republican Party unlawfully won the election. They took no action on the basis of accusations that were unconfirmed through a legitimate investigation. The investigation into Trump was *entirely warranted* and was *not* a hoax. The Steele Dossier was not the basis for the investigation - George Papadapolous running his mouth to an Australian diplomat about Russia's efforts to get Trump elected, combined with Trump's *numerous* business deals in Russia and a campaign manager who had recently been a consultant to the pro-Russian former Ukranian president created a situation we would have been positively negligent *not* to investigate.
The Obama administration deliberately kept this investigation under wraps so as not to influence the election. Clinton conceded immediately. There was no trawling of the internet for bogus stories about rigged voting machines that could be repeated ad infinitum until people started believing them. Everyone understood that even an election where people were systematically lied to in ways which may have influenced their vote is still a valid election.
Finally, if you don't think Trump encouraged unlawful action, I think you're being willfully naive. Even if he didn't intend for the Capitol to be breached, he happily sat back and watched it unfold and ignored entreaties to stop it. The only "conspiracy theory" that came true this year was the one we all watched in the open. The scam that Trump telegraphed way in advance, the phone calls and meetings with state legislators and election officals trying to coerce them into overturning their state's elections, Mike Flynn suggesting Trump declare martial law, etc. And now we have the Eastman memos detailing the ridiculously unconstitutional scheme being hatched in order to subvert the Electoral College. The Jan 6th riot was just the tip of the iceberg.
Excuse me? You lost me at 'numerous Russians *convicted* for troll farming during the Trump related elections.' Oh, really? Even Goldberg didn't jump that shark. Besides, there are troll farms working every side of the political discourse. Turn Maddow off.
Oops, you're right, thanks for the catch. I'd forgotten that Trump's DOJ killed the trials against the firms. As for the individuals indicted, they have to be dragged back here to actually convict them. The evidence is overwhelming, however.
On that note, you'll have to pardon me if I find it remarkable how, once again, Trump's people managed to squash public accountability for something that Trump ostensibly has no reason to feel guilty about.
And when the troll farms are run by a foreign adversary who is openly supporting a candidate (who then turns out to be every bit the lawless threat to our democratic norms that everyone feared), it's a much bigger deal.
And no, sorry, I don't watch Maddow. How about you commit to not watching Fox and we'll be on a better footing?
The inference was that Trump rigged the election. I used to go to some of those leftist sites and there it was actually claimed that Trump rigged the election. It was nauseating. Turns out it was not Trump doing the rigging - after now going on 6 years and Lord knows how much treasure spent in the investigation. This pushed people that believe this is a government by the people, for the people to their limits. Then they were subjected to blatant censorship by so-called social "media" (hence the mistaken belief by some that they have the right to free speech on those sites) and footage of piles of ballots being delivered that disrupted the tally of the votes. It appears this was done legally but it was also funded by the owners of some of those same social "media" mills. It was not a good optic. Nor is the buses and planeloads of illegal migrants being shipped around the country with the promise of expedited citizenship (votes). I saw with my own lying eyes two of those the week before Christmas on, I kid you not, Purple Coach, LLC buses. Coincidence? I think not.
"The claim was not that Trump rigged the election."
False/ disingenuous.
Damn near the whole rationale for Mueller's probe was, to see if Trump used Russians to try to "rig" the election.
The *related* claim was, that Russia engaged in a wide ranging campaign of propaganda and misinformation to help Trump get elected. But, even if the Russian effort was the most massive of its kind in world history, that proved nothing about *Trump's* conduct.
"The Steele Dossier was not the basis for the investigation...."
False. Indeed, the whole thing was contrary to (Ashcroft post-911 era) AG guidelines.
The Steele crap was falsely said to be sufficient for starting a Full Investigation, which, for it to be legit, needed *much more basis than any of the things you've listed here (e.g. Papa's words).
Firstly, kaishaku, I'll thank you not to call me disingenuous. I always speak in good faith.
Secondly, there were a couple legitimate questions about Trump's involvement that needed to be ascertained. To what extent was Trump involved with Russia? Did Russia have any information potentially compromising Trump? It is the height of credulousness to think that it was somehow inappropriate for there to be legitimate national security concerns about a candidate with numerous financial ties to Russia, who openly played footsie with Putin in public, and whose campaign manager once supported a Russian puppet government in Ukraine. Under these circumstances, the findings regarding Popadopolous and the recent cyber intrusion into the DNC absolutely justified an investigation.
And you are simply wrong about the Steele Dossier being used to justify a full investigation. Crossfire Hurricane was opened as a Full Investigation on July 31st based entirely on the information I just specified; that's in Horowitz's report. What you link to here is some freelancing article attempting to undermine Horowitz and speculating about what may have been on some people's minds at the time, which is ultimately irrelevant. The formal justification is what it is, and it was enough to justify the opening of a Full Investigation. Which itself happens to be irrelevant, because according to Horowitz everything done between July 31st and the first FISA application in October would have been allowable under a Preliminary Investigation as well.
And all of this does absolutely nothing to justify Trump's actions in attempting to undermine the 2020 election. An investigation was opened, found nothing incriminating, and no details of it were released to the public. The issue was effectively dead before the election - the FBI was still investigating, but not Trump personally. I'll remind you that it was Trump's own mind-boggling acts of hubris - which included firing his AG under false pretenses, then admitting on television that it was really because of the Russia investigation - that resulted in the Mueller Special Counsel. Not to mention the ridiculously guilty way in which Trump conducted himself during the investigation - threatening to fire Mueller, openly dangling pardons, harassing his AG on an almost daily basis for recusing himself from the investigation he clearly expected protection from, etc.
Launching legitimate investigations is simply incomparable to blathering baseless accusations of fraud, plotting to subvert the counting of electoral votes, trying to goad election officials into falsifying results, toying with the idea of invoking martial law to retain power, and refusing to concede a presidential election.
Eric, again I need to respectfully comment on the "popular" vote. Yes, Hillary did win the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, but she won California b 4.2 million votes. The conclusion has to be that outside of CA, she was unpopular. This is the sole reason for the Electoral College and it was genius. All of our states have different topography, economic concerns, natural resources, etc. It would be unconscionable to allow one state to drown out the voices and needs of the rest of the nation. So whether or not Democrats felt cheated or not is irrelevant. And regardless of what Russia may or may not have wanted, I can't see how Trump's presidency benefited them. Conversely, we have Joe closing down our Keystone pipeline on day one, but then endorsing the Russian pipeline shortly thereafter. Things that make you go "hmmmm". Again, not a fan of Trump as a person, but do you not take any issue with things like this? I would love to have everything green. I would love everything to run off of clean, renewable energy. However, there is a way of doing things. I wouldn't throw out my home oil heater, before I installed solar panels. (not that I currently have either!) I get that you are anti-Trump...I've read almost all of your posts...but do you think that Joe is doing a good job?! If so, and polling is accurate, you are in the minority. You talk about Russian interference in the 2016 election, but does it not occur to you now that the media's soft treatment of Joe in his basement during the campaign also unduly influenced the 2020 election?
As to the Electoral College: I'm quite familiar with that argument. It's misleading.
Firstly, California may be "one state", but it's a state consisting of forty million people; roughly one eighth of the U.S. population. And it's not a monolithic pinprick - it's our spatially largest state outside mostly-uninhabitable Alaska, comprising most of the U.S. west coast, so it involves a lot of different topographies and social configurations. It would be perfectly reasonable to break it up (which probably isn't going to happen any time soon), but the fact that it's one big state shouldn't diminish the significance of its enormous population.
That's an awful big chunk of America to just set aside as if it shouldn't matter. If you allow me to remove states covering roughly forty million people I could easily tip the balance of the popular vote for most close elections in either direction. That includes this hypothetical California-free America, where Trump wins by 1.4 million votes and where you claim Hillary is so unpopular and is being drowned out by the Golden State. Let's just say I was to cut out the upper Northwest (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Nebraska) and Alaska - all won by Trump. Seven states, yes, but by my calculations their total population is less than eight million people: one fifth the size of California. Yet this is all I need to eliminate in order to shave a little over 1.4 million votes from Trump's margin and swing it back to Hillary. For good measure I could remove a few more red states without even getting close to 40 million - say, Indiana, Kentucky, and Arkansas, pushing us up to around 24 million, still only 60% of what we removed with California - giving Hillary about a 1.5 million lead again. Now Trump is unpopular in this new rest-of-America consisting of roughly 80% of the original, whose clear choice of Hillary is being drowned out - SAD!
I'm being cheeky here, but I think you get my point. The idea that Trump won "the rest of the country" outside California is misleading - as misleading as you feel saying Hillary "won America" is.
As to it being "genius", well ... I respectfully disagree. In any case it certainly wasn't our founders' genius, because the way we do things now wasn't their intent. As with every aspect of republican democracy vs. direct democracy, the idea was to avoid the pitfalls of "mob rule". It was an explicitly elitist, anti-populist concept: electors were expected to vote using their judgement, the same judgement elected representatives are supposed to use instead of just keeping their ear to the ground on every issue to capture the public's fickle, intemperate whims. Which doesn't have to be as dastardly and Machiavellian as it sounds; life is complicated, and so is running a country. What other job gets filled via a popularity contest rather than qualified individuals weighing candidates based on merit? And this is supposedly the most important job in the world!
The Founders made it clear they didn't want a demagogue rising to power, especially one that may have gotten an assist from a foreign adversary. So I think that a tremendously strong case can be made that Trump is exactly the type of candidate the Electoral college was supposed to *prevent* from taking office, and yet it ended up *enabling* his election. Major fail, as the kids say.
Regardless of whether you agree with me on that last point, it's clear things didn't work out according to plan. State level politics eventually held sway (much like they did with the Senate before the 17th amendment) and now we have this Frankenstein's monster version of the popular vote with a gigantic roundoff error, plus a little bonus booster for the smallest states and a population-based magnifier for states with relatively low turnout. We hear a lot of rationalizations about why this is so great, typically from whichever party currently benefits from the quirks of it (which varies more often than people realize) and is usually based on a misunderstanding of what's happening.
Like the claim that a popular vote would allow you to focus on the largest states or metropolitan areas. Wrong - it's the Electoral College which would theoretically let you win with (under the last decade's allotment) the top eleven states, and in practice lets you ignore most of the country (all but the swing states). A popular vote doesn't give you all the votes from any city, state or region where you get more than 50% - you get what you get.
Granted, there is *some* truth that it discourages packing all of your votes into a small number of states - given that in practice it is unlikely you'll get all of the biggest states and pull off the "sweep 11" mentioned above. But under a popular vote, in practice no state gets packed too heavily. Even Hillary's California win was only about a 65-35 split between her and Trump - the large raw vote margin was due to the size of the state, not Belarus-like winning percentages (Trump got almost the same number of votes in California as he did in Florida or Texas). In 2016 for instance, Hillary actually spread out a bit from where Obama was and it cost her: she lost enough votes in "blue wall" states to tip the balance in those states, yet gained a bunch of votes in some red states like Texas and Georgia that ultimately weren't enough to win and were thus wasted votes.
How about the claim that the Electoral College forces you to consider people out in the countryside? Wrong again. Most rural states are intractably red and can be ignored. This only applies in states where the rural and urban populations are comparable - like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. Meanwhile, rural areas in blue states have *their* voices drowned out. A popular vote, on the other hand, means that N votes counts the same no matter where they come from. A million rural voters in California would have the same effect as a million rural votes scattered across the upper Northwest. Which means voters from various blocks within different states could effectively form coalitions across state lines, instead of everyone being hostage to voting along with the majority of their state. This keeps politicians from being able to completely ignore states that would never vote for them (Trump loved antagonizing blue states for this reason) and would help cut down on local state-secession efforts (which are doomed to fail, but unhealthy nonetheless). And for those who like the idea of encouraging turnout, states where people vote more benefit from a bigger voice, where states with lazy voters forfeit some of their weight.
There's also the reasoning that because you can't guarantee a win with just a bare majority, the Electoral College encourages you to go for a supermajority! True in general, and in a relatively information-sparse environment, a theoretically good incentive. But this is also misleading: in informal language, calling something insufficient (as in "not enough") *usually* implies that it's at least necessary (you need that and more), but we know that's not the case here. Particularly, in a two way race, if a bare majority doesn't guarantee you a win, a bare minority won't guarantee your opponent a loss. Which is still OK if you don't know which candidate is in the pole position - but thanks to modern computing and statistics, combined with knowledge of polling and voter demographics, we can calculate who has the statistical advantage where they will be the likely winner of Electoral College in a close election even if they lose the popular vote. In 2012, it was Barack Obama, which is why he was about a 91% favorite despite being only a point and a half ahead in the polls. In 2016 and 2020 it was Trump (despite what some of the less skilled pollsters claimed in 2016), which is why Trump had about a 29% chance of winning in 2016 with only a single-digit chance of winning the popular vote, and why Biden had "only" a 90% chance of winning despite being a near lock to win the popular vote as an 8 point favorite. So this reasoning may have made sense in the past, but not in our modern era where candidates explicitly strategize to win the electoral college and ignore the popular vote (which was Trump's only real hope these past two elections; even if he himself didn't know it, his strategists did).
Many of these justifications seem to come from Daniel Patrick Moynihan's speech in the late 90's when there was a popular vote movement afoot. I often hear people name-drop the speech when expressing support for the Electoral College; they tend to stumble over the details and end up just telling you to go read the speech. Which says to me it may be another example of the triumph of rhetoric over reason, but I've only read a bit of it and can't fairly assess.
As for Biden, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the media's soft treatment; by and large Biden conducted an excellent campaign, and even Trump mostly gave up on attacking him directly because he just didn't have Hillary's unlikability. As far as remaining in his basement during COVID, he was modeling responsible behavior while Trump modeled reckless behavior (getting Herman Cain killed in the process). The serious sexual misconduct allegations against him were utterly discredited; the more minor touchy-feely stuff was muddled by testaments to the fact that Biden really is that way with everyone, men and women.
Now, am I happy with everything Biden has done? Of course not. I was against pulling out of Afghanistan from the start, and unsurprisingly it was a disaster, further eroding our already seriously damaged credibility. And I'm upset that the party prioritized social spending over election reform, and being the leader of the Democratic Party, Biden is partly to blame for that. As for COVID, I have some complaints about the CDC and the lack of coordinated testing, but by and large Biden has been hampered by deliberate obstruction by people like DeSantis and Abbot, as well as the (mostly right wing) anti-vax movement. He did about as good a job as he could have in making sure as many people as possible got vaccinated. As for the inflation issue, that has many contributing factors mostly out of Biden's hands (past government spending, inflated demand due to increased savings during COVID lockdowns, pandemic-induced supply-chain interruptions, etc.) Blaming it all on the pandemic relief bill and the infrastructure spending (much of which wasn't new spending anyway) is just as obtuse as crediting Bill Clinton for the dot-com boom or Trump for the continued ascendance of the economy when he took office. I'm happy about the infrastructure spending bill and the bipartisan support it drew, and I'm also happy that Biden simply does his job without deliberately stoking the culture wars.
But keep in mind, these are *normal* political issues. The kind of you generally expect to have with any politician or presidential administration. Even with George W. Bush, as much as I hated the Iraq War, I never feared for the future of our democracy. Eventually Bush would be out of office and we'd have another shot at it. With Trump, it's an entirely different story.
I don't just "not like" Trump. I think he is utterly unfit to occupy the office of the Presidency. Not just because he's a xenophobic demagogue. We've had such loathsome presidents before. His ignorance and narcissism are a big part of it, as well as his general lack of qualifications (despite how he was advertised, he's actually an awful negotiator and has a pathetic understanding of economics). But the moment I fully realized the danger he posed was just prior to the 2016 election when he held a press conference and claimed he wouldn't accept the results unless he won. It was obvious then that this man had no regard for this country's political health; nobody who did would make such and outrageous claim (and consequently, nobody should have been surprised at the stunt he pulled in 2020).
So this is why I say that no matter what kind of grades I give to Biden, supporting Republicans is simply not an option as long as they are in thrall to Trump. That's the kind of false binary I'm opposing here. If I'm not happy with Biden, and I think there's someone better in the Democratic field willing to primary him, I can always register Democrat and vote in the primary. Biden is certainly preferable to the likeable but completely unrealistic Bernie Sanders, so unless one of the other moderates wants to throw their hat in the ring, I don't have much choice. I'd love for us to have more parties to choose from (really, I'd love for there to be no parties at all), but that won't happen until we widely adopt ranked choice voting or some other antidote to plurality voting.
As to how Trump's presidency helped Russia, look to the gloating that both Russia and China engaged in during the January 6th attack (in contrast to the horror expressed by our allies). One of the more overlooked aspects of geopolitics is the battle of ideology. It's easy to imagine that this kind of thing doesn't really matter outside political science departments in universities, but it very much does. The U.S. was at the height of its power and influence at the end of the 20th century when liberal democracy was largely viewed by most of the world's people (as opposed to their rulers) as an ideal worth replicating, and the U.S. was the undisputed leader of the democratic world. It encouraged other nations to want to hitch their wagon to ours, so that our success was their success. It meant their best and brightest wanted to come here. Our stability was the envy of the world; investing in the U.S. was an indisputably good bet, and because of that the U.S. dollar has become the de facto reserve currency for international banking. We were, as Ronald Reagan put it, "the shining city on a hill".
In fact, Reagan's greatest asset was his understanding of the Cold War as a battle of ideology, and justifying the superiority of liberal democracy to communism, socialism, and autocracy. Russia today is a right-wing oligarchy rather than the communist state the Soviet Union was, but it is similar in that it is beset by corruption, economically weak, with a regime largely reliant on statist propaganda to maintain power. Putin is a product of the old Soviet system, who viewed collapse of the U.S.S.R. as a world power as a tragic humiliation. As an ex-KGB guy who specialized in psychological warfare, he is keenly aware of the importance of this ideological struggle. He has little to offer his people these days except blind nationalism; he controls most of the country's media (literally, not like we say here), preens for the camera (in true strongman fashion) to exaggerate his masculinity and virility, and allies himself with the church to maintain social influence (and it shows with the younger generations of Russians). The success of democracy around the world, and particularly in his neighborhood, is a threat to his legitimacy, which is why he is antagonistic toward Ukraine since their democratic revolution, wants assurances that no Baltic states will become new NATO members, and allies with other strongmen like Lukashenko in Belarus and Xi Xinping in China.
But arguably his biggest ambition has been discrediting the United States - because if even our storied democracy can be thrown into crisis, it would be a huge blow to our reputation around the world. Social media has given Putin a dream playground in which to foment unrest. Putin didn't want Clinton elected because Hillary hates him; he didn't actually expect Trump to win but it benefitted him to have Clinton weakened domestically. Trump actually winning has worked out wonderfully - Trump repeatedly looked weak in the face of Putin's influence. His credulity was then easily exploited by Xi, who watched Trump sink the TPP seemingly without even realizing that it represented a major cog in the geopolitical strategy against China, and then had him eating out of his hand with a 10 minute history "lesson" after Trump rabidly fulminated against him during his campaign. Same with Kim Jong Un, whose nuclear program continues undeterred after Trump was utterly outwitted by someone half his age, his pupils turning into little hearts.
