Jump to content

The US Politics/Elections Thread 2.0


downzy

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, RussTCB said:

I read that Trump supporters are warning that a civil war is coming if Trump isn't reinstated as President. 

Yes, because the insurrection worked so well for them. 

Yeah but Trump's an utter fuckwit and so are him fellow Klan members. :lol: 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, RussTCB said:

I read that Trump supporters are warning that a civil war is coming if Trump isn't reinstated as President. 

Yes, because the insurrection worked so well for them. 

It's been a long feverish pipe dream of the radicalized right for decades.

I'm a few pages from finishing a book on the modern day white power movement in the US.  Modern day since it traces its origins to the fall out from the Vietnam War.  Many veterans (and veteran wannabes) felt betrayed by the federal government for losing the war and abandoning veterans (both in Vietnam and at home).  Whereas the old white power movement was about supporting the state against racial minorities, the new movement believed the state was the problem and began targeting local and federal agencies beginning in the early 1980s.

Not everyone who rioted on Jan 6th was a member of the white power movement (though i would bet many hold similar beliefs or share sympathies), but the action was in line with what the radical fringe has been talking about for decades; much of which has become more mainstream in large part to the reaction of Obama being president and Trump provoking what was already there.  

Elections are no longer viewed as viable by Trump supporters (who make up the vast majority of the Republican party).  It makes sense if you're a member of a political coalition that can no longer win through traditional appeals to a given electorate.  Authoritarianism within Republican politics will only grow in the coming years as it continues to lose those elections it can't win through gerrymandering or voter suppression.  The old calculations of parties and ideologies adapting to election losses isn't happening with the right-wing side of American politics.  Left-wing politics in the US is certainly moving left, but it still respects electoral outcomes and shows no appetite to upend democratic institutions.  It's a dynamic we haven't really seen in the US since the Civil War.  

So in that respect, Trump supporters may not be all that wrong in their views of a coming civil war.  We're lucky that there were enough responsible Republicans in charge in 2020 to ensure the election wasn't overturned or stolen.  But a lot of those Republicans are quitting or being replaced by the Trump-flavoured kool-aid sipping kind.  I'm not all that optimistic for 2024 or 2028.  Do states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, New Jersey and other Democratic states abide by a President installed by a Republican party that won solely because election outcomes were determined by partisan politicians despite the wishes of a state's voters?  Many states are in the midst of changing election laws that will empower state legislators to overturn election results if they don't like the outcome.  Arizona, Georgia, Texas could very well vote for the Democratic candidate in 2024, but now (or soon) legislators will have the authority to overrule the count (based on "suspicions") and award the state to the Republican candidate.  If Republicans control the House in 2024 (and they likely will largely through gerrymandering), then there will be very little stopping Republicans from overturning actual election results and installing their candidate.  What happens then?  

1 hour ago, Dazey said:

IT'S HAPPENING!!!!!!!!! :lol: 

 

 

I'm a little less optimistic that this will affect Donald and his kids.  It sounds like the legal hammer will fall on subordinates and not land on anyone with the last name of Trump.

That said, it could still be the very beginning.  We'll have to see.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, downzy said:

It's been a long feverish pipe dream of the radicalized right for decades.

I'm a few pages from finishing a book on the modern day white power movement in the US.  Modern day since it traces its origins to the fall out from the Vietnam War.  Many veterans (and veteran wannabes) felt betrayed by the federal government for losing the war and abandoning veterans (both in Vietnam and at home).  Whereas the old white power movement was about supporting the state against racial minorities, the new movement believed the state was the problem and began targeting local and federal agencies beginning in the early 1980s.

Not everyone who rioted on Jan 6th was a member of the white power movement (though i would bet many hold similar beliefs or share sympathies), but the action was in line with what the radical fringe has been talking about for decades; much of which has become more mainstream in large part to the reaction of Obama being president and Trump provoking what was already there.  

Elections are no longer viewed as viable by Trump supporters (who make up the vast majority of the Republican party).  It makes sense if you're a member of a political coalition that can no longer win through traditional appeals to a given electorate.  Authoritarianism within Republican politics will only grow in the coming years as it continues to lose those elections it can't win through gerrymandering or voter suppression.  The old calculations of parties and ideologies adapting to election losses isn't happening with the right-wing side of American politics.  Left-wing politics in the US is certainly moving left, but it still respects electoral outcomes and shows no appetite to upend democratic institutions.  It's a dynamic we haven't really seen in the US since the Civil War.  

So in that respect, Trump supporters may not be all that wrong in their views of a coming civil war.  We're lucky that there were enough responsible Republicans in charge in 2020 to ensure the election wasn't overturned or stolen.  But a lot of those Republicans are quitting or being replaced by the Trump-flavoured kool-aid sipping kind.  I'm not all that optimistic for 2024 or 2028.  Do states like California, New York, Massachusetts, Virginia, New Jersey and other Democratic states abide by a President installed by a Republican party that won solely because election outcomes were determined by partisan politicians despite the wishes of a state's voters?  Many states are in the midst of changing election laws that will empower state legislators to overturn election results if they don't like the outcome.  Arizona, Georgia, Texas could very well vote for the Democratic candidate in 2024, but now (or soon) legislators will have the authority to overrule the count (based on "suspicions") and award the state to the Republican candidate.  If Republicans control the House in 2024 (and they likely will largely through gerrymandering), then there will be very little stopping Republicans from overturning actual election results and installing their candidate.  What happens then?  

I'm a little less optimistic that this will affect Donald and his kids.  It sounds like the legal hammer will fall on subordinates and not land on anyone with the last name of Trump.

That said, it could still be the very beginning.  We'll have to see.  

Which book is that? Whiteshift?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Which book is that? Whiteshift?

Bring The War Home: The White Power Movement and Paramilitary America

By Kathleen Belew

I’d give it 3/5.  Feels like a 20 page essay turned into a 240 page book. I think the author also demonstrates a habit of overstating things. But it does a good job documenting the change in focus and growing cohesion of the white power movement that was distinct from prior periods.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, -W.A.R- said:

French journalist asking questions American ones should be asking. His answer is terrible too.

 

I don’t see a problem with his answers though.  Blinken is the Secretary of State, not the Attorney General. The status of Assange is a legal one, not a diplomatic issue at this point. 

The other issue I have here is his assertion that Assange deserves protection under US whistleblower laws.  That’s not how that works. There are specific avenues one takes if one wishes to gain legal protections as a whistleblower. This is the same issue with Snowden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

The avenues one takes to be a legally protected whistleblower, can you elaborate?

It’s not something I want to spend too much time on an answer (as it can depend on the kind of information and type of employment). You’re better reading the wiki summary and overview:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States

One reason why asking about or referencing whistleblower protections with respect to Assange is kind of nonsensical is that he wasn’t an employee of the US government.  The question then becomes whether Assange is guilty of committing a crime if he had no moral or civic responsibility to US law being that he’s a foreign national. US prosecutors feel he is culpable and have hence charged him. He doesn’t get the choice to decide whether he wishes to avoid said charges if he resides in a country with an extradition treaty with the US.  If I were him I would have saved myself a lot of headache and fought the charges in court. This is what Daniel Ellsberg did in the 1970s with respect to the Pentagon Papers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, downzy said:

The other issue I have here is his assertion that Assange deserves protection under US whistleblower laws.  That’s not how that works. There are specific avenues one takes if one wishes to gain legal protections as a whistleblower. This is the same issue with Snowden.

He may have misspoke or perhaps there is a different understanding of whistleblower. Assange is a journalist, he should be protected under the first amendment.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2021 at 6:26 PM, -W.A.R- said:

He may have misspoke or perhaps there is a different understanding of whistleblower. Assange is a journalist, he should be protected under the first amendment.  

The first amendment doesn’t give journalists cart blanche with respect to what they can publish. National security interests are considered if and when the US government can prosecute journalists for illegal dissemination.  The onus is on the government to prove that such a disclosure of top secrete information jeopardized national security.  There is also a question as to whether Assange is actually a journalist, since he doesn’t actually write anything. He just releases raw intelligence devoid of consideration of possible injury or any context to what he’s putting out there.

I’m not stating that the case against Assange is clear or air tight. I think an argument can be made that he should be considered a journalist and the information isn’t damaging enough to national interests when balancing the illegal and terrible shit he revealed. But I don’t think his innocence is as clear cut as his defenders make it out to be. Again, if I were him I would not have fought extradition and taken my case all the way to the Supreme Court. I think his odds are good that he’ll find a judge amendable to his argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, downzy said:

The first amendment doesn’t give journalists cart blanche with respect to what they can publish. National security interests are considered if and when the US government can prosecute journalists for illegal dissemination.  The onus is on the government to prove that such a disclosure of top secrete information jeopardized national security.  There is also a question as to whether Assange is actually a journalist, since he doesn’t actually write anything. He just releases raw intelligence devoid of consideration of possible injury or any context to what he’s putting out there.

All of that was already considered under the Obama administration and they ultimately decided against charging him (albeit not "officially" making a determination). I wouldn't say that they were soft on the issue either, charging 8 people under the Espionage Act. They seemed to understand the ramifications of unprecedentedly charging a publisher.

The Biden administration would be wise to reverse course and drop the charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/8/2021 at 1:08 AM, downzy said:

Really great twitter thread on why Trump’s new lawsuits against Facebook and Twitter will get tossed in a heartbeat:

 

tRump is no dummy. He knows this has as much of a shot in court as his #stopthesteal nonsense. This will allow him to get his base fired up about "MURICA MUH FREEDUMBZ" as he fleeces his idiotic base for millions of dollars once again. tRump 2021: the grift continues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...