1. #22816
    My Face Is Up Here Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WestPhillyPunisher View Post
    I have zero problem with the absence of people at the inauguration. Hell, I’m on record saying the event should’ve been moved indoors to a secure location or done virtually because of the risk of violence after what happened last week. God forbid if the virus had erupted in 2016 and Trump went ahead with a full scale event, crowds and all because his ego would’ve accepted nothing less.
    I can even now picture Trump claiming Biden couldn't have really won the election because, look, nobody showed up to witness his inauguration.
    Power with Girl is better.

  2. #22817
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amadeus Arkham View Post
    ...what do you guys think Soon-to-be-former President Trump will be remembered for the most in history?...
    Different things by different historians I suspect. The one thing that I'm certain will have a prominent place across the board (except the revisionists that are already at work) will be the failed coup attempt. Not only is it the single most dramatic event of Trump's disgraceful presidency, there's enough room to keep historians debating whether he accidentally threw gasoline on it, or deliberately built it himself. I have my own opinion, but I suspect you're going to find debate among the professional scholars for decades, possibly even centuries to come.

    For me, I'm looking forward to the day this thread forgets him, and moves on to other politics. One of the most offensive things about the man to me is Trump's ability to force himself on our attention. But then, forcing himself on others has always been Trump's thing.

  3. #22818
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerboy View Post
    I've read a few articles that point out that it is naive to believe that this attempted coup to change the results of an election was really based on a belief that there was mass voter fraud all based on one lie. On the surface, yes. But deep down, subconsciously, it's an overwhelming anger at the way Joe Average feels he and she has been treated, especially economically, for a long time.

    Of course, the problem is that these people don't see where the primary source of the problem is and throw in with the party that is the main source of the problem. This is likely because, even if they don't recognize it, there's that core prehistoric tribal fear of "other" who are encroaching on their territory, their hunting grounds, etc.

    Everybody is susceptible to these primitive instincts but, almost by definition, conservatives are backwards thinking or at least "stand in place ang go no further" thinking.
    An interesting opinion, Powerboy. IMO, "Joe Average" - as you call him - has not been educated to analyze and understand the roots of his economic problem, and can only see the symptoms. I also wouldn't overlook the power of the Pro-Life narrative; I know people who should know better that won't take a look because the only issue that fires them is Quashing Right To Choose and at any cost.

  4. #22819
    My Face Is Up Here Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by worstblogever View Post
    I will remind you that his campaign started with "Mexicans are rapists". It always was goddamned white nationalism.
    I was referring to what I think a lot of voters focused on in 2016 which was desperate people buying into Trump's lies about helping workers.

    Or maybe I'm just being naive and a lot of people I once knew in high school or college are and always were, at least subconsciously, these scared little white nationalists.
    Power with Girl is better.

  5. #22820
    Boisterously Confused
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,449

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerboy View Post
    I was referring to what I think a lot of voters focused on in 2016 which was desperate people buying into Trump's lies about helping workers.

    Or maybe I'm just being naive and a lot of people I once knew in high school or college are and always were, at least subconsciously, these scared little white nationalists.
    I suspect that Trump drew a lot of voters who never voice their own hidden bigotries. There aren't (and thank god for it) 70 Million rampaging seditionists in the country, but those votes didn't just appear in the county counting houses anymore than Biden's did.

  6. #22821
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    It's not the series finale. For the last arc, it's going to be a courtroom drama.
    i completely agree, but for a good courtroom drama you need Rudy, and Rudy is a great Joe Pesci like in My uncle Vinnie!
    We saw it.
    Last edited by mogwen; 01-19-2021 at 08:59 AM.

  7. #22822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Powerboy View Post
    I was referring to what I think a lot of voters focused on in 2016 which was desperate people buying into Trump's lies about helping workers.

    Or maybe I'm just being naive and a lot of people I once knew in high school or college are and always were, at least subconsciously, these scared little white nationalists.
    "Economic anxiety" was always a myth. This has always been about how fragile white people are. Because Trump lost jobs and these fanatics stayed loyal to him. Even when jobs were made, they were never high-paying jobs.
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  8. #22823
    My Face Is Up Here Powerboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,725

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    An interesting opinion, Powerboy. IMO, "Joe Average" - as you call him - has not been educated to analyze and understand the roots of his economic problem, and can only see the symptoms. I also wouldn't overlook the power of the Pro-Life narrative; I know people who should know better that won't take a look because the only issue that fires them is Quashing Right To Choose and at any cost.
    Yes and yes. Joe Average only sees the symptoms without even trying to see the root causes. That's why, when there was a protest/ riot, Joe Average just sees a riot and looting, just sees criminals (villains) and police (the heroes). Because they only see the symptom and not an endless history that led to it. They don't even see that the racism is really there.

    And yeah, a friend of mine has pointed out that if Trump had not latched onto the pro-life thing, he would not have even half the support he does. It's a fanatic religious cause based in lack of knowledge, buying into lies and steeped in mythical beliefs and a book that does not even remotely support their definition of life. It's often a hypocritical fanaticism at that. For some, it's born of guilt and, for others, deep down, a means of controlling women.

    https://joycearthur.com/abortion/the...s-my-abortion/
    Power with Girl is better.