Trump repeatedly embarrassed the U.S. in this fashion on the international stage. He showed absolutely no interest in the mantle of "leader of the free world", viewing U.S. alliances as burdens, treating our friendliest allies like hustlers trying to screw us over while fawning over our adversaries and not-so-friendly allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Turkey). But January 6th was the nail in the coffin. It fundamentally changed the way the rest of the world viewed American democracy, breaking our long period of stability and peaceful transitions of power and degrading our value as allies and the trust other nations are willing to place in us.
There's a lot here and I'll do my best to address it in multiple posts.
With regard to the pipelines: I am fine with shutting down the Keystone pipeline if it's consistent with a viable plan to transition to a renewable future. I'm open to arguments that it isn't. I was not a fan of the Nord Stream Pipeline decision.
But I see these as largely two separate issues - the former is one of domestic energy production, the latter is a matter of foreign policy. It's about managing our relationship with the Germans vs. our interests in containing Putin. Hopefully, leaning on Germany with regard to the Nord Stream pipeline is an option on the table in countering Russian aggression in Ukraine. If so, an argument could be made that OK-ing it gave us some leverage against Russia, but that depends on how strongly we can influence Germany.
CORRECTION: "indicted, not convicted". As mentioned in another comment below, Trump's DOJ killed the trials against the firms in March 2020, and the individuals convicted have to be extradited to stand trial. So nobody has actually gone to trial.
Well I'm pretty sure I recall reading that. Kinda got lost in the pandemic since it was March 2020, but it's possible I'm misremembering.
It doesn't matter. I'm not here to engage in an online "owning" contest, like many people here seem to be. I'm here to engage and establish consensus on the truth. I have no problem admitting mistakes, and I don't owe anyone an explanation. If I was here to deceive I wouldn't bother replying when someone corrected me.
If you're here for the same reason, you might try laying off the ad hominems.
Nope. If you had watched the impeachment trial, you would have the seen the irony that the defense was to play the same videos as the Democrat prosecution -side by side- so people could see the context the Democrats edited out.
You must have missed the four-year scorched earth campaign against Trump: the false accusations engineered by Clinton, Comey, Clapper, Brennan and their useful idiot accomplices. Was this riot engineered by deep state actors to take Trump out once and for all? It’s hard to dismiss that possibility after watching their skullduggery.
I assume you're talking about the Steele Dossier. The one that came from a research firm and which Clinton's campaign never actually used, and which entered the investigation in its later stages. That was a sideshow that's being exploited in order to discredit the rest of the investigation, which was entirely warranted and legitimate.
Unless you're talking about the absurd Ukraine-based conspiracy theory about how it was actually the Clinton camp that tried to manufacture dirt on Trump instead of the other way around. I'll assume otherwise.
There you go again with your ad-hominems. By my count you've engaged on exactly one fact thus far. You really aren't interested in coming to consensus, are you?
You overlook the Unite for America/Hamilton Electors movement in 2016: an attempt by a cabal of progressives to find enough Republican electors willing to vote for a different Republican so as to deny Donald Trump a majority in the Electoral College and force an election in the House of Representatives. Yeah, that certainly showed how much Democrats and progressives support the Constitution and the rule of law, i.e. not at all. Most of those on the Left who pontificate about "our democracy" would like to run the Constitution through a shredder.
Just to let you know I exist, I am on the left and do not want to run the Constitution through a shredder! It's our greatest bulwark against tyranny - I was grateful for it watching Trump try to maneuver around it or bully people into violating it
Sure you do. You want to abolish the Electoral College, right? You want to end the equal suffrage of the states in the Senate, right? You want to emasculate the First Amendment, right? You want to get rid of the Second Amendment, right? You want to pack the Supreme Court, right? You want the entire electoral system to be run by federal bureaucrats, right? And no doubt you want taxpayers to foot the bill for your shredder.
You people pretend to be better than Trump, but in reality you’re just as bad if not worse.
No, actually I don’t want to do any of those things, and most moderate liberals don’t either. Some “true believers” say it to be fashionable but they won’t do anything about it because they don’t really understand the issues. And many of those to the left of me saw what happened with the rioting in 2021 and the lack of police protection and I now hear crickets about “defund the police.” Please don’t assume you know me from stereotypes you’ve imbibed. And your contemptuous language doesn’t help the conversation, unless you’re trolling me, in which case, if you reply again in anger, I’ll know, and our debate will cease. What would you like to know about what I do believe?
Thomas, I'm not overlooking this. But once again, it's a question of scale. That was a small, hopeless effort orchestrated by a handful of Democrats. And it was over the day the votes were counted.
If the current effort to undermine the legitimacy of 2020 was just MTG, Gosar, Boebert, Gohmert, and a handful of other Republicans, and the rest of the party was resisting, I wouldn't even be paying attention. But the entire party apparatus has jumped on board with either validating or refusing to counter Trump's election lies. Senators were censured by their local party chapters for doing their constitutional duty and voting to convict Trump.
We're a year out now and still about 2/3 of Republicans believe the election was stolen. The party is exploiting this by pushing and passing state laws and running Trump-friendly people for critical election administration positions, with the obvious intent of being in a position to subvert the next election. As I've said in other posts, there will always be radicals in political parties, but in the Republican party now, the radicals are the ones doing what most of them would have been doing six years ago - standing up for truth and the integrity of our democracy.
I agree - I worry about how many people want to bring back Trump as opposed to finding a candidate who would support his policies without the attempts to subvert the Constitution - I don't agree with some of the policies but I'll take that any day over someone trying to undermine the entire process
Of course you were overlooking it. That’s why I felt compelled to remind you of it. And please, spare me this prattle about “our democracy.” Coming from progressives it’s a term pregnant with hypocrisy.
Thomas, I'm sorry, but you're simply making a ridiculous comparison - between the actions of a couple of rogue electors versus the actions of virtually an entire political party's Congressional and Senate delegations, their national governing body, many of their state chapters, and the *sitting President of the United States*. Between openly pulling a stunt that, while futile, was at least arguably legal at the time (the Supreme Court hadn't even ruled on "faithless electors" yet), and which was hardly an unprecedented phenomenon in our history (there's a reason we already had a name for it), versus aiding and abetting an egregious lie resulting in our *first ever* President declining to concede an election, and our Capitol being attacked as part of a plot *by the President himself* to overturn it. The fact that you "felt compelled" to remind me doesn't establish anything other than that you're attempting to justify the unjustifiable.
I have no idea what comparable offense you are accusing progressive of, and I don't have to answer for our fringe, especially since I criticize them plenty myself. The question I have for you is: do you actually care if our democracy survives, or are you just concerned with who takes the blame for it? Because right now one of our two political parties, having failed once to overturn a free and fair election, is openly laying the groundwork for another attempt. Talk of "civil war" abounds, and a terrifying percentage of Americans want the country to split.
This is serious. January 6th is unprecedented, and it wasn't just some rhetorical offense against "our democracy". It was an actual attempt by a defeated President to illegitimately remain in power. Fishing for some incomparably minor offense by the other party neither changes the reality of that nor diminishes the danger it places us in.
Uh, uh, it's wasn't the actions of "a couple of rogue electors." Go back and read my previous comment with the close attention it deserves. The attempt to subject the Electoral College was an organized effort by progressive groups. Their tactics included doxing Republican electors in an attempt to intimidate them into casting their votes for someone other than Trump. And please let's not pretend that the Left accepted the outcome of the 2016 election. It didn't and was constantly scheming for some way of getting rid of Trump. Oh, and descending to that state level let us not forget the self-described legitimate governor of Georgia, the comical Stacey Abrams, who to this day refuses to accept the outcome of the election she lost by 50,000 votes. Progressives accept as legitimate only those elections that go their way. When they lose it's always because those dastardly conservatives cheated. Well, boo-hoo.
Hillary Clinton didn't have to "egg-on" protestors, since she had the intelligence agencies of the United States ready to spend the next 3 years lying about how Trump stole the election. And Hillary did perpetuate that lie repeatedly, despite the fact that evidence now shows her own campaign was in much deeper with Russia than Trump ever was.
The scale of Jan 6 was different, but it's wrong to suggest either that the rioters were generally destructive (imagine if a BLM riot had gotten into the statue gallery) or that prior actions against the rule-of-law were unrelated to what happened on Jan 6.
Last year the crazy Right stormed the capitol building and the crazy Left burned down entire city blocks for multiple months in multiple cities. Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell condemned the actions of the Right; Nancy Pelosi knelt in solidarity with the actions of the Left. Given that the Left controls every cultural institution in America today (corporate boards, foundations, media, education, tech, universities), I'm far more concerned about Left-wing violence than Right-wing.
What we today dismiss as "whataboutism" is what, in a more reasonable time, we called precedent. Ridding ourselves of precedent leads to claims of "unprecendented" behavior, for things that have become quite common in today's society.
Whataboutism is the use of hypotheticals to challenge a statement. Precedent in the legal sense is reliance on prior opinions. In the larger sense precedent is the status quo. Personally I believe change is inevitable and thus should be embraced. I think change should be anticipated, options considered, and plans implemented to enable adaptation to change. This applies to climate change and the extinction of species and I am not impressed with current Ideology on either front.
There is nothing hypothectical in the definition of whataboutism (a term first used in 1978 according to Mirriam-Webster) in which an argument is diffuesed, or muddied, by challenging the moral standing/consistency of those claiming wrong doing. i.e. the pot calling the kettle black. It's considered a logical fallacy, which is why a lot of people just throw out the word like it will end the argument; as above. What most people can't really tell you is under what particulars is it a logical fallacy, and what other logical errors are being committed as they cry whataboutism. In the case of my comment relating to precedent, precedent simply means has happened, or been established, previously. In law, it specifically refers to court decisions as that is how the interpretation of law is established. In a trial, when one lawyer cites case A and another lawyer says. "what about case B" (which might be similar but resulted in a differing precedent) the arguments are not dismissed as whatbaoutism. A non-legal, more political example to further clairfy: Someone argues that Trump's public behaviors are unbecoming a President and he should be removed from office. A valid counter argument is to list the many presidents, who had questionable moral proclivities, and question if those proclivities were the cause of their removal from office. The argument is not about the morality of their behavior, it is about what merits removal from office, and the "whataboutism" which cannot justify the moral failure (a number of people committing an immoral act does not make the act moral), can actually establish that moral failings are not sufficient to remove someone from office. As, you say, change is inevitable, and as history teaches us, most changes are entropic in nature, which means that without effort to the contrary, we will revert to our baser natures. I spend my time fighting these changes, encouraging others to become better images of ourselves.
I neither need nor desire clarification. I stand by my comment. Your definition of "whataboutism" is very narrow. The term need not apply to any moral issues at all but rather is deflection. I have a good understanding of legal precedent which is why I phrased it as I did. Also it is the basis of common law but not all law. And in the broader sense precedent is use of what has been done before or is established as a guiding principle for current or future acts. As far as change leading to a return to our baser nature, how very sad. Thank God, literally that is not an issue for me - my faith teaches me to do good because I am saved, not to be saved. It is like breathing for me.
Absolutely it is. Comparing and contrasting the moral and legal aspects of events is one of the bedrocks of analysis. For example, it's the sort of basic thinking that allows us to laugh off the comparisons of Jan 6, 2021 with 911, D-Day and the Holocaust(!).
If I say X, and you say last week I was wrong about Y, that doesn't explain why I'm wrong about X.
This happens all the time, now that politics is tribal warfare. Both sides do it. The defense of Trump's "pussy grabbing" is "What about Clinton and Monica, or JFK and . . etc." It's a way of not dealing with your own team's bad actions. It's an attack, not a discussion.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure I stole the term "whataboutism" from Jonah Goldberg, whom I hugely admire, as you can probably tell. He is a man of principle.
But, for sake of discussion, you say "pussy-grabbing" is wrong. And I ask, did you object to Clinton's version of "pussy-grabbing"? You cannot dodge the question by claiming whataboutism, because the question is actually trying to clarify your terms and conditions of "wrong-pussy-grabbing" vs. "right-pussy-grabbing", etc. If we are playing a game, and you say "You cheated." and I respond with "You cheat all the time." That is not a justification that cheating is good (the logical fallacy) but it is a pretty solid argument that neither of us want to play by the rules. In my experience, most people have no clue what they are actually arguing about.
I loved Jonah for a long time. His "Wilderness? Ugh!" column is great stuff and may be the one that put him on my radar.
He's now dead to me. Persona non grata. He jumped the shark around 5 years ago. I won't even read this column of his, because the past 5+ years informs what this one will be like.
And no, I'm not echo-chambering. I PAY for Substacks from Bari (formerly of the Leftist NY Times), from Alex Berenson (formerly of the Leftist NY Times AND an avid anti-Trumper), and Glenn Greenwald (Liberal/Leftist).
I pay for people to tell me what they think, for people to make honest assessments of the world as they see it, for reasoned arguments that may very well differ from mine. For that reason, I'll never read another word from Jonah. His TDS infects every last thing he touches.
My instant reaction on 1-6-21 when I heard the Capitol was on lockdown after protesters had invaded was “Good.” I was glad to see that the politicians were getting a taste of their own medicine. All summer, rioters burned, looted and assaulted regular citizens. On the streets of Washington DC, people leaving the White House were harassed and assaulted. Police did little to stop it. So, my immediate reaction - and even my reaction now after reflection- is that the politicians who allowed and encouraged riots throughout the US in the summer got what they deserved. They got to experience fear for their lives. The only difference is that when capitol police killed an unarmed protester, no one sympathized with the protester. Usually when a cop shoots an unarmed person -even when justified- it sets off a new round of riots.
I think the 1/6 rioters deserve to be prosecuted based upon the facts and the law and should be treated like other criminal defendants in the Federal system. That being said, your comment is spot on. These politicians are all for sacrificing the lives of cops in horrible neighborhoods, but treated the Capitol Police like heroes for protecting them.
Yes they should, but instead they are being treated like political prisoners in China. And I'd like to see some accountability for all those involved in the 2020 riots - including politicians who encouraged them.
Anyone who did violence should be prosecuted. The poor shmucks who just wandered in and took pictures (disorderly tourists) should be left alone. The FBI’s role should be fully investigated as we as what Pelosi knew and when
Pelosi and the DC mayor (who are ultimately responsible for capitol security) refused a Trump request for 10K national guard troops two days before the riot. There is presumably documentation of this request within Pelosi's office. Of course, these documents have NOT been subpoenaed by the (partisan) committee investigating Jan 6.
They threw the Capitol police to the dogs that day. Where was the national guard? I smell an attempt to precipitate an event for political optics. Do you?
If you will allow me, I suggest you read Darren Beattie's series of investigative articles on this event in Revolver News. Pretty solid and backed up with videos.
That's my sentiment. They are only clutching their pearls when some of the Wal-mart peasants almost touch the hem of their garments. Nancy Pelosi's ridiculous comments like, "I don't much care about statues. People do what they do." Did you know she actually destroyed and replaced the desk where the rioter put his feet up? The elitist oligarchy is real in this country and they don't just think they are better than us. They KNOW they are. Trump is either sincere or brilliant in his allying himself with Fly-over USA. Or both.
AntiFa + BLM only riot when a cop shoots a black person. The unarmed protester shot by capitol police was a white woman, therefore there was no rioting.
Do you think Pence encouraged riots, as a conservative? I believe there were people in the Capitol yelling, “Hang Pence!" I understand the feeling and think you're right about elites needing to experience what others suffer when they make bad policy, but it seems to me that liberals are more to blame than conservatives for pandering to China, encouraging violent protesting, etc.
The question is how many "conservatives" have "sold out" to China also? We know that since Bill Clinton sold secrets to the Chinese when he was president, the Dems have moved to support the CCP. But the way Never Trump "conservatives" reacted when Trump clamped down on China was repulsive.
Bill Clinton was the worst. He sold secrets to the Chinese regime & begged the WTO to let China in, which was one of the worst decisions in history. That decision led to the rise of the evil CCP regime.
Yes & most of these Never Trumpers are Never Trump SPECIFICALLY because they make $$$$$$$ selling out to China. Wall St, Greed, selling out to China. They pretend they are Never Trump for other reasons, but the reasons are purely financial, for their own pockets.
Take a look at Mitch McConnell's wife. She is a major investor in metals for Chinese naval vessels. Do you think the PLA (People's Liberation Army) isn't all over that?
I wouldn't doubt it. When I worked for the DoD and defense contractors I worked with a lot of retired military intelligence personnel. They stated that the ancestral ties to China were very strong in the Chinese-American community. So much so that they had a saying n the military intelligence community, "Once a Chinaman, always a Chinaman."
Are you claiming they're crypto-liberals? That's what putting the word “conservative“ in air quotes and your argument seems to lead? In which case, the argument still stands that “true“ conservatives should not suffer for liberal mistakes - is Mike Pence a “real“ or “fake“ conservative?
You and I agree on your statement but "conservatives" like Goldberg, et al believe they are truly conservatives while folks like you and I are extremists. My thoughts are that these establishment RINOs, like JFK Dems have not accepted the fact that times have changed. There is no more left of center or right of center majorities in either party. IMHO, the move to "cozy-up" with China has caused a serious shift left in the Democratic Party, so much so their once silent extreme leftists have gained a foothold. The weaponizing of the IRS and other government agencies beginning with Obama are good examples. This has caused a reaction on the right moving once right of center conservatives further to the right with a very strong "antigovernment" sentiment. RINOs have no backbone and allow Dems to run roughshod over us. I believe Mike Pence is likely an establishment conservative but he appeared to do a good job supporting Trump during his administration until the 2020 election results.
I'm actually left-leaning; I was criticizing my own side. I think what people like Jonah or myself are trying to do is recover some kind of center where those on the left and the right can have productive conversations without necessarily agreeing on ideological grounds but rather practical ones: we have problems we need to solve, and can we find trade-offs we can live with or allow federalism to help us live and let live? You and I seem to be having a respectful conversation - would that have happened had we known ahead of time that you were an “extremist“ conservative and I was a liberal? Trump's rise revealed some real problems with elite liberalism that I'm trying to come to grips with, but I don't always see Trump supporters doing the same - instead, they seem to double down to protect themselves because people like me have not been respectful of their real concerns. Perhaps Trump was a necessary bully, but he was a dangerous one as well; when you allow a bully to protect you, what of yourself do you lose in that protection?
Thank you for the kind dialogue. For the record, I am considered an "extremist" because I voted for Trump. For the same reason I am also considered a racist, a Nazi, a Fascist, a bigot, etc. All of this without even knowing that I am a Hispanic and Creole (European, Black, Native American). I originally supported Ted Cruz but voted for Trump because he was my snub to establishment Republicans. And as I mentioned earlier, the extreme move to the left concerned me about our democracy. I long to be back to a time when we moved from left of center to right of center and vice-versa. I reject the accusation that all Trump voters or even the majority are caught in a "cult of personality." We, meaning those Trump voters with whom I associate, are just tired of being categorized as uneducated, anti-science, Bible thumping yahoos. No doubt Trump is uncouth, un-presidential, crude, etc. But as you said he revealed the problem of elite liberalism, and not only that but the problem of career politicians on both sides of the aisle. I find it interesting that Trump is a "bully" but Bill Clinton was allowed to "bully women. Obama was allowed to use the IRS to "bully" conservative PACs. Joe Biden publicly admitted bullying Ukrainian officials and was not called on it. Yet, we do not look to Trump or any other politician to "protect us." The government works for us. Not the other way around. "The Swamp" as it has been called, believes it is there to rule us. Trump was our voice to to tell it "No."
I whole-heartedly agree that we need civil discourse. Sadly, it has been my experience that folks can't agree to disagree. I look forward to fruitful discussions with you my friend. Have a great New Year!
“is that the politicians who allowed and encouraged riots throughout the US in the summer got what they deserved.”
———————————————
Conservative Kevin Williamson disagrees with you because he puts politicians far far above citizens. They must be protected. This was a grievous attack. Unlike when these useless cocksuckers steal my money and use it to buy votes.
Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing it. It is sad that our discourse has landed on “an eye for an eye” but given what’s happened over the past four years, I completely understand why this is so.
"the goal of a good argument is persuasion". No, it's not. The goal of a good argument is to get closer to the truth. Persuasion is something else entirely. If persuasion is the goal of the argument, what you are really talking about is propaganda. That is, speech whose object is to persuade.
This is the problem. Too many journalists and commentators think their job is to persuade. It's not. Their job is get to the truth and tell us.
We'll decide which of the truths is more important.
Exactly. If your goal is persuade, it’s about winning. The reason both parties are afflicted by the narrative dilemma is because as you said politicians are only giving people what they want and by doing that, the politicians stay in power. Too many people craving cheap power in politics and constituents.
I see your point but I think the real problem is politicians trying to entice voters by what the pol believes the voter wants/needs, or worse, is good for the voter. This raises the spectre of the old saw that democracy will fail when the electorate realizes it can vote itself largesse from the treasury. Obviously we are there, but are we past the point of no return?
I'm playing devils advocate a bit here, I agree unbridled populism isn't good, but I also think populism in general is a good thing. (That is the 2010 meaning of populism, giving the populace what they ask for.)
Would you rather politicians ignored what they believe the voter wants or needs, or promotes something they think is bad for the voter?
Arguably the PIIGS from the European Debt Crisis of 2009+ fall into the category of voters voting themselves so much money the state goes bust. They are all still democracies. I can't think of a case where a democracy has failed because it went bust. Even Mugabe's Zimbabwe staggered on. Can you think of one?
I welcome civil discourse.. I subscribed here because I am weary of being in my local echo chamber. So far I am very pleased with the result..
But to answer your question, it depends on how you define failure. I would argue Venezuala is an example. It still exists and is technically a democracy but we all know better. I read some interesting material before this reply and now I have much to ponder. Thanks for the nudge. While I am fairly doom and gloom about our prospects right now (I live in Texas and what is being allowed to happen at the border is not only chilling but also eye-opening) perhaps this period is merely a transition to something grand.
I am just now reading this comment thread. Venezuela is the immediate Exhibit A. They voted their way into Chavez. Look what that got them? Cubazuela! That country is one of the wealthiest in the world in terms of natural resource locations, and now it is impoverished environmental disaster in which 20% of the population has fled. They can't even feed themselves. It will take multiple generations to rebuild into a civilized country following the massive brain drain of professionals who have left the country for good.
Yeah, Venezuela fits the bill or at least comes close. The Venezuelans I've met thought that Chavez was good for his first term. What happened afterwards wasn't a neat Chavez bad opposition good tale though. Neither side could accept when the other won an election. I think it fits the idea that democracy fails when the losers can't accept defeat better than the idea that democracy fails when the voters vote themselves the treasury. The not accepting defeat is to my mind more of a problem generally. The EU has repeatedly failed to accept referendum defeats. The Brexit result wasn't accepted in the UK. The 2000, 2004, 2016 and 2020 results weren't been accepted in the US. All of these damaged democracy, at least temporarily. (It doesn't help that the US has the worst (or nearly worst) run elections in the democratic world, which means losers can have a point.)
Yeah, me too. I like a civil conversation. They used to be pretty commonplace for me, now I have to really watch what I say around people. :-(
I agree that what is happening at the border is nuts. That it isn't a national scandal is worse. Sadly, it isn't the only place it's happening. The southern EU border is much the same. In the short-term I can't see either getting any better, there is a huge number of people who are willing to try to get in and an equal number of people willing to exploit them when they do. I don't see it causing a problem to democracy yet though.
I think politicians in the US in particular "preach to the choir" and tell their supporters what they want to hear because of primaries and gerrymandering. For a lot of politicians, at every level, the more difficult election to win is the primary. The politicians closer to the centre are always worried about someone beating them from further out.
When I was in school (30 odd years ago) that was only for particular types of essays. For those, we are asked to write a persuasive essay. Otherwise, we were expected to show we understood the material (poem, novel, whatever) by some regurgitation/consise summations and to then use the material to come up with and defend few ideas of our own.
In the last few years I've done some online university courses and I've discovered the North American University Standard Essay Format. If you don't follow it, you get bad grades. It seems designed to get students to think backwards. The expected format is put your ideas first and then to spend the rest of the essay trying to defend them. So the opposite of the Scientific Method, which is to amass information and then try to come to some conclusion about it all that explains what you've found. Then to test those ideas by amassing more information. And repeat. Instead, the expected format encourages students to come up with an idea first and then to cherry-pick the evidence. Which by-and-large seems to be what today's journalists do. They don't summarise the information they've found, they cherry-pick it to support their ideas.
My professional life was tax law, so I always started with the facts and then applied those facts to the law to seek the outcome. It kept me honest and employed.
And yes, it’s an accurate observation that today’s journalists have it hopelessly wrong.
Yeah, sound about right. That's basically how I did all my papers through high school to college. Problem is, I don't feel the least bit bad about it because degree=job. Now that I'm older I feel like I cheated myself though...
That's exactly how I felt, I studied to get a job, and I did and that was great. So now I can go back and study something else for the purpose of learning/educating myself. It's been rewarding. I recommend it. I've done it all online and I only do a couple of courses a year so that I can really get into the subject and it doesn't cost too much.
Currently doing it now, theology stuff, but hard because I went the family rearing full swing so that soaks up a good bit of time. A blessing regardless though.
Why should a commentators goal be to persuade rather than enlighten?
For me, its should be like sports commentary. Usually there are two of them. A blow-by-blow person who describes the match as it happens. That's the news journalist. Then there is the colour/expert commentator, who is usually an ex-pro. They bring their inside knowledge of being immersed in the sport to the viewer and point out things most of us would miss. That's the political commentator.
The truth or facts? Those are different ideas, and I don't look to anyone to present me with truth: I'll evaluate that for myself, and that is part of persuasion, isn't it? Gathering facts to promote a way of looking at the world that's more consistent with those facts? I assume that's what you mean by “truth“? And anyone who thinks that most people function in the realm of facts to promote a coherent ideology is going to be mugged by reality. Many people don't live there - this is why politicians often say things they patently don't believe and why politics is so disconcerting to those of us who are straight shooters. I've been mugged by reality more than once, I have to admit, because human nature won't submit to facts and reason without a fight.
Facts are the starting-point, but there are an awful lot of them and what they look like varies with perspective. Political journalists do have to hack down the huge number of facts about any issue into something manageable. So some choice is inevitable. What I look for in a good journalist (i.e. one I'll pay to read) is that they are even-handed in their choosing, and deliberately put themselves in other people shoes to see the facts from a variety of perspectives.
I'm not sure any ideology can survive reality. :-) Mostly only politicians out of power get to be ideological.
Yeah, you are right, most of us don't function in the realm of facts (nice phrase that). I don't think our brains can work that way, we have to shoe-horn the facts into little boxes, otherwise we would be too overwhelmed to be able to function. But it is useful to be able to go back and re-open the boxes and re-organise the facts occasionally.
I think I get what you are talking about. Is this similar to some defenses of the "Feelings don't care about your facts" points I've been hearing on occasion? There's some merit to that.
Right - gravity won't stop functioning just because I want it not to, but I can understand it using facts and then fly! I'm hoping we can do this with politics as well
Best example I heard was when I was listening to Father Freeman on shame and how he advised priests of counseling soldiers with PTSD, paraphrasing he said something like you can't just beat them over the head with Just War Theory, the wound is still there... and knowing it doesn't make it go away.
Yeah - I wrote in another post about argument/logic vs. personal narrative, and how women tend to overemphasize the second and men the first. Seems in this case the personal narrative approach would be more helpful in healing; knowing facts or a theory doesn't necessarily heal the underlying spiritual/psychological wound - having the biggest toolkit of human skills as possible is my aim - what tool do I need and how do I best implement it? Argument or empathy? Justice or mercy? Hard to do!
You are making this way too complicated. I can only speak for myself and my close friends, so take it for what it's worth.
In my opinion, the Left - meaning you and those of your ilk, Mr. Goldberg - cannot grok that Trump's support has nothing to do with his personality. If it did, his popularity would be - well, about where yours is - nowhere. He's a bit of a mean bastard at times, and most voters don't like him very much personally. I'd put myself in that category.
My appreciation for Trump is for his POLICIES. For his accomplishments, largely done while dragging Leftist ankle-biters like you along behind him. For his steadfast, unwavering support for policies that put America First - not last. For representing his nation, not the globe, most of which hates us and wishes us ill.
Personality? No. Accomplishments - and the promise of more to come in his second and third terms? You bet.
I am okay with a good deal of his harshness as it is in response to attacks on him. He is a counter puncher, something we have been begging for for years.
How much is it his “toxic” personality and how much their toxic treatment of him. If you don’t support him aren’t you giving in to the evil mob? Look how they treat Desantis already
I completely understand your sentiments but I am tired of having to “self censor” all the time. My liberal friends seem to have no problem saying the most outrageous things
To my eye, the BLM riots were simply put-up deals from the very beginning. I mean, how do pallets of bricks magically appear in the middle of the street when there's not a construction site within five miles? Somebody is pulling those strings.
Capitulating, avoiding, appeasing BLM and others, you Must Not Do. What is it, then, that you DO do? Simply enforce the law. Equally, and for everybody.
The problem for people like JG is that their TDS blinds them to the reason for the behavior of those they do not understand. Fly over country is not blind or stupid. They know that everything you said about Trump’s behavior and character and competence are correct. However, they also know that under Trump’s watch the southern was border was closed, taxes were cut taxes and regulations were reduced, we had the best economy in a generation, we expanded our domestic energy industry to the benefit of the economy and national security, and we brokered peace in the middle east. When the pandemic hit, he spearheaded the only effective thing the government has done, which is accelerate the development and approval of vaccines in partnership with private industry. The reasons the left hates him so much are 1) that he actually did the above things, which every other RINO has promised to do and then failed to deliver, and 2) he is perhaps the least PC person on the planet, which is today’s parlance means he is the least woke person on the planet. This second point is an existential threat to the left, because wokeism is the cudgel that they use to cower opposition into submission to they can proceed with their utopian dreams like the adopting the green new deal, teaching CRT inspired curriculum in schools, erasing national borders, and granting cradle to grave entitlements to the world’s poor and hungry. If they need to pack the supreme court, do away with the electoral college, move to popular representation in the senate, add DC as a state, break the filibuster, or rule purely by executive order to do it, they will. Much like WFB standing athwart history yelling “STOP!”, Trump stood in front of the mob and said “Fuck off!” I condemn the violence of January 6th, and wish Trump would stop saying that the election was stolen by fraud. It was influenced by the changing of voting rules and the relentless partisanship of all media and big tech, not to mention the four-year debacle that was the Russian collusion hoax. But that’s just the game that Republicans need to play, so they need to get over it and win next time. But I understand the frustration of the people who are called “deplorables” and “bitter clingers” and who see BLM rioters and ANTIFA thugs called peaceful protestors, while they themselves are paying twice as much for gasoline and being told that they have to get vaccinated or get fired. So when their frustration gets the better of them, and they indulge in Trump’s nonsense even though they know deep down it’s nonsense, it is hard to blame them.
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said except your description of the green new deal as utopian. That is a dystopian nightmare if there ever was one.
I agree with a lot of what you said but the point and which I depart is the lack of emphasis you place on behavior and character. I agree that trump was able to enact many common sense policies that might not have been put in place by more establishment republicans; this is a good thing and many of the policies should have been given their due credit by the media, democrats, etc. that being said, we must not, and cannot, allow men and women of objectively low moral fiber occupy the highest office of our republic. Yes, common sense border strategy and lower taxes are great, but not committing to a peaceful transferral of power, inciting a mob of his supporters to take action to “take back your county” based on lies and falsehoods, and to continue to propagate these lies are an outright threat to our constitutional republic and are cancerous to our body politic. What good are these policy wins if we cannot co-exist as one, unified republic? We shouldn’t tolerate leaders who don’t have regard for the rule of law and who are at best obtuse, and at worst, are willfully trying to subvert our democratic process in an effort to increase their personal power. I’m not saying democratic leaders or those RINOS you refer to are saints; however, we need to recognize true threats to our democracy when they arise on both sides of the political aisle and demand better. Mahalo.
You make a fair point, one that I cannot get past. That is, in my view, DJT’s behavior following the election on 11/3/2020 and through the riot on 1/6/2021 was inexcusable. Such behavior forever damages the results obtained from his good policy accomplishments as well as his qualification to run for high office again. I’m disappointed that I have to say this, but this is where I am.
To Bruce Miller’s point, yes Biden is a moron and his policies are a disaster.
To Bob’s point, my only hope is that we have a good Republican choice (of good character and has good policies) come November 2024. I don’t believe that DJT should run, he would be better suited to support the best candidate.
Thanks Keith. I don't disagree with you. The problem is that we only get to choose between the individuals nominated. I will support almost any other Republican in the primary. However, if the 2024 general is between Liz Warren and DJT, who are you going to vote for?
I disagree. That is letting the opposition define the rules of the game and they will just keep moving the goal post. That is what I despise about the Clintons and others of their ilk - that the end justifies the means. It does not and it never will. We need a new approach rooted in ethics and morality.
And by morality I do not mean far right evangelicism.
To the power hungry, the ends always justify the means. Getting rid of Trump justified the means. Ensuring continued Dem/progressive wins justifies the means.
To paraphrase Will Munny: "Ethics and morality got nothing to do with it"
BTW ... the word "insurrection" has already been shown to not apply in this case and no charges of insurrection or sedition have been brought against anyone. When I see the word "insurrection" applied to this, I see the uninformed maunderings of a partisan.
For the left and the never-Trump right, it has to be an insurrection. That is so the 14th Amendment's language forbidding any person who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" holding any office of the United States can be applied to Trump. The whole point of this, excuse me, "narrative" is to keep Trump from becoming president again.
“so too classic conservatives are finding themselves out of step with a right-wing that seeks revolution rather than conservation.”
———————————————
I love the term ‘classic conservatives’. Reminds me of when people call themselves a ‘classical liberal’. What a bunch of self-aggrandizing nonsense.
Yeah Liz Cheney is really classical. She’s like the Mozart of politics. She’s a hack. She’s reading Sean Hannity’s text messages FFS. She’s getting revenge because she knows she’s losing. Tell her dad thanks for growing the government every single year despite being elected to do the exact opposite. Bunch of f***ing con artists.
Let me make this really easy for everyone. Conservatism is about conserving liberty. If you look at our current sprawling federal government, mostly unelected, and you want to conserve it, you are both a scumbag and not a conservative.
Now I will go eat the last chocolate fire extinguisher out of my Jan 6 advent calendar.
Don't forget when John McCain was a dark and depraved war monger before he was their hero and Mitt Romney was a greedy cancer causing, gay bashing dog abuser until he went against Trump. All of a sudden it was "How dare you!"
Goldberg is such a moron that he excoriated Youngkin for the I95 debacle not realizing, and this is a guy tuned into politics right?, that Northum was still the Va governor. When challenged this idiot said well in context I would have been right.
Hey Bari - if this is true about Goldberg - that he actually criticized Youngkin when Blackface was still Governor - then you owe us all an apology for printing this idiots's inane rants.
It is true. I’m not savvy enough with Twitter to re-post here, but JG retweeted his own tweet noting his error, to his credit. (Many would not correct the record.) You can find it out there if you’re on Twitter. That said, I found no evidence that he snarled at Northam once he was caught out that he’s STILL governor of the Commonwealth of VA… so I give him only partial credit for acknowledging the error.
I know, as a Virginian appalled at the state's pathetic lack of response, I initially thought how in the world could anyone be so stupid. Then I remembered he and his ilk are leftist cultists.
The problem with Goldberg is that he already staked out his position as a Trump hater, long ago. To try and belatedly make up reasons why ... well, it's too late. Goldberg is not a dispassionate reporter or observer; he is a partisan, and therefore he needs to get away from the Trump topic because everyopinion he gives is suspect. I like logic, not partisanship.
We just heard that January 6th, when people put their feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk and her laptop was stolen, was like Pearl Harbor or September 11th. Grotesque.
Goldberg and Cheney, that's a hell of a gruesome twosome, grifters if I ever saw any.
This essay misses the mark widely. Trump no doubt has his supporters who think he can do no wrong; I am against those people completely, but I think people like Jonah and most of the left exaggerate their numbers greatly. Trump as a phenomenon exists not because people think he's great or perfect, but as an F You to the left who has been spending the better part of the last decade calling them racist sexist homophobes. Privileged while their jobs are shipped overseas and their sons are lost to drugs. Actually it isn't good vs. evil; it's choosing amongst two bad choices, and making an assessment of which is less bad. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't deserve much of an audience. Pretending that's not the situation just makes everything worse.
I would say Trump emerged not just as an FU to the left, but also to the milquetoast chattering Conservative elites who see politics as some sort of game played between leaders who have little sympathy for the "poors" who have to suffer the consequences of that game.
I have been interested in how things get done since the Carter admin even though I was in 3rd grade when he was elected. I considered myself independent, but conservative minded. I've voted Republican and Democrat in many elections over the years. I have continually been frustrated every national election cycle how candidates say one thing while campaigning, but then fail to act when in office; trading their principles for power-brokerage. The political divide is growing, but it's because people want to actually see the needle move towards the conservative small-government side. They don't want politicians who would rather get something done over nothing, when that something puts us half a step closer to totalitarian government. I didn't support Trump, but everyone I talked with who did said essentially the same thing, "We're only going to get more of the same if we elect the same kind of people we have in the past." They still like Trump for getting things done in the face of relentless opposition.
That's a good point. I don't like Republicans much but over the years I've been amazed that they will basically lie down and take being called racist, homophobe, nazi. Fight back already. It's all a show though I agree with Taibbi on that. The establishment wants us to hate each other.
Yes. I'm a former Democrat educated professional who supported Trump. I can't STAND milquetoast elites of any sort.
Most Politicians say one thing while campaigning then do the opposite in office. I voted Obama & he was completely full of s***.
Trump actually did exactly what he said he would (which was Amazing & uplifting & inspirational to see) & when he didn't it was mostly due to certain traitors in his Cabinet. He was plagued by traitors in his Cabinet who did horrible things to undermine him, then quit & wrote best-sellers. He himself got things done, was honest about what he was going to do & doing it. He was not beholden to Corporate Lobbyists, which is a big problem in politics.
Only problem is Trump hired the traitors. Secondly, Goldberg is definitely blinded by his hatred for Trump, it would seem. As you say, Trump got things done like it or not. I have watched/studied Politics for over 30 years. Trump got more done than any other prior Presidents. Finally, Trump brought China front and center. He is why everyone now talks about China. All the mice were quiet before because both parties were taking the money!
He did hire the traitors. One of Trump's many flaws is narcissism & love of flattery. They probably brown nosed him.
Agree! Trump got more done than any prior presidents. I voted for him, hoping he would get at least some of it done, but I was amazed at just how much he accomplished, despite all the constant battles waged against him that he had to deal with on a daily basis. They did everything possible to bring him down & still he got so much done.
Yes. The threat from China has been building for years, yet Wall St + both establishment parties were raking in $$$$ (money which they Stole from the working class!!) with their complicity/selling out to China. Trump was the first person to talk about the threat & to do something about it. Agree, FINALLY, after too many years (is it too late? maybe) both political parties are talking about the need to stop China.
I hear you Sally. I too voted for President Obama and was disappointed when he failed to lead, not only in the manner he promised, but at all. He left a power vacuum to be filled by Spkr. Pelosi and Sen. Schumer who still had trouble putting together any form of coherent plan or direction even with their party in firm control.
I was going to come here and say the same thing but you said it way better. I'll only add that Trump, odious as he is, is just an ugly bulwark against a tide of radical leftism that's eating away at the US. Conservatism, whatever that means these days, hasn't been doing anything to stop the far-left advance -- just mitigating the damage where it can; but essentially bringing knives to gunfights and losing for years. Trump at least brought some heat.
Yeah he actually fought back. It does feel like our politics is just plainly tribal these days and there's really no rational debate amongst people who disagree. It's mostly just slander.
It’s the districts versus the capital to put it in pop culture terms. People inside is capital cannot conceive of life in the districts. Trump was absolutely an F you and nobody in the elite seems to understand that
Bari, I don’t come here to read pastor French or this jerk. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am that you allowed this slug to spew on your site. Mr laughs at his own jokes because no one else does and uses 10 words when one will do is a con artist. A “principled” conservative that wouldn’t recognize conservative accomplishments if they came up and bit him.
Don't throw too much shade at Bari. I applaud that she is trying to publish different opinions. The problem is that Jonah is a fraud. He pretends to be a conservative but is really just a member of the establishment enabling the left. So, Bari, if you want to provide varied perspectives, at least choose someone authentic.
I’ll only add that JG’s article didn’t add anything factual to my understanding. I only saw an opinion piece. Big deal. Who doesn’t have opinions?
When I read the reliable old “Trump repeatedly lied” I take a tiny breath and look for a specific piece of evidence which never shows up. This has been being treated as a fundamental principle of nature - no factual evidence necessary. If JG (or anyone) wants me to make a value judgement on Trumps honesty, I’ll need specific examples that stand up to inspection AND outweigh the lies common to so many others in power.
Don’t get me wrong, Trump lost my support by being such a sore loser (mega). But writers like JG who rush to throw every nasty thing they can think of -real or imagined won’t get my attention. I almost didn’t even read this JG piece. It’ll be the last thing I read or watch from JG.
Your stated views here are a perfect illustration of what the essay is arguing against: ad hominem attacks and an "us versus them" mentality that precludes the possibility of civil discourse. It's a little ironic. Is it possible to disagree with the writer by engaging in specific refutations of his argument with relevant examples? Something to think about.
Hmmm civil discourse with people who routinely call you: racists, NAZIS, KKK. People who routinely lie about everything. People who use the security state to destroy their enemies. FUCK THAT.
Pastor French--that's classic, and SO right-on! The latest in an endless list of assholes cloaking themselves in "religion", dating back to the Dawn of Time. I cannot stand that hypocritic son of a bitch...
This article represents the first time I’ve been disappointed in the quality of content within Common Sense/Honestly post. Did not ring true as honest or common sensical.
15 days. 45 days. Misdemeanor charges for trespassing and illegally protesting in the wrong place. The most serious charges are for assaulting police officers and interstate threats, not attempting to overthrow the government.
If the US government through the auspices of the DOJ is not interested in furthering a narrative of an 'insurrection" for the incident on January 6 then who is?
A few weeks ago the House took up the important business of whether or not a Photoshopped clip of the Japanese anime "Attack on Titan" represented a serious threat of violence to House members.
Think about that for a second. "Adult" human beings, at the highest level of government, engaged in serious debate about teenagers making meme clips. Is it any wonder that any actual adult considers government at this point to be some kind of sick joke?
How is the endless flogging of January 6th any different?
Where were you in 2016 when the Democrats tried to stop the electoral college? Where were you in 2018 when BLM invaded the Senate Office Building to protest the Supreme Court Nominee? Do insurrectionists normally carry guns? Where were you during Trump’s inauguration when BLM set fire to Washington?
What fake arguments! I call bullshit on this whole partisan essay.
"The Democrats" didn't try to stop the Electoral College. A couple of members voiced objections, and were *immediately* gaveled out of order by Democratic Vice President Joe Biden.
BLM didn't "invade" the Senate. Protestors who bought tickets to attend the confirmation hearing stood up and protested during the hearings to disrupt them; nobody entered the building forcefully or unlawfully.
Insurrectionists don't have to carry guns, even though some of the protesters that day were armed.
And whatever protesters did during Trump's inauguration, they weren't egged on by Hilary Clinton or any members of the existing Presidential administration. Both sides of the aisle have their radicals, and that will never change. Goldberg is criticizing Trump for exploiting and encouraging them.
These arguments aren't fake. They are entirely legitimate. There is no left-wing equivalent to Trump, who attempted to upend our Constitutional order using the highest office in the land (and if you've been paying attention to recent revelations, you know this all goes much further than the January 6th insurrection - Trump was even toying with declaring martial law, for heavens' sake). You pointing out relatively inconsequential political stunts by activists and/or a couple of minor Congressional politicians doesn't even come close.
You agree that Democrats (many, not "a couple") objected to the counting of votes. So I am correct in that. I never said BLM invaded the Senate, I said they invaded the Senate Office Building to protest Kavanaugh, which they DID. They were unruly and threatening, much like the J6 protestors . So I am right on that. Trump NEVER asked people to enter the capitol building and so that is a straight up lie. Trump supporters also didn't plant bombs or burn down buildings at any time in history, so compared to the Democrat terror armies of Antifa and BLM they behaved in an exemplary manner. Show me the list of people charged with carrying guns. Nobody did that. That is a lie. One person had pepper spray. Should he do life? The Democrats have chosen to imprison people for a year in what amounts to a dungeon for illegal parading and disrupting Congress. They are political prisoners. Nobody has been charged with insurrection or terrorism. That is all made up to suit your idiotic narrative. You are not fooling anyone except yourselves. Go back to your cry closet. Bawl your eyes out.
"Trump supporters also didn't plant bombs or burn down buildings..." There is a photograph of someone planting (alleged) pipe bombs near the capitol on January 5th of 2021. Interestingly, this person has never been identified, let alone arrested. This as the FBI has tracked down grandmothers in Alaska and knocked their doors down for the crime of trespassing inside the capitol. Why is that?
The pipe bomber carried a cell phone. The FBI can get location data easy on this guy. That is how they know who was in the capitol bldg. The pipe bomb guy was a Fed. Just like Roy Epps was a Fed.
Ok amigo, lets get a couple of things straight here.
Firstly, I don't support anyone rioting, looting, or destroying property in protest. I'm quite critical of wokeness and I think that the BLM movement, sympathies notwithstanding, has become, as they say, "problematic". I'm not even a Democrat, and while I do generally consider myself liberal and a progressive capitalist, I have no problem criticizing the excesses of the left. I don't play for a team.
Which brings me to my second point. You need to stop thinking you can justify everything Trump or his supporters do by comparing it to something done by someone you consider to be playing for Team Blue. This is the real world, not a two-team pissing contest.
Our democracy is teetering on the brink here, and last I checked the people crying were the ones who can't accept that Trump lost and who are indulging in fever-dream fantasies of having their country stolen from them and what sort of extra-legal means they can use to steal it back. And all you seem to care about is how effectively you can own the other side. Trump can be as corrupt, mendacious, and authoritarian as he wants and it's all just partisan bullshit as long as there's some Democrat or woke activists you can criticize. That's not how reality works.
Yes, there is something to be said for setting moral precedents; "whataboutism" isn't always wrong. But you can't just draw any parallel you like. Activist riots in the streets or loud protests by people lawfully admitted to a Senate hearing do not set a precedent for attempting to undermine the certifying of a lawfully administered election. A few Democrats (*seven*, if you'd like the exact count) attempting to lodge unserious objections without even the required signatures do not set a precedent for *almost the entire House Republican caucus* to object to the election results without any valid reason. And Maxine Waters making some ill-considered remark does not set a precedent for the sitting President of the United States committing a blatant act of sedition in an attempt to upend our Constitutional order.
Unless people like you start opening your eyes and realizing that the actions and sympathies of a small sliver of extremist Democrats, however objectionable and obnoxious, do not justify an autocratic takeover of our republic by a political party which has succumbed to a personality cult and punishes members who don't blatantly lie to the American public about the integrity of our elections, our union is in grave peril.
Seems to me that you don't even have eyes to open - only ears to hear what you are told to hear and a mouth to speak what you are told to speak. You are a good soldier for tyranny.
Once again Neil, ping me when you have something substantive to say, instead of a generic quote that sounds like it came from "The Complete Idiot's Guide To: Online Trolling".
Actually, Maxine Waters ill-considered comments led to actual harassment of Trump staff, from Sarah Sanders on down. Rand Paul was almost killed by his own neighbor who hated Trump. Which is more of an insurrection--invading the Capital building for two hours or planting the seeds of a Russian hoax that ate up all the Washington oxygen for four years.
As for Trump, the loyalty that people show for him is a direct correlation to the hatred leveled against him by media, etc. If people love Trump, it is for two reasons: he's the first politician, Democrat or Republican, who actually listened to people who felt abandoned by their government; also, the steaming pile of hatred thrown at Trump for years, off the wall accusations, the normalizing of explosive rhetoric, and the singular determination to destroy the man and anyone who supported him forced a backdraft that set American politics aflame.
I voted for Trump in 2016 as a vote against Hillary. I just couldn't do it. Yes, I held my nose and voted for the strange orange man with the golden escalator, and felt weird about it. However, two years into his presidency and the buildup of false accusations, distortions (remember kids in cages, cages built by Obama?) and outright lies and I was in with both feet. If the Democrats and the liberal media think that Trump supporters are too loyal to him, they have only themselves to blame.
I don't know where you're getting that Waters' comments are what led to Sarah Sanders getting flak at a restaurant or Rand Paul's unfortunate incident. I could just as easily claim that Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric led to the El Paso shooter. He was certainly an inspiration to the Christchurch lunatic, as well as Cesar Sayoc, who sent pipe bombs to Democrats.
The accusation regarding Obama and cages is misleading; under Obama incarceration of children was used only in exceptional circumstances - when the parent was being charged with a crime or was somehow deemed a threat to the child, or when the child showed up unaccompanied. In particular, Obama did not have a policy of separating families; Trump did, and lied claiming that it was a policy he inherited from Obama. That's a false accusation and a distortion. The "kids in cages" accusation against Trump may be somewhat careless, but it represents a significant truth that Trump's defenders attempt to refute on a technicality. That's bumper-sticker politics for you.
I've already made clear in many posts here that the Russian "hoax" was not a hoax; I'm exhausted repeating it. But I'll note one interesting thing about it: the anti-anti-Trump reaction to the investigation is a microcosm of the anti-anti-Trump reaction overall, specifically with regard to your claim that it "ate up all the oxygen for four years". Just like the "Russia hoax" crowd wants the entire investigation into Trump to be about Carter Page and the Steele Dossier, so do they want Trump's entire corrupt tenure to be about the Russia investigation. That's a strawman.
Suffice it to say, if you think that the Russia investigation is the basis for all, or even most of the antipathy toward Trump, you are misinformed, just like many of Trump's supporters would like you to be. You could completely forget about Trump's Russia connections (which are very real, regardless of whether or not he was guilty of criminal conspiracy) and still have the most shamelessly destructive Presidency of modern times, and possibly ever. While many of my fellow progressives focus on Trump's xenophobia, sexism, race-baiting, and other obnoxious qualities, I always tell them it's a mistake to lead with that. Despite the seriousness of such issues, they are also issues with deep cultural discrepancies, thanks in no small part to progressive overreach over the years. There are other things I could name, like his incompetence, terrible judgement, poor understanding of economics, vainglorious gullibility, utter ignorance of American government and history, ... these are perhaps "typical" criticisms that might be leveled at other presidents (albeit not likely in tandem) that reflect on someone's overall qualification to execute the duties of a U.S. President.
But Trump's real issue is his narcissism and selfishness, which borders on sociopathy. Time and again Trump has put the interests of Trump before the interests of America, all while claiming (like a typical populist demagogue) that he was doing it "for the people". His DOJ fought to eviscerate the ACA and end the protection of pre-existing conditions while he lied and claimed he was preserving it; he showed open contempt for valued American relationships and trashed geopolitically strategic initiatives because of his vain need to remake everything in his image; he routinely complained about the caution with which vaccines were being developed because be believed it would hurt his chances of re-election; he pardoned actual war criminals (murderers) to use as political props; he pardoned a guy who should be in jail right now for fleecing Trump's own supporters with a "build the wall" scam; he abandoned our strategic position near the Turkey/Syria border after a call with the president of Turkey, where Trump has financial interests; he refused to divest himself of his businesses like every other President to avoid conflicts of interest; he lavished praise on autocrats who pretended to like and respect him while treating like dirt friends and allies unwilling to play sycophant; ... I could go on like this far longer than you'd care to read.
He has also systematically dismantled many of the norms and institutional guardrails that the American presidency has relied upon for all of its history. His normalization of outright lying, abuse of his powers for his own political purposes, making money off of his position as President, undermining the legitimacy of other branches of government, openly communicating expectations of favorable rulings from his Supreme Court appointments, purposefully retaining "acting" Cabinet officials so that he doesn't have to worry about Senate ratification, open nepotism, flouting the Hatch Act, urging government employees to flout the law (even with promises of pardons at times), etc.
I could go on, but let's just conclude with the offense that dwarfs all of these, by far: his attempt to undermine and subvert our electoral system, with completely baseless accusations that have been refuted at every turn, delivering a serious wound to the legitimacy of our democracy. Set aside how the scenes of January 6th changed the way that the rest of the world sees America - airing our dysfunction and dealing a huge blow to our reputation as a stable democracy. This attack was the tip of the iceberg - through the investigations of the Jan 6th committee we are learning all about the elaborate plans Trump and his minions were laying to attempt to subvert a valid election. Plans which were doomed to fail, but only for the integrity of Republicans of good faith, who have already become a distinct minority in Congress and in many party state chapters. Trump will try this again, with a party that is now far more corrupted than it was even a year ago - thanks to him.
I am reading this late, but you lay everything out so well. And, I fear as you do that next time he will succeed with the deep seated corruption and false narratives spreading today. Anyone with integrity is out; those who will spread the narratives are in.
Boy, are you out of the loop.
Oh, and with regard to "Trump supporters also didn't plant bombs or burn down buildings at any time in history", I guess you weren't paying attention when Cesar Sayoc sent mail bombs to Democratic politicians. And I suppose you think that the numerous incidents of right wing terror that we've witnessed in recent years are all committed by people who somehow don't support Trump and are in no way motivated by his anti-immigrant rhetoric. The Proud Boys must be Jo Jorgenson supporters.
Like I said, both the left and right have their radicals and neither is incapable of violence. If you're intent on playing this game of "which side is worse", you will be hard pressed to make a case that the right, with its white nationalist militias and gun-waving militant Evangelicals is somehow less of a violent threat than the left.
You are just another deep stater accusing Trump of things he never did and his supporters of the fake crime of being white supremacist terrorists while excusing your well paid pals in the Democrat terror armies of BLM and Antifa for the actual crime of burning down the cities. There are no white supremacist militias and all all you glowies can stop trying to convince people that there are. Your propaganda is false and your own crimes are real, including by the way stuffing the ballot boxes on 3 Nov. I am not your amigo and you smug government people starting breaking America when you lied about Trump/Russia and used the security services to destroy the Trump administration. We are done with comity. We are done with TV news. We are done with Twitter. You can not fool us anymore. We see you.
I agree with everything you said except I do believe right-wing militias exist. I also think they are marginal and are every bit as despised by the vast majority of conservatives as they are by the liberals who fuel them.
Of course they exist. The Three Percenters and Oath Keepers aren't figments of our imaginations.
And I hope you are right about them being despised by most of the right. Certainly most of the left despises the punks in Portland and the people who destroy property in protests.
But what concerns me is that, according to polls, most Republicans believe Joe Biden won the 2020 election through fraud, and a disturbing percentage of them believe violence may be necessary to remedy this.
Yeah, the "amigo" was sarcasm. Would've assumed that was clear.
Also, I don't watch TV news, nor do I have a Twitter account, so if you're aiming those comments at me you're mistaken.
Also, I never accused his supporters of being white supremacists.
I said white supremacists support him, to counter your statements about Antifa/BLM, who are also just a segment of the left.
And your belief that people "lied" about Trump/Russia comes from you selectively conflating the overall narrative with aspects of it that were false (e.g. the Steele Dossier) and ignoring the overall truth (that Russia ran an organized campaign to help get Trump elected, and the Trump campaign willingly accepted this help, even if they did not meet the requirements for "criminal conspiracy").
As for who "broke" America, I can only assume you must be too young to realize that America has been "breaking" for some time. We've been at each other's throats now for a generation. Trump was the guy who came in and gave it all an air of normalcy and legitimacy - the first President who tried to exploit our cultural divisions for his political purposes instead of making some effort to unite us as Americans. He isn't a visionary who came in to "shake things up". He's a conman who unexpectedly won election to an office for which he was entirely unfit, and demonstrated that by playing with the Presidency like it was a toy instead of a sacred duty to discharge.
And you've clearly bought into it. Your denunciation of left-wing nonsense means very little if you are incapable of filtering out right-wing conspiracy theory bullshit. Stop putting stock in unfalsifiable accusations of the "deep state" and ignoring overwhelming evidence against "stuffing ballot boxes", or you will continue to be just as much a part of the problem as the people you clearly hate so much.
Señorito, I was drafted for the Viet Nam war. Nobody gives a shit about the few pennies that the Russians spent on a few Facebook ads in 2016, that is nothing. Nobody buys your imaginary white supremacists. All you government employees with your giant paychecks and your cushy retirements live off the backs of decent productive citizens and you hate the idea that we are done carrying you around. Trump was the only one who fought against you and your Woke elite masters on our behalf. We are done with your greedy sinecures and your dismissive hatred. We know what you are. We see you.
Whoa! A little bit judgmental are we? White nationalist militias? Gun waving militant Evangelicals? Militias are everywhere. Isn't Antifa a leftist, Communist militia? Isn't BLM a black nationalist militia? Bringing up "white nationalism" and "white supremacy" hasn't quite crashed into crazy land but it has skidded against the guard rails in spots. Oh, and I know tons of atheists who own guns; even a few Unitarians. Gun ownership crosses all boundaries and all races. What do you think that the black gangs in Chicago are using to blast children playing in their front yards--bows and arrows? And all those cops who are being ambushed and killed. Is it done by dirty looks and evil wishes? Hexes maybe? The thing about gun toting, rootin tootin Evangelicals is that for all the rhetoric, they don't actually shoot people. Not one of the rioters on Jan 6 brought a gun. They brought buffalo hats and face paint, but no one was shot except Ashli Babbitt. Now I admit that the members of Congress are not used to being shot at or even threatened with anything but bad press. Still, Jan 6 sparked a hell of a lot more pearl clutching and sky is falling panic than it did actual damage. Only one person died on either side as a result of some action during the "Insurrection," Ashli Babbitt who was trying to escape from the press of the crowd.
Get to know me James, and you'll find I'm one of the least judgmental people you'll know. It's one of the reasons I'm increasingly disgusted with the far left wing of progressivism.
But my statements about white nationalism and American Evangelicals aren't just opinions I've gleaned from my limited window on the world; these are conclusions of people who have studied the American Evangelical movement. I realize that there are lots of Evangelicals and I am painting with a broad brush here. I don't mean to color everyone who identifies as such.
But there has been a well documented, growing culture of hyper-masculinity and obsession with violence in service of religious aims among American Evangelicals over the last 20 years or so. It's real - you can see it in opinion polls, in the Christian religious imagery and speech on display at gatherings like Jan 6th, in the strange merging of Christianity and QAnon, and the Christ-like loyalty to Trump. The FBI has identified white nationalist terrorism as a growing and significant threat. Over the years it has mostly been "lone wolves" (Timothy McVeigh, Dylan Roof, John Timothy Earnest, Kevin Harpham, etc.) but many have been motivated by the ideologies of more organized groups.
Yes, you can point to left wing acts of violence. BLM is not a militia - it's a hashtag, backed by a clueless organization. Antifa doesn't even have the organization. I'm not going to defend either of them; if you think I'm taking the side of lawbreaking as protest (much less street gangs and thugs) you have the wrong idea about me.
The problem is, organizations like the Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, Proud Boys, etc. are organized and acting under the pretense of patriotism and defending American democracy. Stewart Rhodes, the head of the Oath Keepers, has been charged with sedition in his role on January 6th - he was actively organizing an infiltration into the Capitol building that day. And you're wrong about people not being armed - several people were charged with bringing guns with them that day, and in general there's no reason to expect that we'd know about others because people weren't searched and most of the arrests occurred after the fact. This is a serious issue - street gangs don't recruit online or through political ideology, and protests spontaneously turning violent is an unfortunately unavoidable (though thankfully infrequent) cost of living in a free society. They just aren't normally organized and instigated by the White House, however one wishes to blame politicians for ideology run amok.
I hope you are right about all of the rhetoric being posturing - but you're wrong in thinking that it hasn't already resulted in numerous acts of violence. I see little reason to think that it won't get worse - primarily because it has been effectively given the imprimatur of the leader of the Republican Party. Trump will give a disclaimer here or there to cover his ass (like his use of the term "peacefully" in the Jan 6th speech), but even if one naively believes he doesn't know what he's doing, his followers take all of that with a wink and a nod - just like the Proud Boys claimed to have "gotten the message" after Trump's "stand down and stand by" line during the debate. And in any case, his claims of having their "country stolen from them" has given them all the motivation they'll ever need. I'm not trying to sling arrows here; I'm legitimately worried.
Eric...so funny, your post "anti-immigrant rhetoric", ask his family, what do they think about your chanting?
The fact that Trump has a European trophy wife does not negate the reality of his rhetoric against immigrants from certain parts of the world.
A poster who ends his comment with “Go back to your cry closet” has forfeited any claim to be read, or if read, to be taken seriously.
How easy people forget that the whole purpose of Russian scandal was to claim that Trump DID not win fairly and millions of our countryman still think that it is true. In my mind, "Russian Hoax" played much bigger role then Jan.6th in undermining our political system. And can you please explain Maxine Waters who instructed her supporters to harass administration? Are you saying that arson and destruction in DC in 2016 win does not matter because it was outside? So far I did not see any proof that Trump actively encouraged any unlawful actions. Under the year of conspiracy theories coming true, may be we can wait to see actual facts before making our own arguments.
I'm getting tired of this ridiculous argument. The claim was not that Trump rigged the election. The claim was that Russia engaged in a wide ranging campaign of propaganda and misinformation to help Trump get elected, which was *absolutely true*. There really were Russian troll farms that invented fake stories spread through Facebook and other social media platforms. Numerous Russians were indicted and convicted for it.
Now, were Democrats happy about this? Of course not. Did they feel "cheated" in some general sense, especially given that once again they won the popular vote (this time by nearly 3 million votes in a low turnout election)? Sure. Did they hope to find something in the course of investigating him that would warrant impeachment? I certainly did.
But they did not fabricate claims that Trump or the Republican Party unlawfully won the election. They took no action on the basis of accusations that were unconfirmed through a legitimate investigation. The investigation into Trump was *entirely warranted* and was *not* a hoax. The Steele Dossier was not the basis for the investigation - George Papadapolous running his mouth to an Australian diplomat about Russia's efforts to get Trump elected, combined with Trump's *numerous* business deals in Russia and a campaign manager who had recently been a consultant to the pro-Russian former Ukranian president created a situation we would have been positively negligent *not* to investigate.
The Obama administration deliberately kept this investigation under wraps so as not to influence the election. Clinton conceded immediately. There was no trawling of the internet for bogus stories about rigged voting machines that could be repeated ad infinitum until people started believing them. Everyone understood that even an election where people were systematically lied to in ways which may have influenced their vote is still a valid election.
Finally, if you don't think Trump encouraged unlawful action, I think you're being willfully naive. Even if he didn't intend for the Capitol to be breached, he happily sat back and watched it unfold and ignored entreaties to stop it. The only "conspiracy theory" that came true this year was the one we all watched in the open. The scam that Trump telegraphed way in advance, the phone calls and meetings with state legislators and election officals trying to coerce them into overturning their state's elections, Mike Flynn suggesting Trump declare martial law, etc. And now we have the Eastman memos detailing the ridiculously unconstitutional scheme being hatched in order to subvert the Electoral College. The Jan 6th riot was just the tip of the iceberg.
Excuse me? You lost me at 'numerous Russians *convicted* for troll farming during the Trump related elections.' Oh, really? Even Goldberg didn't jump that shark. Besides, there are troll farms working every side of the political discourse. Turn Maddow off.
Oops, you're right, thanks for the catch. I'd forgotten that Trump's DOJ killed the trials against the firms. As for the individuals indicted, they have to be dragged back here to actually convict them. The evidence is overwhelming, however.
On that note, you'll have to pardon me if I find it remarkable how, once again, Trump's people managed to squash public accountability for something that Trump ostensibly has no reason to feel guilty about.
And when the troll farms are run by a foreign adversary who is openly supporting a candidate (who then turns out to be every bit the lawless threat to our democratic norms that everyone feared), it's a much bigger deal.
And no, sorry, I don't watch Maddow. How about you commit to not watching Fox and we'll be on a better footing?
The inference was that Trump rigged the election. I used to go to some of those leftist sites and there it was actually claimed that Trump rigged the election. It was nauseating. Turns out it was not Trump doing the rigging - after now going on 6 years and Lord knows how much treasure spent in the investigation. This pushed people that believe this is a government by the people, for the people to their limits. Then they were subjected to blatant censorship by so-called social "media" (hence the mistaken belief by some that they have the right to free speech on those sites) and footage of piles of ballots being delivered that disrupted the tally of the votes. It appears this was done legally but it was also funded by the owners of some of those same social "media" mills. It was not a good optic. Nor is the buses and planeloads of illegal migrants being shipped around the country with the promise of expedited citizenship (votes). I saw with my own lying eyes two of those the week before Christmas on, I kid you not, Purple Coach, LLC buses. Coincidence? I think not.
"The claim was not that Trump rigged the election."
False/ disingenuous.
Damn near the whole rationale for Mueller's probe was, to see if Trump used Russians to try to "rig" the election.
The *related* claim was, that Russia engaged in a wide ranging campaign of propaganda and misinformation to help Trump get elected. But, even if the Russian effort was the most massive of its kind in world history, that proved nothing about *Trump's* conduct.
"The Steele Dossier was not the basis for the investigation...."
False. Indeed, the whole thing was contrary to (Ashcroft post-911 era) AG guidelines.
The Steele crap was falsely said to be sufficient for starting a Full Investigation, which, for it to be legit, needed *much more basis than any of the things you've listed here (e.g. Papa's words).
To get real understanding of how these Predication things work/ worked, see ret. FBI Mark Wauck, at https://meaninginhistory.substack.com/p/the-russia-hoax-its-still-about-the .
Firstly, kaishaku, I'll thank you not to call me disingenuous. I always speak in good faith.
Secondly, there were a couple legitimate questions about Trump's involvement that needed to be ascertained. To what extent was Trump involved with Russia? Did Russia have any information potentially compromising Trump? It is the height of credulousness to think that it was somehow inappropriate for there to be legitimate national security concerns about a candidate with numerous financial ties to Russia, who openly played footsie with Putin in public, and whose campaign manager once supported a Russian puppet government in Ukraine. Under these circumstances, the findings regarding Popadopolous and the recent cyber intrusion into the DNC absolutely justified an investigation.
And you are simply wrong about the Steele Dossier being used to justify a full investigation. Crossfire Hurricane was opened as a Full Investigation on July 31st based entirely on the information I just specified; that's in Horowitz's report. What you link to here is some freelancing article attempting to undermine Horowitz and speculating about what may have been on some people's minds at the time, which is ultimately irrelevant. The formal justification is what it is, and it was enough to justify the opening of a Full Investigation. Which itself happens to be irrelevant, because according to Horowitz everything done between July 31st and the first FISA application in October would have been allowable under a Preliminary Investigation as well.
And all of this does absolutely nothing to justify Trump's actions in attempting to undermine the 2020 election. An investigation was opened, found nothing incriminating, and no details of it were released to the public. The issue was effectively dead before the election - the FBI was still investigating, but not Trump personally. I'll remind you that it was Trump's own mind-boggling acts of hubris - which included firing his AG under false pretenses, then admitting on television that it was really because of the Russia investigation - that resulted in the Mueller Special Counsel. Not to mention the ridiculously guilty way in which Trump conducted himself during the investigation - threatening to fire Mueller, openly dangling pardons, harassing his AG on an almost daily basis for recusing himself from the investigation he clearly expected protection from, etc.
Launching legitimate investigations is simply incomparable to blathering baseless accusations of fraud, plotting to subvert the counting of electoral votes, trying to goad election officials into falsifying results, toying with the idea of invoking martial law to retain power, and refusing to concede a presidential election.
And, Papa was a chump with no real role in the Trump circle, but
nobody in the MSM dares to look at what Durham etc. are looking at, regarding why the FBI etc. played Papa to go meet Mifsud etc. in Rome.
Eric, again I need to respectfully comment on the "popular" vote. Yes, Hillary did win the popular vote by 2.8 million votes, but she won California b 4.2 million votes. The conclusion has to be that outside of CA, she was unpopular. This is the sole reason for the Electoral College and it was genius. All of our states have different topography, economic concerns, natural resources, etc. It would be unconscionable to allow one state to drown out the voices and needs of the rest of the nation. So whether or not Democrats felt cheated or not is irrelevant. And regardless of what Russia may or may not have wanted, I can't see how Trump's presidency benefited them. Conversely, we have Joe closing down our Keystone pipeline on day one, but then endorsing the Russian pipeline shortly thereafter. Things that make you go "hmmmm". Again, not a fan of Trump as a person, but do you not take any issue with things like this? I would love to have everything green. I would love everything to run off of clean, renewable energy. However, there is a way of doing things. I wouldn't throw out my home oil heater, before I installed solar panels. (not that I currently have either!) I get that you are anti-Trump...I've read almost all of your posts...but do you think that Joe is doing a good job?! If so, and polling is accurate, you are in the minority. You talk about Russian interference in the 2016 election, but does it not occur to you now that the media's soft treatment of Joe in his basement during the campaign also unduly influenced the 2020 election?
As to the Electoral College: I'm quite familiar with that argument. It's misleading.
Firstly, California may be "one state", but it's a state consisting of forty million people; roughly one eighth of the U.S. population. And it's not a monolithic pinprick - it's our spatially largest state outside mostly-uninhabitable Alaska, comprising most of the U.S. west coast, so it involves a lot of different topographies and social configurations. It would be perfectly reasonable to break it up (which probably isn't going to happen any time soon), but the fact that it's one big state shouldn't diminish the significance of its enormous population.
That's an awful big chunk of America to just set aside as if it shouldn't matter. If you allow me to remove states covering roughly forty million people I could easily tip the balance of the popular vote for most close elections in either direction. That includes this hypothetical California-free America, where Trump wins by 1.4 million votes and where you claim Hillary is so unpopular and is being drowned out by the Golden State. Let's just say I was to cut out the upper Northwest (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Nebraska) and Alaska - all won by Trump. Seven states, yes, but by my calculations their total population is less than eight million people: one fifth the size of California. Yet this is all I need to eliminate in order to shave a little over 1.4 million votes from Trump's margin and swing it back to Hillary. For good measure I could remove a few more red states without even getting close to 40 million - say, Indiana, Kentucky, and Arkansas, pushing us up to around 24 million, still only 60% of what we removed with California - giving Hillary about a 1.5 million lead again. Now Trump is unpopular in this new rest-of-America consisting of roughly 80% of the original, whose clear choice of Hillary is being drowned out - SAD!
I'm being cheeky here, but I think you get my point. The idea that Trump won "the rest of the country" outside California is misleading - as misleading as you feel saying Hillary "won America" is.
As to it being "genius", well ... I respectfully disagree. In any case it certainly wasn't our founders' genius, because the way we do things now wasn't their intent. As with every aspect of republican democracy vs. direct democracy, the idea was to avoid the pitfalls of "mob rule". It was an explicitly elitist, anti-populist concept: electors were expected to vote using their judgement, the same judgement elected representatives are supposed to use instead of just keeping their ear to the ground on every issue to capture the public's fickle, intemperate whims. Which doesn't have to be as dastardly and Machiavellian as it sounds; life is complicated, and so is running a country. What other job gets filled via a popularity contest rather than qualified individuals weighing candidates based on merit? And this is supposedly the most important job in the world!
The Founders made it clear they didn't want a demagogue rising to power, especially one that may have gotten an assist from a foreign adversary. So I think that a tremendously strong case can be made that Trump is exactly the type of candidate the Electoral college was supposed to *prevent* from taking office, and yet it ended up *enabling* his election. Major fail, as the kids say.
Regardless of whether you agree with me on that last point, it's clear things didn't work out according to plan. State level politics eventually held sway (much like they did with the Senate before the 17th amendment) and now we have this Frankenstein's monster version of the popular vote with a gigantic roundoff error, plus a little bonus booster for the smallest states and a population-based magnifier for states with relatively low turnout. We hear a lot of rationalizations about why this is so great, typically from whichever party currently benefits from the quirks of it (which varies more often than people realize) and is usually based on a misunderstanding of what's happening.
Like the claim that a popular vote would allow you to focus on the largest states or metropolitan areas. Wrong - it's the Electoral College which would theoretically let you win with (under the last decade's allotment) the top eleven states, and in practice lets you ignore most of the country (all but the swing states). A popular vote doesn't give you all the votes from any city, state or region where you get more than 50% - you get what you get.
Granted, there is *some* truth that it discourages packing all of your votes into a small number of states - given that in practice it is unlikely you'll get all of the biggest states and pull off the "sweep 11" mentioned above. But under a popular vote, in practice no state gets packed too heavily. Even Hillary's California win was only about a 65-35 split between her and Trump - the large raw vote margin was due to the size of the state, not Belarus-like winning percentages (Trump got almost the same number of votes in California as he did in Florida or Texas). In 2016 for instance, Hillary actually spread out a bit from where Obama was and it cost her: she lost enough votes in "blue wall" states to tip the balance in those states, yet gained a bunch of votes in some red states like Texas and Georgia that ultimately weren't enough to win and were thus wasted votes.
How about the claim that the Electoral College forces you to consider people out in the countryside? Wrong again. Most rural states are intractably red and can be ignored. This only applies in states where the rural and urban populations are comparable - like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin. Meanwhile, rural areas in blue states have *their* voices drowned out. A popular vote, on the other hand, means that N votes counts the same no matter where they come from. A million rural voters in California would have the same effect as a million rural votes scattered across the upper Northwest. Which means voters from various blocks within different states could effectively form coalitions across state lines, instead of everyone being hostage to voting along with the majority of their state. This keeps politicians from being able to completely ignore states that would never vote for them (Trump loved antagonizing blue states for this reason) and would help cut down on local state-secession efforts (which are doomed to fail, but unhealthy nonetheless). And for those who like the idea of encouraging turnout, states where people vote more benefit from a bigger voice, where states with lazy voters forfeit some of their weight.
There's also the reasoning that because you can't guarantee a win with just a bare majority, the Electoral College encourages you to go for a supermajority! True in general, and in a relatively information-sparse environment, a theoretically good incentive. But this is also misleading: in informal language, calling something insufficient (as in "not enough") *usually* implies that it's at least necessary (you need that and more), but we know that's not the case here. Particularly, in a two way race, if a bare majority doesn't guarantee you a win, a bare minority won't guarantee your opponent a loss. Which is still OK if you don't know which candidate is in the pole position - but thanks to modern computing and statistics, combined with knowledge of polling and voter demographics, we can calculate who has the statistical advantage where they will be the likely winner of Electoral College in a close election even if they lose the popular vote. In 2012, it was Barack Obama, which is why he was about a 91% favorite despite being only a point and a half ahead in the polls. In 2016 and 2020 it was Trump (despite what some of the less skilled pollsters claimed in 2016), which is why Trump had about a 29% chance of winning in 2016 with only a single-digit chance of winning the popular vote, and why Biden had "only" a 90% chance of winning despite being a near lock to win the popular vote as an 8 point favorite. So this reasoning may have made sense in the past, but not in our modern era where candidates explicitly strategize to win the electoral college and ignore the popular vote (which was Trump's only real hope these past two elections; even if he himself didn't know it, his strategists did).
Many of these justifications seem to come from Daniel Patrick Moynihan's speech in the late 90's when there was a popular vote movement afoot. I often hear people name-drop the speech when expressing support for the Electoral College; they tend to stumble over the details and end up just telling you to go read the speech. Which says to me it may be another example of the triumph of rhetoric over reason, but I've only read a bit of it and can't fairly assess.
As for Biden, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the media's soft treatment; by and large Biden conducted an excellent campaign, and even Trump mostly gave up on attacking him directly because he just didn't have Hillary's unlikability. As far as remaining in his basement during COVID, he was modeling responsible behavior while Trump modeled reckless behavior (getting Herman Cain killed in the process). The serious sexual misconduct allegations against him were utterly discredited; the more minor touchy-feely stuff was muddled by testaments to the fact that Biden really is that way with everyone, men and women.
Now, am I happy with everything Biden has done? Of course not. I was against pulling out of Afghanistan from the start, and unsurprisingly it was a disaster, further eroding our already seriously damaged credibility. And I'm upset that the party prioritized social spending over election reform, and being the leader of the Democratic Party, Biden is partly to blame for that. As for COVID, I have some complaints about the CDC and the lack of coordinated testing, but by and large Biden has been hampered by deliberate obstruction by people like DeSantis and Abbot, as well as the (mostly right wing) anti-vax movement. He did about as good a job as he could have in making sure as many people as possible got vaccinated. As for the inflation issue, that has many contributing factors mostly out of Biden's hands (past government spending, inflated demand due to increased savings during COVID lockdowns, pandemic-induced supply-chain interruptions, etc.) Blaming it all on the pandemic relief bill and the infrastructure spending (much of which wasn't new spending anyway) is just as obtuse as crediting Bill Clinton for the dot-com boom or Trump for the continued ascendance of the economy when he took office. I'm happy about the infrastructure spending bill and the bipartisan support it drew, and I'm also happy that Biden simply does his job without deliberately stoking the culture wars.
But keep in mind, these are *normal* political issues. The kind of you generally expect to have with any politician or presidential administration. Even with George W. Bush, as much as I hated the Iraq War, I never feared for the future of our democracy. Eventually Bush would be out of office and we'd have another shot at it. With Trump, it's an entirely different story.
I don't just "not like" Trump. I think he is utterly unfit to occupy the office of the Presidency. Not just because he's a xenophobic demagogue. We've had such loathsome presidents before. His ignorance and narcissism are a big part of it, as well as his general lack of qualifications (despite how he was advertised, he's actually an awful negotiator and has a pathetic understanding of economics). But the moment I fully realized the danger he posed was just prior to the 2016 election when he held a press conference and claimed he wouldn't accept the results unless he won. It was obvious then that this man had no regard for this country's political health; nobody who did would make such and outrageous claim (and consequently, nobody should have been surprised at the stunt he pulled in 2020).
So this is why I say that no matter what kind of grades I give to Biden, supporting Republicans is simply not an option as long as they are in thrall to Trump. That's the kind of false binary I'm opposing here. If I'm not happy with Biden, and I think there's someone better in the Democratic field willing to primary him, I can always register Democrat and vote in the primary. Biden is certainly preferable to the likeable but completely unrealistic Bernie Sanders, so unless one of the other moderates wants to throw their hat in the ring, I don't have much choice. I'd love for us to have more parties to choose from (really, I'd love for there to be no parties at all), but that won't happen until we widely adopt ranked choice voting or some other antidote to plurality voting.
As to how Trump's presidency helped Russia, look to the gloating that both Russia and China engaged in during the January 6th attack (in contrast to the horror expressed by our allies). One of the more overlooked aspects of geopolitics is the battle of ideology. It's easy to imagine that this kind of thing doesn't really matter outside political science departments in universities, but it very much does. The U.S. was at the height of its power and influence at the end of the 20th century when liberal democracy was largely viewed by most of the world's people (as opposed to their rulers) as an ideal worth replicating, and the U.S. was the undisputed leader of the democratic world. It encouraged other nations to want to hitch their wagon to ours, so that our success was their success. It meant their best and brightest wanted to come here. Our stability was the envy of the world; investing in the U.S. was an indisputably good bet, and because of that the U.S. dollar has become the de facto reserve currency for international banking. We were, as Ronald Reagan put it, "the shining city on a hill".
In fact, Reagan's greatest asset was his understanding of the Cold War as a battle of ideology, and justifying the superiority of liberal democracy to communism, socialism, and autocracy. Russia today is a right-wing oligarchy rather than the communist state the Soviet Union was, but it is similar in that it is beset by corruption, economically weak, with a regime largely reliant on statist propaganda to maintain power. Putin is a product of the old Soviet system, who viewed collapse of the U.S.S.R. as a world power as a tragic humiliation. As an ex-KGB guy who specialized in psychological warfare, he is keenly aware of the importance of this ideological struggle. He has little to offer his people these days except blind nationalism; he controls most of the country's media (literally, not like we say here), preens for the camera (in true strongman fashion) to exaggerate his masculinity and virility, and allies himself with the church to maintain social influence (and it shows with the younger generations of Russians). The success of democracy around the world, and particularly in his neighborhood, is a threat to his legitimacy, which is why he is antagonistic toward Ukraine since their democratic revolution, wants assurances that no Baltic states will become new NATO members, and allies with other strongmen like Lukashenko in Belarus and Xi Xinping in China.
But arguably his biggest ambition has been discrediting the United States - because if even our storied democracy can be thrown into crisis, it would be a huge blow to our reputation around the world. Social media has given Putin a dream playground in which to foment unrest. Putin didn't want Clinton elected because Hillary hates him; he didn't actually expect Trump to win but it benefitted him to have Clinton weakened domestically. Trump actually winning has worked out wonderfully - Trump repeatedly looked weak in the face of Putin's influence. His credulity was then easily exploited by Xi, who watched Trump sink the TPP seemingly without even realizing that it represented a major cog in the geopolitical strategy against China, and then had him eating out of his hand with a 10 minute history "lesson" after Trump rabidly fulminated against him during his campaign. Same with Kim Jong Un, whose nuclear program continues undeterred after Trump was utterly outwitted by someone half his age, his pupils turning into little hearts.
Trump repeatedly embarrassed the U.S. in this fashion on the international stage. He showed absolutely no interest in the mantle of "leader of the free world", viewing U.S. alliances as burdens, treating our friendliest allies like hustlers trying to screw us over while fawning over our adversaries and not-so-friendly allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Turkey). But January 6th was the nail in the coffin. It fundamentally changed the way the rest of the world viewed American democracy, breaking our long period of stability and peaceful transitions of power and degrading our value as allies and the trust other nations are willing to place in us.
There's a lot here and I'll do my best to address it in multiple posts.
With regard to the pipelines: I am fine with shutting down the Keystone pipeline if it's consistent with a viable plan to transition to a renewable future. I'm open to arguments that it isn't. I was not a fan of the Nord Stream Pipeline decision.
But I see these as largely two separate issues - the former is one of domestic energy production, the latter is a matter of foreign policy. It's about managing our relationship with the Germans vs. our interests in containing Putin. Hopefully, leaning on Germany with regard to the Nord Stream pipeline is an option on the table in countering Russian aggression in Ukraine. If so, an argument could be made that OK-ing it gave us some leverage against Russia, but that depends on how strongly we can influence Germany.
CORRECTION: "indicted, not convicted". As mentioned in another comment below, Trump's DOJ killed the trials against the firms in March 2020, and the individuals convicted have to be extradited to stand trial. So nobody has actually gone to trial.
Oh, you "forgot"! Lol.
Well I'm pretty sure I recall reading that. Kinda got lost in the pandemic since it was March 2020, but it's possible I'm misremembering.
It doesn't matter. I'm not here to engage in an online "owning" contest, like many people here seem to be. I'm here to engage and establish consensus on the truth. I have no problem admitting mistakes, and I don't owe anyone an explanation. If I was here to deceive I wouldn't bother replying when someone corrected me.
If you're here for the same reason, you might try laying off the ad hominems.
Nope. If you had watched the impeachment trial, you would have the seen the irony that the defense was to play the same videos as the Democrat prosecution -side by side- so people could see the context the Democrats edited out.
You must have missed the four-year scorched earth campaign against Trump: the false accusations engineered by Clinton, Comey, Clapper, Brennan and their useful idiot accomplices. Was this riot engineered by deep state actors to take Trump out once and for all? It’s hard to dismiss that possibility after watching their skullduggery.
I assume you're talking about the Steele Dossier. The one that came from a research firm and which Clinton's campaign never actually used, and which entered the investigation in its later stages. That was a sideshow that's being exploited in order to discredit the rest of the investigation, which was entirely warranted and legitimate.
Unless you're talking about the absurd Ukraine-based conspiracy theory about how it was actually the Clinton camp that tried to manufacture dirt on Trump instead of the other way around. I'll assume otherwise.
Now, that’s just factually inaccurate and you know it. So this discussion is pointless.
Obvious he doesn't care about facts. Purpose seems to be to influence the low info readers and prop up the Lib bias on the thread. Must be his job.
There you go again with your ad-hominems. By my count you've engaged on exactly one fact thus far. You really aren't interested in coming to consensus, are you?
Oh? Which part? I assure you I don't say anything I know to be false. I'm not always right, but I never argue in bad faith.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
I thought Goldberg told you guys to put down the bongs?
Wrong again! Never touched an illegal drug in my life. You're really bad at this, you know?
You overlook the Unite for America/Hamilton Electors movement in 2016: an attempt by a cabal of progressives to find enough Republican electors willing to vote for a different Republican so as to deny Donald Trump a majority in the Electoral College and force an election in the House of Representatives. Yeah, that certainly showed how much Democrats and progressives support the Constitution and the rule of law, i.e. not at all. Most of those on the Left who pontificate about "our democracy" would like to run the Constitution through a shredder.
Just to let you know I exist, I am on the left and do not want to run the Constitution through a shredder! It's our greatest bulwark against tyranny - I was grateful for it watching Trump try to maneuver around it or bully people into violating it
Sure you do. You want to abolish the Electoral College, right? You want to end the equal suffrage of the states in the Senate, right? You want to emasculate the First Amendment, right? You want to get rid of the Second Amendment, right? You want to pack the Supreme Court, right? You want the entire electoral system to be run by federal bureaucrats, right? And no doubt you want taxpayers to foot the bill for your shredder.
You people pretend to be better than Trump, but in reality you’re just as bad if not worse.
No, actually I don’t want to do any of those things, and most moderate liberals don’t either. Some “true believers” say it to be fashionable but they won’t do anything about it because they don’t really understand the issues. And many of those to the left of me saw what happened with the rioting in 2021 and the lack of police protection and I now hear crickets about “defund the police.” Please don’t assume you know me from stereotypes you’ve imbibed. And your contemptuous language doesn’t help the conversation, unless you’re trolling me, in which case, if you reply again in anger, I’ll know, and our debate will cease. What would you like to know about what I do believe?
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Or to be rudely frank, I don’t believe you.
Thomas, I'm not overlooking this. But once again, it's a question of scale. That was a small, hopeless effort orchestrated by a handful of Democrats. And it was over the day the votes were counted.
If the current effort to undermine the legitimacy of 2020 was just MTG, Gosar, Boebert, Gohmert, and a handful of other Republicans, and the rest of the party was resisting, I wouldn't even be paying attention. But the entire party apparatus has jumped on board with either validating or refusing to counter Trump's election lies. Senators were censured by their local party chapters for doing their constitutional duty and voting to convict Trump.
We're a year out now and still about 2/3 of Republicans believe the election was stolen. The party is exploiting this by pushing and passing state laws and running Trump-friendly people for critical election administration positions, with the obvious intent of being in a position to subvert the next election. As I've said in other posts, there will always be radicals in political parties, but in the Republican party now, the radicals are the ones doing what most of them would have been doing six years ago - standing up for truth and the integrity of our democracy.
I agree - I worry about how many people want to bring back Trump as opposed to finding a candidate who would support his policies without the attempts to subvert the Constitution - I don't agree with some of the policies but I'll take that any day over someone trying to undermine the entire process
Of course you were overlooking it. That’s why I felt compelled to remind you of it. And please, spare me this prattle about “our democracy.” Coming from progressives it’s a term pregnant with hypocrisy.
Thomas, I'm sorry, but you're simply making a ridiculous comparison - between the actions of a couple of rogue electors versus the actions of virtually an entire political party's Congressional and Senate delegations, their national governing body, many of their state chapters, and the *sitting President of the United States*. Between openly pulling a stunt that, while futile, was at least arguably legal at the time (the Supreme Court hadn't even ruled on "faithless electors" yet), and which was hardly an unprecedented phenomenon in our history (there's a reason we already had a name for it), versus aiding and abetting an egregious lie resulting in our *first ever* President declining to concede an election, and our Capitol being attacked as part of a plot *by the President himself* to overturn it. The fact that you "felt compelled" to remind me doesn't establish anything other than that you're attempting to justify the unjustifiable.
I have no idea what comparable offense you are accusing progressive of, and I don't have to answer for our fringe, especially since I criticize them plenty myself. The question I have for you is: do you actually care if our democracy survives, or are you just concerned with who takes the blame for it? Because right now one of our two political parties, having failed once to overturn a free and fair election, is openly laying the groundwork for another attempt. Talk of "civil war" abounds, and a terrifying percentage of Americans want the country to split.
This is serious. January 6th is unprecedented, and it wasn't just some rhetorical offense against "our democracy". It was an actual attempt by a defeated President to illegitimately remain in power. Fishing for some incomparably minor offense by the other party neither changes the reality of that nor diminishes the danger it places us in.
Uh, uh, it's wasn't the actions of "a couple of rogue electors." Go back and read my previous comment with the close attention it deserves. The attempt to subject the Electoral College was an organized effort by progressive groups. Their tactics included doxing Republican electors in an attempt to intimidate them into casting their votes for someone other than Trump. And please let's not pretend that the Left accepted the outcome of the 2016 election. It didn't and was constantly scheming for some way of getting rid of Trump. Oh, and descending to that state level let us not forget the self-described legitimate governor of Georgia, the comical Stacey Abrams, who to this day refuses to accept the outcome of the election she lost by 50,000 votes. Progressives accept as legitimate only those elections that go their way. When they lose it's always because those dastardly conservatives cheated. Well, boo-hoo.
Hillary Clinton didn't have to "egg-on" protestors, since she had the intelligence agencies of the United States ready to spend the next 3 years lying about how Trump stole the election. And Hillary did perpetuate that lie repeatedly, despite the fact that evidence now shows her own campaign was in much deeper with Russia than Trump ever was.
The scale of Jan 6 was different, but it's wrong to suggest either that the rioters were generally destructive (imagine if a BLM riot had gotten into the statue gallery) or that prior actions against the rule-of-law were unrelated to what happened on Jan 6.
Last year the crazy Right stormed the capitol building and the crazy Left burned down entire city blocks for multiple months in multiple cities. Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell condemned the actions of the Right; Nancy Pelosi knelt in solidarity with the actions of the Left. Given that the Left controls every cultural institution in America today (corporate boards, foundations, media, education, tech, universities), I'm far more concerned about Left-wing violence than Right-wing.
I understand ignorance, but despise willful ignorance. Inconequential/minor/a couple...that is extremely willful ignorance.
Thanks for the fact-checking here! And for reminding us that radicals will always be with us...
"Protestors who bought tickets to attend the confirmation hearing stood up and protested during the hearings to disrupt them"
According to Merrick Garland obstructing official government business is the very definition of "domestic terrorism" and "insurrection." As he explained, that's why Antifa's nightly attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland were totally different -- there was no gov't business going on at the time. https://www.opb.org/article/2021/02/22/republicans-question-merrick-garland-on-portland-protests-during-confirmation-hearing/
Video says otherwise.
Whataboutism is not an argument.
What we today dismiss as "whataboutism" is what, in a more reasonable time, we called precedent. Ridding ourselves of precedent leads to claims of "unprecendented" behavior, for things that have become quite common in today's society.
Whataboutism is the use of hypotheticals to challenge a statement. Precedent in the legal sense is reliance on prior opinions. In the larger sense precedent is the status quo. Personally I believe change is inevitable and thus should be embraced. I think change should be anticipated, options considered, and plans implemented to enable adaptation to change. This applies to climate change and the extinction of species and I am not impressed with current Ideology on either front.
There is nothing hypothectical in the definition of whataboutism (a term first used in 1978 according to Mirriam-Webster) in which an argument is diffuesed, or muddied, by challenging the moral standing/consistency of those claiming wrong doing. i.e. the pot calling the kettle black. It's considered a logical fallacy, which is why a lot of people just throw out the word like it will end the argument; as above. What most people can't really tell you is under what particulars is it a logical fallacy, and what other logical errors are being committed as they cry whataboutism. In the case of my comment relating to precedent, precedent simply means has happened, or been established, previously. In law, it specifically refers to court decisions as that is how the interpretation of law is established. In a trial, when one lawyer cites case A and another lawyer says. "what about case B" (which might be similar but resulted in a differing precedent) the arguments are not dismissed as whatbaoutism. A non-legal, more political example to further clairfy: Someone argues that Trump's public behaviors are unbecoming a President and he should be removed from office. A valid counter argument is to list the many presidents, who had questionable moral proclivities, and question if those proclivities were the cause of their removal from office. The argument is not about the morality of their behavior, it is about what merits removal from office, and the "whataboutism" which cannot justify the moral failure (a number of people committing an immoral act does not make the act moral), can actually establish that moral failings are not sufficient to remove someone from office. As, you say, change is inevitable, and as history teaches us, most changes are entropic in nature, which means that without effort to the contrary, we will revert to our baser natures. I spend my time fighting these changes, encouraging others to become better images of ourselves.
I neither need nor desire clarification. I stand by my comment. Your definition of "whataboutism" is very narrow. The term need not apply to any moral issues at all but rather is deflection. I have a good understanding of legal precedent which is why I phrased it as I did. Also it is the basis of common law but not all law. And in the broader sense precedent is use of what has been done before or is established as a guiding principle for current or future acts. As far as change leading to a return to our baser nature, how very sad. Thank God, literally that is not an issue for me - my faith teaches me to do good because I am saved, not to be saved. It is like breathing for me.
That is YOUR argument? I call bullshit on that one too!
Nothing you said even tried to refute Jonah's argument. It is a non-argument. Just a primal scream. Zero points.
Absolutely it is. Comparing and contrasting the moral and legal aspects of events is one of the bedrocks of analysis. For example, it's the sort of basic thinking that allows us to laugh off the comparisons of Jan 6, 2021 with 911, D-Day and the Holocaust(!).
bruce...neither is "Whataboutism"
Um, actually, whataboutism IS argument. Help me understand how it isn't.
If I say X, and you say last week I was wrong about Y, that doesn't explain why I'm wrong about X.
This happens all the time, now that politics is tribal warfare. Both sides do it. The defense of Trump's "pussy grabbing" is "What about Clinton and Monica, or JFK and . . etc." It's a way of not dealing with your own team's bad actions. It's an attack, not a discussion.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure I stole the term "whataboutism" from Jonah Goldberg, whom I hugely admire, as you can probably tell. He is a man of principle.
But, for sake of discussion, you say "pussy-grabbing" is wrong. And I ask, did you object to Clinton's version of "pussy-grabbing"? You cannot dodge the question by claiming whataboutism, because the question is actually trying to clarify your terms and conditions of "wrong-pussy-grabbing" vs. "right-pussy-grabbing", etc. If we are playing a game, and you say "You cheated." and I respond with "You cheat all the time." That is not a justification that cheating is good (the logical fallacy) but it is a pretty solid argument that neither of us want to play by the rules. In my experience, most people have no clue what they are actually arguing about.
You are correct. "Whataboutism" is a logical fallacy in that it neither proves nor disproves the argument.
I would think it's on liberals, not conservatives, to call out their own misbehavior - that's on us, not Jonah Goldberg
I loved Jonah for a long time. His "Wilderness? Ugh!" column is great stuff and may be the one that put him on my radar.
He's now dead to me. Persona non grata. He jumped the shark around 5 years ago. I won't even read this column of his, because the past 5+ years informs what this one will be like.
And no, I'm not echo-chambering. I PAY for Substacks from Bari (formerly of the Leftist NY Times), from Alex Berenson (formerly of the Leftist NY Times AND an avid anti-Trumper), and Glenn Greenwald (Liberal/Leftist).
I pay for people to tell me what they think, for people to make honest assessments of the world as they see it, for reasoned arguments that may very well differ from mine. For that reason, I'll never read another word from Jonah. His TDS infects every last thing he touches.
Well said. Thank you.
Yo..xactley, "sergeant-at-arms", el regalo...yep.
My instant reaction on 1-6-21 when I heard the Capitol was on lockdown after protesters had invaded was “Good.” I was glad to see that the politicians were getting a taste of their own medicine. All summer, rioters burned, looted and assaulted regular citizens. On the streets of Washington DC, people leaving the White House were harassed and assaulted. Police did little to stop it. So, my immediate reaction - and even my reaction now after reflection- is that the politicians who allowed and encouraged riots throughout the US in the summer got what they deserved. They got to experience fear for their lives. The only difference is that when capitol police killed an unarmed protester, no one sympathized with the protester. Usually when a cop shoots an unarmed person -even when justified- it sets off a new round of riots.
Disgusting that our leaders only care about ANY issue when it affects them
I think the 1/6 rioters deserve to be prosecuted based upon the facts and the law and should be treated like other criminal defendants in the Federal system. That being said, your comment is spot on. These politicians are all for sacrificing the lives of cops in horrible neighborhoods, but treated the Capitol Police like heroes for protecting them.
Yes they should, but instead they are being treated like political prisoners in China. And I'd like to see some accountability for all those involved in the 2020 riots - including politicians who encouraged them.
Here's the bad news, Neil: We essentially ARE China at this point.
Anyone who did violence should be prosecuted. The poor shmucks who just wandered in and took pictures (disorderly tourists) should be left alone. The FBI’s role should be fully investigated as we as what Pelosi knew and when
Pelosi and the DC mayor (who are ultimately responsible for capitol security) refused a Trump request for 10K national guard troops two days before the riot. There is presumably documentation of this request within Pelosi's office. Of course, these documents have NOT been subpoenaed by the (partisan) committee investigating Jan 6.
They threw the Capitol police to the dogs that day. Where was the national guard? I smell an attempt to precipitate an event for political optics. Do you?
Trump refused to call the national guard for hours.
Finally Mike Pence did
May I ask for some level of proof for that? Respectfully. I won't dispute it but I do ask for some level of verification. Thank you.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/pence-national-guard/index.html
Agree they should, based on the facts. What are the facts by the way?
If you will allow me, I suggest you read Darren Beattie's series of investigative articles on this event in Revolver News. Pretty solid and backed up with videos.
That's my sentiment. They are only clutching their pearls when some of the Wal-mart peasants almost touch the hem of their garments. Nancy Pelosi's ridiculous comments like, "I don't much care about statues. People do what they do." Did you know she actually destroyed and replaced the desk where the rioter put his feet up? The elitist oligarchy is real in this country and they don't just think they are better than us. They KNOW they are. Trump is either sincere or brilliant in his allying himself with Fly-over USA. Or both.
AntiFa + BLM only riot when a cop shoots a black person. The unarmed protester shot by capitol police was a white woman, therefore there was no rioting.
And I agree with you that they got a taste of their own medicine
Do you think Pence encouraged riots, as a conservative? I believe there were people in the Capitol yelling, “Hang Pence!" I understand the feeling and think you're right about elites needing to experience what others suffer when they make bad policy, but it seems to me that liberals are more to blame than conservatives for pandering to China, encouraging violent protesting, etc.
The question is how many "conservatives" have "sold out" to China also? We know that since Bill Clinton sold secrets to the Chinese when he was president, the Dems have moved to support the CCP. But the way Never Trump "conservatives" reacted when Trump clamped down on China was repulsive.
SO True.
Bill Clinton was the worst. He sold secrets to the Chinese regime & begged the WTO to let China in, which was one of the worst decisions in history. That decision led to the rise of the evil CCP regime.
Yes & most of these Never Trumpers are Never Trump SPECIFICALLY because they make $$$$$$$ selling out to China. Wall St, Greed, selling out to China. They pretend they are Never Trump for other reasons, but the reasons are purely financial, for their own pockets.
Can you give examples of specific right-leaning politicians doing this?
Take a look at Mitch McConnell's wife. Her portfolio is disturbing.
Take a look at Mitch McConnell's wife. She is a major investor in metals for Chinese naval vessels. Do you think the PLA (People's Liberation Army) isn't all over that?
I wouldn't doubt it. When I worked for the DoD and defense contractors I worked with a lot of retired military intelligence personnel. They stated that the ancestral ties to China were very strong in the Chinese-American community. So much so that they had a saying n the military intelligence community, "Once a Chinaman, always a Chinaman."
Are you claiming they're crypto-liberals? That's what putting the word “conservative“ in air quotes and your argument seems to lead? In which case, the argument still stands that “true“ conservatives should not suffer for liberal mistakes - is Mike Pence a “real“ or “fake“ conservative?
You and I agree on your statement but "conservatives" like Goldberg, et al believe they are truly conservatives while folks like you and I are extremists. My thoughts are that these establishment RINOs, like JFK Dems have not accepted the fact that times have changed. There is no more left of center or right of center majorities in either party. IMHO, the move to "cozy-up" with China has caused a serious shift left in the Democratic Party, so much so their once silent extreme leftists have gained a foothold. The weaponizing of the IRS and other government agencies beginning with Obama are good examples. This has caused a reaction on the right moving once right of center conservatives further to the right with a very strong "antigovernment" sentiment. RINOs have no backbone and allow Dems to run roughshod over us. I believe Mike Pence is likely an establishment conservative but he appeared to do a good job supporting Trump during his administration until the 2020 election results.
I'm actually left-leaning; I was criticizing my own side. I think what people like Jonah or myself are trying to do is recover some kind of center where those on the left and the right can have productive conversations without necessarily agreeing on ideological grounds but rather practical ones: we have problems we need to solve, and can we find trade-offs we can live with or allow federalism to help us live and let live? You and I seem to be having a respectful conversation - would that have happened had we known ahead of time that you were an “extremist“ conservative and I was a liberal? Trump's rise revealed some real problems with elite liberalism that I'm trying to come to grips with, but I don't always see Trump supporters doing the same - instead, they seem to double down to protect themselves because people like me have not been respectful of their real concerns. Perhaps Trump was a necessary bully, but he was a dangerous one as well; when you allow a bully to protect you, what of yourself do you lose in that protection?
Thank you for the kind dialogue. For the record, I am considered an "extremist" because I voted for Trump. For the same reason I am also considered a racist, a Nazi, a Fascist, a bigot, etc. All of this without even knowing that I am a Hispanic and Creole (European, Black, Native American). I originally supported Ted Cruz but voted for Trump because he was my snub to establishment Republicans. And as I mentioned earlier, the extreme move to the left concerned me about our democracy. I long to be back to a time when we moved from left of center to right of center and vice-versa. I reject the accusation that all Trump voters or even the majority are caught in a "cult of personality." We, meaning those Trump voters with whom I associate, are just tired of being categorized as uneducated, anti-science, Bible thumping yahoos. No doubt Trump is uncouth, un-presidential, crude, etc. But as you said he revealed the problem of elite liberalism, and not only that but the problem of career politicians on both sides of the aisle. I find it interesting that Trump is a "bully" but Bill Clinton was allowed to "bully women. Obama was allowed to use the IRS to "bully" conservative PACs. Joe Biden publicly admitted bullying Ukrainian officials and was not called on it. Yet, we do not look to Trump or any other politician to "protect us." The government works for us. Not the other way around. "The Swamp" as it has been called, believes it is there to rule us. Trump was our voice to to tell it "No."
I whole-heartedly agree that we need civil discourse. Sadly, it has been my experience that folks can't agree to disagree. I look forward to fruitful discussions with you my friend. Have a great New Year!
The fact that you are left-leaning but are perceived by David as having a common ground with him is a good thing. That is what we need.
I am all for bringing us back together for some sort of sane conversation. Have you read this very interesting book by a couple of CNN contributors trying to understand the Trump "revolt" of 2016?-- https://www.amazon.com/Great-Revolt-Populist-Coalition-Reshaping/dp/1524763683/ref=sr_1_4?crid=C11DY9GWXID0&keywords=revolt&qid=1641509267&s=books&sprefix=revolt+%2Cstripbooks%2C75&sr=1-4
“is that the politicians who allowed and encouraged riots throughout the US in the summer got what they deserved.”
———————————————
Conservative Kevin Williamson disagrees with you because he puts politicians far far above citizens. They must be protected. This was a grievous attack. Unlike when these useless cocksuckers steal my money and use it to buy votes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGz36bWJ61k
I don't hear "cocksuckers" so much these days, unless I'm watching an old Trailer Park Boys Episode when Bubbles is speaking.
Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing it. It is sad that our discourse has landed on “an eye for an eye” but given what’s happened over the past four years, I completely understand why this is so.
"the goal of a good argument is persuasion". No, it's not. The goal of a good argument is to get closer to the truth. Persuasion is something else entirely. If persuasion is the goal of the argument, what you are really talking about is propaganda. That is, speech whose object is to persuade.
This is the problem. Too many journalists and commentators think their job is to persuade. It's not. Their job is get to the truth and tell us.
We'll decide which of the truths is more important.
very well stated!
Exactly. If your goal is persuade, it’s about winning. The reason both parties are afflicted by the narrative dilemma is because as you said politicians are only giving people what they want and by doing that, the politicians stay in power. Too many people craving cheap power in politics and constituents.
I see your point but I think the real problem is politicians trying to entice voters by what the pol believes the voter wants/needs, or worse, is good for the voter. This raises the spectre of the old saw that democracy will fail when the electorate realizes it can vote itself largesse from the treasury. Obviously we are there, but are we past the point of no return?
I'm playing devils advocate a bit here, I agree unbridled populism isn't good, but I also think populism in general is a good thing. (That is the 2010 meaning of populism, giving the populace what they ask for.)
Would you rather politicians ignored what they believe the voter wants or needs, or promotes something they think is bad for the voter?
Arguably the PIIGS from the European Debt Crisis of 2009+ fall into the category of voters voting themselves so much money the state goes bust. They are all still democracies. I can't think of a case where a democracy has failed because it went bust. Even Mugabe's Zimbabwe staggered on. Can you think of one?
I welcome civil discourse.. I subscribed here because I am weary of being in my local echo chamber. So far I am very pleased with the result..
But to answer your question, it depends on how you define failure. I would argue Venezuala is an example. It still exists and is technically a democracy but we all know better. I read some interesting material before this reply and now I have much to ponder. Thanks for the nudge. While I am fairly doom and gloom about our prospects right now (I live in Texas and what is being allowed to happen at the border is not only chilling but also eye-opening) perhaps this period is merely a transition to something grand.
I am just now reading this comment thread. Venezuela is the immediate Exhibit A. They voted their way into Chavez. Look what that got them? Cubazuela! That country is one of the wealthiest in the world in terms of natural resource locations, and now it is impoverished environmental disaster in which 20% of the population has fled. They can't even feed themselves. It will take multiple generations to rebuild into a civilized country following the massive brain drain of professionals who have left the country for good.
Yeah, Venezuela fits the bill or at least comes close. The Venezuelans I've met thought that Chavez was good for his first term. What happened afterwards wasn't a neat Chavez bad opposition good tale though. Neither side could accept when the other won an election. I think it fits the idea that democracy fails when the losers can't accept defeat better than the idea that democracy fails when the voters vote themselves the treasury. The not accepting defeat is to my mind more of a problem generally. The EU has repeatedly failed to accept referendum defeats. The Brexit result wasn't accepted in the UK. The 2000, 2004, 2016 and 2020 results weren't been accepted in the US. All of these damaged democracy, at least temporarily. (It doesn't help that the US has the worst (or nearly worst) run elections in the democratic world, which means losers can have a point.)
Yeah, me too. I like a civil conversation. They used to be pretty commonplace for me, now I have to really watch what I say around people. :-(
I agree that what is happening at the border is nuts. That it isn't a national scandal is worse. Sadly, it isn't the only place it's happening. The southern EU border is much the same. In the short-term I can't see either getting any better, there is a huge number of people who are willing to try to get in and an equal number of people willing to exploit them when they do. I don't see it causing a problem to democracy yet though.
I think politicians in the US in particular "preach to the choir" and tell their supporters what they want to hear because of primaries and gerrymandering. For a lot of politicians, at every level, the more difficult election to win is the primary. The politicians closer to the centre are always worried about someone beating them from further out.
Agree, I am not a smart man, but I think I remember enough English class that persuasion is for essays, not arguments.
When I was in school (30 odd years ago) that was only for particular types of essays. For those, we are asked to write a persuasive essay. Otherwise, we were expected to show we understood the material (poem, novel, whatever) by some regurgitation/consise summations and to then use the material to come up with and defend few ideas of our own.
In the last few years I've done some online university courses and I've discovered the North American University Standard Essay Format. If you don't follow it, you get bad grades. It seems designed to get students to think backwards. The expected format is put your ideas first and then to spend the rest of the essay trying to defend them. So the opposite of the Scientific Method, which is to amass information and then try to come to some conclusion about it all that explains what you've found. Then to test those ideas by amassing more information. And repeat. Instead, the expected format encourages students to come up with an idea first and then to cherry-pick the evidence. Which by-and-large seems to be what today's journalists do. They don't summarise the information they've found, they cherry-pick it to support their ideas.
Interesting.
NAUSEF seems ass backwards.
Silly facts go first, then explain away.
My professional life was tax law, so I always started with the facts and then applied those facts to the law to seek the outcome. It kept me honest and employed.
And yes, it’s an accurate observation that today’s journalists have it hopelessly wrong.
Yeah, sound about right. That's basically how I did all my papers through high school to college. Problem is, I don't feel the least bit bad about it because degree=job. Now that I'm older I feel like I cheated myself though...
That's exactly how I felt, I studied to get a job, and I did and that was great. So now I can go back and study something else for the purpose of learning/educating myself. It's been rewarding. I recommend it. I've done it all online and I only do a couple of courses a year so that I can really get into the subject and it doesn't cost too much.
Currently doing it now, theology stuff, but hard because I went the family rearing full swing so that soaks up a good bit of time. A blessing regardless though.
Good for you :-)
Journalists job is to get to the truth. Commentators job is persuasion
Go on. Why?
Why should a commentators goal be to persuade rather than enlighten?
For me, its should be like sports commentary. Usually there are two of them. A blow-by-blow person who describes the match as it happens. That's the news journalist. Then there is the colour/expert commentator, who is usually an ex-pro. They bring their inside knowledge of being immersed in the sport to the viewer and point out things most of us would miss. That's the political commentator.
The truth or facts? Those are different ideas, and I don't look to anyone to present me with truth: I'll evaluate that for myself, and that is part of persuasion, isn't it? Gathering facts to promote a way of looking at the world that's more consistent with those facts? I assume that's what you mean by “truth“? And anyone who thinks that most people function in the realm of facts to promote a coherent ideology is going to be mugged by reality. Many people don't live there - this is why politicians often say things they patently don't believe and why politics is so disconcerting to those of us who are straight shooters. I've been mugged by reality more than once, I have to admit, because human nature won't submit to facts and reason without a fight.
Facts are the starting-point, but there are an awful lot of them and what they look like varies with perspective. Political journalists do have to hack down the huge number of facts about any issue into something manageable. So some choice is inevitable. What I look for in a good journalist (i.e. one I'll pay to read) is that they are even-handed in their choosing, and deliberately put themselves in other people shoes to see the facts from a variety of perspectives.
I'm not sure any ideology can survive reality. :-) Mostly only politicians out of power get to be ideological.
Yeah, you are right, most of us don't function in the realm of facts (nice phrase that). I don't think our brains can work that way, we have to shoe-horn the facts into little boxes, otherwise we would be too overwhelmed to be able to function. But it is useful to be able to go back and re-open the boxes and re-organise the facts occasionally.
Nicely put!
I think I get what you are talking about. Is this similar to some defenses of the "Feelings don't care about your facts" points I've been hearing on occasion? There's some merit to that.
Right - gravity won't stop functioning just because I want it not to, but I can understand it using facts and then fly! I'm hoping we can do this with politics as well
Best example I heard was when I was listening to Father Freeman on shame and how he advised priests of counseling soldiers with PTSD, paraphrasing he said something like you can't just beat them over the head with Just War Theory, the wound is still there... and knowing it doesn't make it go away.
Yeah - I wrote in another post about argument/logic vs. personal narrative, and how women tend to overemphasize the second and men the first. Seems in this case the personal narrative approach would be more helpful in healing; knowing facts or a theory doesn't necessarily heal the underlying spiritual/psychological wound - having the biggest toolkit of human skills as possible is my aim - what tool do I need and how do I best implement it? Argument or empathy? Justice or mercy? Hard to do!
Thank you!
(edited for grammar)
You are making this way too complicated. I can only speak for myself and my close friends, so take it for what it's worth.
In my opinion, the Left - meaning you and those of your ilk, Mr. Goldberg - cannot grok that Trump's support has nothing to do with his personality. If it did, his popularity would be - well, about where yours is - nowhere. He's a bit of a mean bastard at times, and most voters don't like him very much personally. I'd put myself in that category.