  9. #22824
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Where The Food Is.
    Posts
    2,142

    Default



    Wow, he’s just putting his white nationalism out there in display for all to see. I appreciate his honesty at the very least.
    "I love mankind...it's people I can't stand!!"

    - Charles Schultz.

  10. #22825
    Incredible Member sbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by worstblogever View Post
    "Economic anxiety" was always a myth. This has always been about how fragile white people are. Because Trump lost jobs and these fanatics stayed loyal to him. Even when jobs were made, they were never high-paying jobs.
    True. Ethnic Anxiety was the real problem.

  11. #22826
    Old school comic book fan WestPhillyPunisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    31,187

    Default

    Got an alert that two National Guard members of President-Elect Biden’s inauguration security team were given the boot because of ties to a militia group.
    Avatar: Here's to the late, great Steve Dillon. Best. Punisher. Artist. EVER!

  12. #22827
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    9,358

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrNewGod View Post
    Not only is it the single most dramatic event of Trump's disgraceful presidency, there's enough room to keep historians debating whether he accidentally threw gasoline on it, or deliberately built it himself. I have my own opinion, but I suspect you're going to find debate among the professional scholars for decades, possibly even centuries to come.
    What's your opinion, if you don't mind me asking?

    I think it's without a question that Trump
    a) Wanted to remain President.
    b) Really believed he could overturn the election and win.
    c) Acted to make that happen.

    His actions before/during/after the Putsch simply don't make sense otherwise. I don't think any other explanation really works, barring an extraordinary amount of evidence. My feeling is that Trump aimed to stop the certification of the election and intimidate the GOP Senate (which had a majority at the time) to object to certifying Biden's electoral votes...and in any case delay and forestall the day of certification. More than that, I don't think Trump planned further beyond because Trump is the man of the desperate gamble, the "hail mary" and the "inside straight" and so on. He's not someone who thinks about "and then what?"

    Remember that the Putsch was by no means a spontaneous protest movement like the George Floyd protests, or for that matter the Storming of the Bastille, or the Arab Spring, those were spontaneous bottom-up revolutions. The Putsch by contrast was out of state activists coming to DC at invitation by Trump and his supporters and other mobilizers. This was not by any means an unplanned spontaneous thing at least in terms of assembly. So yeah, Trump was aiming for a coup d'etat, a self-coup, a Putsch. He wanted to overturn an election he lost, the will of the people, and come to power by means of force and intimidation on a co-equal branch of government whose authority he wished to subordinate directly to his whims. I don't think you can argue against that. Strategically that was his aim. Tactically I think is where you have the debate.

    When I say "Tactically" I mean the question -- What Trump intended to happen with the Capitol? How far did he plan for it to go? Did he actually intend the deaths of Pence/Pelosi/others at Capitol Hill?

    I think Trump's tactical aim was to arrest/halt/prevent the certification of electoral votes on January 6. That was his immediate tactical aim. He wanted to prevent Biden from having any legitimacy, and he wanted to use that to rouse the electorate and create enough hell and intimidate enough that he creates a situation like the Compromise of 1877 (which nearly led to two Inaugurations of two Presidents until a last minute corrupt bargain between two parties). Ted Cruz mentioned 1877 in the Senate a few days before the Putsch. Trump did assemble a crowd and sent them to march at Capitol Hill. That's inarguable. He told them "march down Pennsylvania Avenue" and "show strength". Now what did he intend to happen? I think Trump definitely wanted the crowd outside to intimidate the senators and representatives. Did he intened to go as far as kidnapping and murder? Did he actually plot to kill the VP and Speaker? I would probably say not but at the same time it's irrelevant because Trump and his coterie assembled and tried to assemble militias like the Proud Boys and others there and when you bring them over, he was gambling and angling for collateral damage. Tactically Trump was aiming for a constitutional crisis at the low end, and a coup d'etat at the high end. The likely result of "success" on Jan. 6 would be Civil War, what would likely be a very short and quick one.

    Had Trump succeeded on Jan. 6...which would mean say the Putschists break in, kill Pence, Pelosi, and take some Dem Senate and Reps hostage, while survivors get smuggled out somehow...what you would have had is Civil War with Blue States and some GOP supporting the Blues, against MAGA-aligned territories. In a situation of Civil War, I think it ends quickly because DC is surrounded by Blue States (sure Maryland has the very centrist GOP Gov. Hogan but he absolutely would back Biden based on all he has done and said in his career) but the question is if the military in DC backs Trump or Biden, and so on. It would have led to a vicious street fight in DC. But Trump was in a very bad strategic position in that hypothetical scenario.

  13. #22828
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Revolutionary_Jack View Post
    What's your opinion, if you don't mind me asking?

    I think it's without a question that Trump
    a) Wanted to remain President.
    b) Really believed he could overturn the election and win.
    c) Acted to make that happen.