My appreciation for Trump is for his POLICIES. For his accomplishments, largely done while dragging Leftist ankle-biters like you along behind him. For his steadfast, unwavering support for policies that put America First - not last. For representing his nation, not the globe, most of which hates us and wishes us ill.
Personality? No. Accomplishments - and the promise of more to come in his second and third terms? You bet.
I am okay with a good deal of his harshness as it is in response to attacks on him. He is a counter puncher, something we have been begging for for years.
Yeah, me too.
Me, also Too and Too, four Trumty
Goldberg is a conservative, for more than Trump ever was.
Trump cared about Trump that's it
I agree with all of this.
My dilemma, what the reaction will be from his detractors if Trump runs again.
When Trump was initially bashing the left, I was applauding. Laughing.
But after some time, their reaction, along with the media and never Trumpers became much too toxic to take.
The BLM riots are one of those reactions that I am speaking of.
I struggle with going down this road again.
I’m hoping for someone with the right policies who is not as toxic in personality.
How much is it his “toxic” personality and how much their toxic treatment of him. If you don’t support him aren’t you giving in to the evil mob? Look how they treat Desantis already
The left were much more toxic than Trump.
My problem is that too many people in my life who are centrist Democrats became brainwashed, toxic too.
My preliminary solution will be to support Trump and remain silent, hide.
But we have a long way to go yet.
Policies are what’s important to me.
Biden is a disaster.
I completely understand your sentiments but I am tired of having to “self censor” all the time. My liberal friends seem to have no problem saying the most outrageous things
I agree.
Very Frustrating.
And I do fight back.
But the events of 1/6 are very hard to over come.
Any suggestions as to how ?
In my small circle, kindly speak the truth. Speak out against overt lies. I write my Democratic representative and Senators routinely.
Madjack...Only I or Lillian Breeze could have said IT any better. thanks already.
To my eye, the BLM riots were simply put-up deals from the very beginning. I mean, how do pallets of bricks magically appear in the middle of the street when there's not a construction site within five miles? Somebody is pulling those strings.
Capitulating, avoiding, appeasing BLM and others, you Must Not Do. What is it, then, that you DO do? Simply enforce the law. Equally, and for everybody.
I agree.
There was organization and big $$ behind those riots and BLM.
But still no real federal level investigations into this form of domestic terrorism.
Very disappointing.
The problem for people like JG is that their TDS blinds them to the reason for the behavior of those they do not understand. Fly over country is not blind or stupid. They know that everything you said about Trump’s behavior and character and competence are correct. However, they also know that under Trump’s watch the southern was border was closed, taxes were cut taxes and regulations were reduced, we had the best economy in a generation, we expanded our domestic energy industry to the benefit of the economy and national security, and we brokered peace in the middle east. When the pandemic hit, he spearheaded the only effective thing the government has done, which is accelerate the development and approval of vaccines in partnership with private industry. The reasons the left hates him so much are 1) that he actually did the above things, which every other RINO has promised to do and then failed to deliver, and 2) he is perhaps the least PC person on the planet, which is today’s parlance means he is the least woke person on the planet. This second point is an existential threat to the left, because wokeism is the cudgel that they use to cower opposition into submission to they can proceed with their utopian dreams like the adopting the green new deal, teaching CRT inspired curriculum in schools, erasing national borders, and granting cradle to grave entitlements to the world’s poor and hungry. If they need to pack the supreme court, do away with the electoral college, move to popular representation in the senate, add DC as a state, break the filibuster, or rule purely by executive order to do it, they will. Much like WFB standing athwart history yelling “STOP!”, Trump stood in front of the mob and said “Fuck off!” I condemn the violence of January 6th, and wish Trump would stop saying that the election was stolen by fraud. It was influenced by the changing of voting rules and the relentless partisanship of all media and big tech, not to mention the four-year debacle that was the Russian collusion hoax. But that’s just the game that Republicans need to play, so they need to get over it and win next time. But I understand the frustration of the people who are called “deplorables” and “bitter clingers” and who see BLM rioters and ANTIFA thugs called peaceful protestors, while they themselves are paying twice as much for gasoline and being told that they have to get vaccinated or get fired. So when their frustration gets the better of them, and they indulge in Trump’s nonsense even though they know deep down it’s nonsense, it is hard to blame them.
This is far better put than the essay you're commenting on.
lydia...nicely done
I agree completely with lydia. Hey Bari, how about featuring Bob's trenchant riposte to the self- adoring nonsense that Goldberg has offered up?
I'm certainly no fan of trump but I'll give credit where credit is due. You hit the nail on the head, well said.
You're on fire Bob!
excellent analysis
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said except your description of the green new deal as utopian. That is a dystopian nightmare if there ever was one.
Excellent analysis.
I agree with a lot of what you said but the point and which I depart is the lack of emphasis you place on behavior and character. I agree that trump was able to enact many common sense policies that might not have been put in place by more establishment republicans; this is a good thing and many of the policies should have been given their due credit by the media, democrats, etc. that being said, we must not, and cannot, allow men and women of objectively low moral fiber occupy the highest office of our republic. Yes, common sense border strategy and lower taxes are great, but not committing to a peaceful transferral of power, inciting a mob of his supporters to take action to “take back your county” based on lies and falsehoods, and to continue to propagate these lies are an outright threat to our constitutional republic and are cancerous to our body politic. What good are these policy wins if we cannot co-exist as one, unified republic? We shouldn’t tolerate leaders who don’t have regard for the rule of law and who are at best obtuse, and at worst, are willfully trying to subvert our democratic process in an effort to increase their personal power. I’m not saying democratic leaders or those RINOS you refer to are saints; however, we need to recognize true threats to our democracy when they arise on both sides of the political aisle and demand better. Mahalo.
You make a fair point, one that I cannot get past. That is, in my view, DJT’s behavior following the election on 11/3/2020 and through the riot on 1/6/2021 was inexcusable. Such behavior forever damages the results obtained from his good policy accomplishments as well as his qualification to run for high office again. I’m disappointed that I have to say this, but this is where I am.
To Bruce Miller’s point, yes Biden is a moron and his policies are a disaster.
To Bob’s point, my only hope is that we have a good Republican choice (of good character and has good policies) come November 2024. I don’t believe that DJT should run, he would be better suited to support the best candidate.
How do you feel about a senile imbecile holding the most important office in the free world? And a demonstrably corrupt one, at that?
Thanks Keith. I don't disagree with you. The problem is that we only get to choose between the individuals nominated. I will support almost any other Republican in the primary. However, if the 2024 general is between Liz Warren and DJT, who are you going to vote for?
"But that’s just the game that Republicans need to play, so they need to get over it and win next time"
Right on. You can whine about ballot harvesting, or you learn how to harvest better than your opponent.
I disagree. That is letting the opposition define the rules of the game and they will just keep moving the goal post. That is what I despise about the Clintons and others of their ilk - that the end justifies the means. It does not and it never will. We need a new approach rooted in ethics and morality.
And by morality I do not mean far right evangelicism.
To the power hungry, the ends always justify the means. Getting rid of Trump justified the means. Ensuring continued Dem/progressive wins justifies the means.
To paraphrase Will Munny: "Ethics and morality got nothing to do with it"
Correct, Saul Alinsky and his - any means justify the end, is dangerous.
BTW ... the word "insurrection" has already been shown to not apply in this case and no charges of insurrection or sedition have been brought against anyone. When I see the word "insurrection" applied to this, I see the uninformed maunderings of a partisan.
For the left and the never-Trump right, it has to be an insurrection. That is so the 14th Amendment's language forbidding any person who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" holding any office of the United States can be applied to Trump. The whole point of this, excuse me, "narrative" is to keep Trump from becoming president again.
Exactly
But Speaker of the House would be lovely, no?
“so too classic conservatives are finding themselves out of step with a right-wing that seeks revolution rather than conservation.”
———————————————
I love the term ‘classic conservatives’. Reminds me of when people call themselves a ‘classical liberal’. What a bunch of self-aggrandizing nonsense.
Yeah Liz Cheney is really classical. She’s like the Mozart of politics. She’s a hack. She’s reading Sean Hannity’s text messages FFS. She’s getting revenge because she knows she’s losing. Tell her dad thanks for growing the government every single year despite being elected to do the exact opposite. Bunch of f***ing con artists.
Let me make this really easy for everyone. Conservatism is about conserving liberty. If you look at our current sprawling federal government, mostly unelected, and you want to conserve it, you are both a scumbag and not a conservative.
Now I will go eat the last chocolate fire extinguisher out of my Jan 6 advent calendar.
🧯🧯🧯🧯
Good post. I want one of those advent calendars!!
I also have a nativity scene with Chinese and Ukrainian businessmen bringing gifts to Joe Biden’s relatives.
😂😂
KD...saw that, the Chromebook for Hunter.
Old: The Cheneys are all WARMONGERS!!
New: We Luv Liz!!
Similar turnabouts available on the left's attitudes towards the FBI, CIA, Big Pharma, etc.
Don't forget when John McCain was a dark and depraved war monger before he was their hero and Mitt Romney was a greedy cancer causing, gay bashing dog abuser until he went against Trump. All of a sudden it was "How dare you!"
Yep, and when Thick Lizzie does something they don't like, she will go right back to being the NYT's and WaPo's Public Enemy Number One
KD... i wish i had a chocolate Ting-guisher.
Fantastic. The last line made my day.
Haha thanks. I still think my trademarked nickname for Jan 6 ‘Earl Harbor’ is underrated.
🥳🥳
The conservative movement is well rid of Jonah.
I ageee and Under Siege is a great book Mr. Ruse!
God Bless you...many thanks...
Disappointing to see Jonah Goldberg here. He adds nothing of value.
Contrary...true, but at least, i now know JG and i get the direction.
Goldberg is such a moron that he excoriated Youngkin for the I95 debacle not realizing, and this is a guy tuned into politics right?, that Northum was still the Va governor. When challenged this idiot said well in context I would have been right.
Oy vey.
Hey Bari - if this is true about Goldberg - that he actually criticized Youngkin when Blackface was still Governor - then you owe us all an apology for printing this idiots's inane rants.
It is true. I’m not savvy enough with Twitter to re-post here, but JG retweeted his own tweet noting his error, to his credit. (Many would not correct the record.) You can find it out there if you’re on Twitter. That said, I found no evidence that he snarled at Northam once he was caught out that he’s STILL governor of the Commonwealth of VA… so I give him only partial credit for acknowledging the error.
I know, as a Virginian appalled at the state's pathetic lack of response, I initially thought how in the world could anyone be so stupid. Then I remembered he and his ilk are leftist cultists.
that one was a classic blunder...
Unwoke...way too much for this early in the day, give me a minute. You got me thru da month. The context part says SO much...
The problem with Goldberg is that he already staked out his position as a Trump hater, long ago. To try and belatedly make up reasons why ... well, it's too late. Goldberg is not a dispassionate reporter or observer; he is a partisan, and therefore he needs to get away from the Trump topic because everyopinion he gives is suspect. I like logic, not partisanship.
We just heard that January 6th, when people put their feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk and her laptop was stolen, was like Pearl Harbor or September 11th. Grotesque.
Goldberg and Cheney, that's a hell of a gruesome twosome, grifters if I ever saw any.
This essay misses the mark widely. Trump no doubt has his supporters who think he can do no wrong; I am against those people completely, but I think people like Jonah and most of the left exaggerate their numbers greatly. Trump as a phenomenon exists not because people think he's great or perfect, but as an F You to the left who has been spending the better part of the last decade calling them racist sexist homophobes. Privileged while their jobs are shipped overseas and their sons are lost to drugs. Actually it isn't good vs. evil; it's choosing amongst two bad choices, and making an assessment of which is less bad. Anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't deserve much of an audience. Pretending that's not the situation just makes everything worse.
I would say Trump emerged not just as an FU to the left, but also to the milquetoast chattering Conservative elites who see politics as some sort of game played between leaders who have little sympathy for the "poors" who have to suffer the consequences of that game.
I have been interested in how things get done since the Carter admin even though I was in 3rd grade when he was elected. I considered myself independent, but conservative minded. I've voted Republican and Democrat in many elections over the years. I have continually been frustrated every national election cycle how candidates say one thing while campaigning, but then fail to act when in office; trading their principles for power-brokerage. The political divide is growing, but it's because people want to actually see the needle move towards the conservative small-government side. They don't want politicians who would rather get something done over nothing, when that something puts us half a step closer to totalitarian government. I didn't support Trump, but everyone I talked with who did said essentially the same thing, "We're only going to get more of the same if we elect the same kind of people we have in the past." They still like Trump for getting things done in the face of relentless opposition.
That's a good point. I don't like Republicans much but over the years I've been amazed that they will basically lie down and take being called racist, homophobe, nazi. Fight back already. It's all a show though I agree with Taibbi on that. The establishment wants us to hate each other.
Yes. I'm a former Democrat educated professional who supported Trump. I can't STAND milquetoast elites of any sort.
Most Politicians say one thing while campaigning then do the opposite in office. I voted Obama & he was completely full of s***.
Trump actually did exactly what he said he would (which was Amazing & uplifting & inspirational to see) & when he didn't it was mostly due to certain traitors in his Cabinet. He was plagued by traitors in his Cabinet who did horrible things to undermine him, then quit & wrote best-sellers. He himself got things done, was honest about what he was going to do & doing it. He was not beholden to Corporate Lobbyists, which is a big problem in politics.
Only problem is Trump hired the traitors. Secondly, Goldberg is definitely blinded by his hatred for Trump, it would seem. As you say, Trump got things done like it or not. I have watched/studied Politics for over 30 years. Trump got more done than any other prior Presidents. Finally, Trump brought China front and center. He is why everyone now talks about China. All the mice were quiet before because both parties were taking the money!
He did hire the traitors. One of Trump's many flaws is narcissism & love of flattery. They probably brown nosed him.
Agree! Trump got more done than any prior presidents. I voted for him, hoping he would get at least some of it done, but I was amazed at just how much he accomplished, despite all the constant battles waged against him that he had to deal with on a daily basis. They did everything possible to bring him down & still he got so much done.
Yes. The threat from China has been building for years, yet Wall St + both establishment parties were raking in $$$$ (money which they Stole from the working class!!) with their complicity/selling out to China. Trump was the first person to talk about the threat & to do something about it. Agree, FINALLY, after too many years (is it too late? maybe) both political parties are talking about the need to stop China.
I hear you Sally. I too voted for President Obama and was disappointed when he failed to lead, not only in the manner he promised, but at all. He left a power vacuum to be filled by Spkr. Pelosi and Sen. Schumer who still had trouble putting together any form of coherent plan or direction even with their party in firm control.
Voting for Trump was a vote against the “inside the beltway elites.”
I was going to come here and say the same thing but you said it way better. I'll only add that Trump, odious as he is, is just an ugly bulwark against a tide of radical leftism that's eating away at the US. Conservatism, whatever that means these days, hasn't been doing anything to stop the far-left advance -- just mitigating the damage where it can; but essentially bringing knives to gunfights and losing for years. Trump at least brought some heat.
Yeah he actually fought back. It does feel like our politics is just plainly tribal these days and there's really no rational debate amongst people who disagree. It's mostly just slander.
Bob...and then they give us "Joe", like a punch in the gut. Never did JG give us a comparison between Trumpty and Joe...too touchy.
Yep he made a few vague references to the left being wrong but focused primarily on Trump and Republicans. You can't understand one without the other.
Thank you. I agree!
It’s the districts versus the capital to put it in pop culture terms. People inside is capital cannot conceive of life in the districts. Trump was absolutely an F you and nobody in the elite seems to understand that
Nope, they kept acting like people voted for him because of the fucked up shit he said. So stupid.
That is true. We have been choosing the lesser of evils. But that means we are still choosing evil.
Bari, I don’t come here to read pastor French or this jerk. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am that you allowed this slug to spew on your site. Mr laughs at his own jokes because no one else does and uses 10 words when one will do is a con artist. A “principled” conservative that wouldn’t recognize conservative accomplishments if they came up and bit him.
Don't throw too much shade at Bari. I applaud that she is trying to publish different opinions. The problem is that Jonah is a fraud. He pretends to be a conservative but is really just a member of the establishment enabling the left. So, Bari, if you want to provide varied perspectives, at least choose someone authentic.
I’ll only add that JG’s article didn’t add anything factual to my understanding. I only saw an opinion piece. Big deal. Who doesn’t have opinions?
When I read the reliable old “Trump repeatedly lied” I take a tiny breath and look for a specific piece of evidence which never shows up. This has been being treated as a fundamental principle of nature - no factual evidence necessary. If JG (or anyone) wants me to make a value judgement on Trumps honesty, I’ll need specific examples that stand up to inspection AND outweigh the lies common to so many others in power.
Don’t get me wrong, Trump lost my support by being such a sore loser (mega). But writers like JG who rush to throw every nasty thing they can think of -real or imagined won’t get my attention. I almost didn’t even read this JG piece. It’ll be the last thing I read or watch from JG.
Agree JG is garbage. Bari did publish some excellent pieces from different viewpoints, including Tom Cotton who is wonderful.
Your stated views here are a perfect illustration of what the essay is arguing against: ad hominem attacks and an "us versus them" mentality that precludes the possibility of civil discourse. It's a little ironic. Is it possible to disagree with the writer by engaging in specific refutations of his argument with relevant examples? Something to think about.
Hmmm civil discourse with people who routinely call you: racists, NAZIS, KKK. People who routinely lie about everything. People who use the security state to destroy their enemies. FUCK THAT.
Indeed! These appeals to civility to engage people who are trying to destroy you are just self-destructive insanity
Well it appears Jonah has at least one acolyte.
True. This is a blight on the site!!
Pastor French--that's classic, and SO right-on! The latest in an endless list of assholes cloaking themselves in "religion", dating back to the Dawn of Time. I cannot stand that hypocritic son of a bitch...
This article represents the first time I’ve been disappointed in the quality of content within Common Sense/Honestly post. Did not ring true as honest or common sensical.
Still, I'm appreciative the place doesn't become an echo chamber without other perspectives.
Dan...well done. In order to understand the complicity...
What is an appropriate sentence for insurrection? 20 years? 30 years?
What do the prison sentences for the "insurrectionists" look like so far?
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/04/jan-6-insurrection-sentencing-tracker-526091
15 days. 45 days. Misdemeanor charges for trespassing and illegally protesting in the wrong place. The most serious charges are for assaulting police officers and interstate threats, not attempting to overthrow the government.
If the US government through the auspices of the DOJ is not interested in furthering a narrative of an 'insurrection" for the incident on January 6 then who is?
A few weeks ago the House took up the important business of whether or not a Photoshopped clip of the Japanese anime "Attack on Titan" represented a serious threat of violence to House members.
Think about that for a second. "Adult" human beings, at the highest level of government, engaged in serious debate about teenagers making meme clips. Is it any wonder that any actual adult considers government at this point to be some kind of sick joke?
How is the endless flogging of January 6th any different?
Anyone that uses the term "insurrection" has already proven Jonah's point about narrative.