    His actions before/during/after the Putsch simply don't make sense otherwise. I don't think any other explanation really works, barring an extraordinary amount of evidence. My feeling is that Trump aimed to stop the certification of the election and intimidate the GOP Senate (which had a majority at the time) to object to certifying Biden's electoral votes...and in any case delay and forestall the day of certification. More than that, I don't think Trump planned further beyond because Trump is the man of the desperate gamble, the "hail mary" and the "inside straight" and so on. He's not someone who thinks about "and then what?"

    Remember that the Putsch was by no means a spontaneous protest movement like the George Floyd protests, or for that matter the Storming of the Bastille, or the Arab Spring, those were spontaneous bottom-up revolutions. The Putsch by contrast was out of state activists coming to DC at invitation by Trump and his supporters and other mobilizers. This was not by any means an unplanned spontaneous thing at least in terms of assembly. So yeah, Trump was aiming for a coup d'etat, a self-coup, a Putsch. He wanted to overturn an election he lost, the will of the people, and come to power by means of force and intimidation on a co-equal branch of government whose authority he wished to subordinate directly to his whims. I don't think you can argue against that. Strategically that was his aim. Tactically I think is where you have the debate.

    When I say "Tactically" I mean the question -- What Trump intended to happen with the Capitol? How far did he plan for it to go? Did he actually intend the deaths of Pence/Pelosi/others at Capitol Hill?

    I think Trump's tactical aim was to arrest/halt/prevent the certification of electoral votes on January 6. That was his immediate tactical aim. He wanted to prevent Biden from having any legitimacy, and he wanted to use that to rouse the electorate and create enough hell and intimidate enough that he creates a situation like the Compromise of 1877 (which nearly led to two Inaugurations of two Presidents until a last minute corrupt bargain between two parties). Ted Cruz mentioned 1877 in the Senate a few days before the Putsch. Trump did assemble a crowd and sent them to march at Capitol Hill. That's inarguable. He told them "march down Pennsylvania Avenue" and "show strength". Now what did he intend to happen? I think Trump definitely wanted the crowd outside to intimidate the senators and representatives. Did he intened to go as far as kidnapping and murder? Did he actually plot to kill the VP and Speaker? I would probably say not but at the same time it's irrelevant because Trump and his coterie assembled and tried to assemble militias like the Proud Boys and others there and when you bring them over, he was gambling and angling for collateral damage. Tactically Trump was aiming for a constitutional crisis at the low end, and a coup d'etat at the high end. The likely result of "success" on Jan. 6 would be Civil War, what would likely be a very short and quick one.

    Had Trump succeeded on Jan. 6...which would mean say the Putschists break in, kill Pence, Pelosi, and take some Dem Senate and Reps hostage, while survivors get smuggled out somehow...what you would have had is Civil War with Blue States and some GOP supporting the Blues, against MAGA-aligned territories. In a situation of Civil War, I think it ends quickly because DC is surrounded by Blue States (sure Maryland has the very centrist GOP Gov. Hogan but he absolutely would back Biden based on all he has done and said in his career) but the question is if the military in DC backs Trump or Biden, and so on. It would have led to a vicious street fight in DC. But Trump was in a very bad strategic position in that hypothetical scenario.
    Its both terrifying and reassuring that Trump is incapable of thinking more than a few days ahead

  14. #22829
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    3,411

    Default

    Some posts on YouTube are suggesting that the National Guard are in DC to help install trump in the White House. Not sure if these posts are trump supporters or Russian trolls.

  15. #22830
    Ultimate Member Mister Mets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirby101 View Post
    His argument seems to be if you don't have unrestricted immigration and citizenship, it is by default only for a "chosen few". Even though most of us with an understanding of the English language would know that "chosen few" is a term that would mean highly restrictive and exclusionary. As if wanted a fair and welcoming path to citizenship is the same as "chosen few". A clue is the word "few", it means something to most people.
    There are a lot of people in the world who would like to be American citizens if there were no barriers in their way.

    I'm curious about what fair and welcoming path to citizenship would not exclude the majority. The current system does favor the chosen few, those who have skills and a background deemed useful (skills based immigration) or those who know the right people (family reunification.)


    Quote Originally Posted by PwrdOn View Post
    It doesn't help your point because for most people on the left, at least those with principle, immigration policy is an issue where their professed moral principles clash with their own self interest in a rather dramatic way, and reconciling these is something that can be quite difficult to wrestle with. It's not like it is with people like you, where it's easy for you to just go "well if citizenship isn't a privilege for the chosen few then we'll have open borders, and that's bad, so I guess citizenship is a privilege for the chosen few." That doesn't really reflect well on you or your party, and it makes it more difficult to trust you when it comes to any other issue.
    I'm not sure how it hurts my argument if Democrats don't know what they want on an important issue because they're unwilling to reconcile contradictory impulses.

    You may be onto something, but I've said similar stuff on the matter.
    Sincerely,
    Thomas Mets

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •