All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Kirby101]

Okay Mets, the GOP aren't as bad as Nazis, so how bad are they? Or will you continue to defend and support what they do as a Party? Because I haven't seen you say they are bad at all.

[CSTowle]

On whether Trump supporters are as bad as followers of Stalin or Hitler: the scary thing about those followers is, as I've said before, not that they're special or unique to history but that they are ordinary people radicalized by circumstances and a movement that can allow (or did allow, in the case of the USSR and Nazi Germany) terrible things to happen. There is a non-insignificant portion of the Republican base that believes one or more of the following: 1. That Joe Biden committed mass voter fraud that stole multiple states and the election and that he is not the legitimate President and that a coup to remove him is legally justified. 2. That Joe Biden is owned by Chinese interests (maybe because of his son's laptop? hard to get firm logical reasoning) and is undermining the country to allow them to overtake us. 3. That lifelong civil servants (the "Deep State") are part of a conspiracy to undermine Republican values and Trump specifically (some truth to that, but only to save the government and the country from his most extreme actions and then mostly blunting their impact). 4. There's a human trafficking syndicate run by Democratic lawmakers and donors that a secret hero on the inside (Trump, maybe?) is working to undermine. 5. That the greatest threat to the country (not white supremacist and separatist groups, as the FBI has stated) is BLM and Antifa, and that everything from immigration to the January 6th insurrection attempt is coordinated by them.

On that last I at least give them the credit that they're clearly embarrassed by their own actions and are looking for a scapegoat, that shows a sliver of hope. But the rest is just goddamn crazy, and when you combine that with an attitude of believing the media is just another wing of the Democratic Party (as I argued earlier) it allows them to insulate themselves in bubbles with other likeminded loons and radicalize further. That's a pretty good combination to grow the type of movement that can lead to a Hitler or Stalin. We lucked out in that their leader is a man who cares nothing about ideology or policy, but only ego-stroking and self-gain. What scares me is the next guy, who uses this movement but actually is a true believer. We've already shown there are more people than any of us should be comfortable with who'll throw off democracy and norms in a second if it means they get what they want.

On a good word, if I agree with you I'll say so and if I disagree with someone I'll say so and do my best to explain why. I try not to be personally insulting or target specific people, but I will call out bulls##t where I believe I see it. I tend to call it out more from my "side" (lefties) because I think it's harmful and think it's better to correct that where someone might be willing to listen. That's not usually the case with those on the right, and to give another good word while I don't tend to agree with you on most things you at least make your arguments as to why you believe what you do. That's better than most hit-and-run, MAGA rah rah conservative posters who wander in and out of the thread (which is very heavily slanted left, let's be honest).

On the Civil Rights act and its intent vs the current atmosphere, whether it was meant to be a bridge to progress that was meant to be phased out or put in place until those who wanted to suppress minority votes were a negligible minority we're still clearly dealing with a group that wants to keep all black people (and anyone else non-white) from voting. That's all that should matter. Is it depressing the same places that needed this legislation in the first place are up to the same things 60 years on? Sure. But that's besides the point. The point is it's still going on and it still needs to be dealt with. On that good word and calling out bulls##t thing: also besides the point, the fact that Democrat/Dixie-crats were the ones pushing that legislation 60 years ago is only relevant if you're not aware they all defected to form the core of a Republican Party that more than dog-whistles these days to their base and you want to pretend "both sides" own this issue. We all know better.

On voter fraud, I listed many measures that we could take that would both cut down on fraud and help more citizens vote and more easily. But we also know that's not what Republicans are interested in. They just want fewer votes from those who vote Democratic. Otherwise they'd be willing to propose these compromises in order to get Democrats on board. I can hardly blame them though, they've gotten so much of their agenda achieved by being uncompromising and radical while we've made the mistake of trying to compromise and getting little done that they have pretty good reason not to.

On whether voter suppression laws impact marginal races vs "safe" races, that's again entirely beside the point. Marginal races are where national races are won, where majorities in Congress are won. That's everything. Presidential elections, as seen this time around, are always close and a small percentage here or there makes the difference. Saying or hinting that it's of little impact is naive or dishonest. And gerrymandering is wrong, no matter who benefits. But we both know who it benefits more, so pointing out the occasional instance where it doesn't won't make things "equal" or a good "both sides" argument.

On the electoral college, I feel like (to quote Bill Maher) Dakota getting 4 senators is enough. You don't need land getting votes, or people's votes in Montana weighing 10x (number completely out of my @$$, sure it's probably more) than someone in NY or California. In many ways our system of government (especially for its time) is amazing and something to be proud of, but there are a lot of things that made more sense in an 18th century world than they do today. On those with multiple residences, if you again had protected and trackable ballots electronically they could declare a primary residence and vote accordingly. If they refuse to choose they might forfeit their right to vote that election, and if they do choose but cast multiple ballots surely there's a system that could put those ballots on hold pending an investigation. It would take a lot of work to develop and maintain such a system, but if we were serious about voter fraud and not just partisan political gain we could do it.

On Flynn, he isn't in power and he's a private citizen. It's crazy, it feeds the crazies, it's irresponsible and undermines the country and its government that he professes to love (though given his ties to Russia, which are proven, it's possible undermining the country is his goal). In a perfect world would I like him stripped of his pension after the way Andrew McCabe was fired before he qualified for his? Sure. But doing so now will likely make him a martyr, as another poster said, and given his status among the Qs and his ties to Russia he'd do just fine anyway. It would also allow him and others to paint Biden as being "just as bad as Trump" (assuming they could see anything Trump did as being bad or wrong). Stupid, but the likely outcome.

[Mister Mets]

In what regard?

Because I remember some people Trump described as 'very fine people' marching and chanting 'The Jews will not replace us'.

I mean, the original Nazis could at least claim ignorance with regards to how bad Nazis are. These 'very fine people', not so much.

In what regard are Trump supporters anywhere near as bad as Nazis or Soviets under Lenin and Stalin?

As a purely technical point, you remember incorrectly. Trump did not say the Nazis were fine people. He did say there were "some very bad people in that group" when talking about the Unite the Right rally.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...sides-remarks/

No we can't.

Do we wait for Trump supporters to construct a dictatorship and orchestrate death squads and junta, or do we use the comparisons to signal the danger now and behave accordingly?

As a reader of Volker Ullrich's magnificent two-part biography of Hitler, the fact that shines clearly is that he benefitted from the unravelling of norms and a culture of leniency and impunity by the state which tolerated and licensed Hitler's actions including the Munich Beer Hall Putsch (aka the January 6 of the 1920s Weimar years) when they left him off with a slap of the wrist.

So the question is do we take action in Trump while he's in the stage of Munich or do we wait for the post-war Detrumpification trials to take a stand against him?

Because let's be clear, Donald Trump is a fascist. He wants to destroy democracy in America. That much is clear with Trump and his acolytes. If you cannot recognize that there's simply no point in continuing any discussion with you.

I'm taking you literally and seriously here.

Is your specific position that it is so obvious that Trump supporters are the equivalent of Nazis, that if someone can't see that, there's no point to further discussion?

That's the standard here, right?

[Revolutionary_Jack]

That's the standard here, right?

I am not the moderator here. I am just a poster, so my posts are not *the* standard here. Rather they are my standards. So don't get all huffy just yet.

The fact is here's the reality:

-- Donald Trump hates democracy.
-- He has consistently trampled and violated norms set in place.

If you disagree with any of these facts, then explain to me and offer evidence for the counter. Don't equivocate and offer vague claims, but actually take a stand for once.

People who support Trump after January 6, or morally obfuscate or deny January 06 ought to be considered to share those two essential facts about Trump.

[Mister Mets]

I am not the moderator here. I am just a poster, so my posts are not *the* standard here. Rather they are my standards. So don't get all huffy just yet.

The fact is here's the reality:

-- Donald Trump hates democracy.
-- He has consistently trampled and violated norms set in place.

If you disagree with any of these facts, then explain to me and offer evidence for the counter. Don't equivocate and offer vague claims, but actually take a stand for once.

People who support Trump after January 6, or morally obfuscate or deny January 06 ought to be considered to share those two essential facts about Trump.

I was asking about your specific standard. I wasn't implying it was anyone else's.

I do take stands. I'm frequently willing to piss off people on all sides of the political spectrum, be they to my left or right, or one some other gradient (IE- authoritarian/ libertarian.)

On your statements, Trump has certainly trampled and violated norms set in place. Many of his supporters would say that's a reason they like him. I might quibble with whether he hates democracy, but that's more of a distinction without a difference in that his brand of populism, and the way he tries to appeal to voters is harmful.

The degree of harm is the question.

Okay Mets, the GOP aren't as bad as Nazis, so how bad are they? Or will you continue to defend and support what they do as a Party? Because I haven't seen you say they are bad at all.

It's going to be hard to get me to say a major American political party is bad. It would seem premature to suggest that people shouldn't vote for the GOP in 2024, let alone 2032.

I think the best course of action for right-leaning moderates and conservatives pissed off at the GOP is to be registered Republicans, so they can vote in primaries, where one person's vote makes more of a difference (for the same reason, progressives and moderates who are more simpatico with the local Democratic party should be registered Democrats and pay attention to those primaries.) If Republicans pick a stupid nominee, and Democrats pick someone okay or better, decent conservatives should vote for the Democrats and hope for better next time.

I don't quite get the calls for someone to not support the party in a two-party system. An individual can vote, and can advocate for politicians to take particular actions. They can opt to stay on the sidelines for the work that doesn't involve voting or contacting candidates/ elected officials (IE- donating to candidates, volunteering for campaigns, etc.) Deciding not to support a party at all limits your impact, and increases the political power of the extremists.

[Tendrin]

Yes. The best way to stop the anti-democratic erosion being committed by the GOP is to be okay with the idea of giving them more power in 2024 when most of the same people will still be in office. This makes a whole lot of sense.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

I do take stands. I'm frequently willing to piss off people on all sides of the political spectrum, be they to my left or right, or one some other gradient (IE- authoritarian/ libertarian.)

So you're just a contrarian troll without real principles of your own.

Ah well, I guess you being a Blue State GOP and all, that makes sense. You don't care enough about your beliefs to be in parts of the country where they are actually enforced.

If I were to use a Cold War analogy you would be like the armchair communist supporters of USSR who live in first world democracies and don't care much for "actually existing communism". So you like to uphold an abstract version of conservatism divorced from how it's practiced and enforced all the while living in a place where you don't have to deal with, nor suffer at the other end from, that reality. Armchair Conservatism is what you seem to offer.

On your statements, Trump has certainly trampled and violated norms set in place.

Okay a reasonable legible statement from you. I welcome this.

Many of his supporters would say that's a reason they like him.

The question is do you like Trump? Do you like Trump after he tramples norms?

I might quibble...

Quelle surprise!

See most of the rest here are interested in actually existing conservatism and the Republican party as it exists and operates in reality, because some of us are actually affected by their policies, or know friends and families who are. For us there's a lot to lose and a great deal at stake from any gains of GOP power, whereas for you nothing will be affected by Democrats coming to power.

You understand the issues here. Maybe you can be a little sensitive going forward, hmm?

[Tendrin]

Seeing a lot of folks saying this. Including Walter Shaub, several generals, former Secretaries of Defense....

Flynn getting activated just to be open-and-shut court-martialed and bankrupted when he's stripped of his benefits and jailed via military tribunal would be some poetic justice.

He should be. Folks saying that he's just a private citizen engaged in protected speech are missing that he's a wanna be Ludendorff and that it lands differently when it's Former General Flynn. He's inciting insurrection, again, and ought to pay the price for that. It is well past time we stopped coddling right-wing provocateurs who want to dismantle our democracy, especially ones that are only out of jail because of a corrupt pardon issued by a corrupt president.

[Malvolio]

So you're just a contrarian troll without real principles of your own.

Ah well, I guess you being a Blue State GOP and all, that makes sense. You don't care enough about your beliefs to be in parts of the country where they are actually enforced.

If I were to use a Cold War analogy you would be like the armchair communist supporters of USSR who live in first world democracies and don't care much for "actually existing communism". So you like to uphold an abstract version of conservatism divorced from how it's practiced and enforced all the while living in a place where you don't have to deal with, nor suffer at the other end from, that reality. Armchair Conservatism is what you seem to offer.



Okay a reasonable legible statement from you. I welcome this.



The question is do you like Trump? Do you like Trump after he tramples norms?



Quelle surprise!

See most of the rest here are interested in actually existing conservatism and the Republican party as it exists and operates in reality, because some of us are actually affected by their policies, or know friends and families who are. For us there's a lot to lose and a great deal at stake from any gains of GOP power, whereas for you nothing will be affected by Democrats coming to power.

You understand the issues here. Maybe you can be a little sensitive going forward, hmm?

This is a very eloquent description of Mets' position. Thank you, Revolutionary Jack. It does often seem that Mets defends a Republican Party that no longer exists.

[numberthirty]

While it is a small step in a state with many policing issues, this is probably worth taking note of...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ns/7489269002/

Illinois to become first state to ban police officers from lying to minors during interrogations

[Tendrin]

Josh Marshall has the correct take on the 'lab leak' bullshit.

re you having trouble keeping up on the press discussion of a ‘lab leak’ theory of the origins of COVID? Here are a few pointers.

Broadly speaking, there’s seldom been an example of a more rapid shift in public opinion or rather elite conventional wisdom in the face of so little changing evidence. A bunch of right wing or right-adjacent columnists are running around high-fiving each other and patting themselves on the back about how “the media” got it wrong.

On balance, this isn’t true. What happened is that from the outset China-hawks who were largely out to defend Donald Trump made a series of baseless accusations about COVID either being a bioweapon or the accidental release of a Chinese biological warfare weapon. When that got shot down (there’s strong genomic evidence against this), they retreated to a more conventional lab accident as their pet theory. The best one can say is that most journalists became reflexively skeptical to all such claims since they were mainly coming from people who are professional liars with obvious axes to grind

[The Cool Thatguy]

In what regard are Trump supporters anywhere near as bad as Nazis or Soviets under Lenin and Stalin?

As a purely technical point, you remember incorrectly. Trump did not say the Nazis were fine people. He did say there were "some very bad people in that group" when talking about the Unite the Right rally.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...sides-remarks/

He also said that there were very fine people on both sides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs

One side was majority Nazis.

Plenty of Trump supporters are Nazis, who know full well the evil that the Nazis committed. They lack the ability to commit the same crimes, not the desire. Frankly, you could argue that they are worse.

[Mister Mets]

So you're just a contrarian troll without real principles of your own.

Ah well, I guess you being a Blue State GOP and all, that makes sense. You don't care enough about your beliefs to be in parts of the country where they are actually enforced.

If I were to use a Cold War analogy you would be like the armchair communist supporters of USSR who live in first world democracies and don't care much for "actually existing communism". So you like to uphold an abstract version of conservatism divorced from how it's practiced and enforced all the while living in a place where you don't have to deal with, nor suffer at the other end from, that reality. Armchair Conservatism is what you seem to offer.

That is pretty nasty and personal, and reflects poorly on you. If you express a view that some people disagree with, does that mean you're being a troll?

I'm not contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. Many of my views are popular ones. Some are not.

This is the first time someone's suggested I'm wrong for living in the place where I grew up. I've mentioned geographic sorting before, but no one's suggested that we should all go for it.

Is the idea that people should go to where their preferred policies are implemented a standard you apply universally? Do you insist that people who are progressive move away from conservative regions? It would not be great for Democrats now if that approach were followed a decade ago in Georgia and Arizona.

Okay a reasonable legible statement from you. I welcome this.



The question is do you like Trump? Do you like Trump after he tramples norms?

I do not like Trump. I have been clear about that numerous times, including when I first said I'd vote for Biden over Trump in early 2019, one of my positions that turned out to be prescient, as well as popular.

Quelle surprise!

See most of the rest here are interested in actually existing conservatism and the Republican party as it exists and operates in reality, because some of us are actually affected by their policies, or know friends and families who are. For us there's a lot to lose and a great deal at stake from any gains of GOP power, whereas for you nothing will be affected by Democrats coming to power.

You understand the issues here. Maybe you can be a little sensitive going forward, hmm?

It seems inconsistent to insult someone personally, and then demand that they show sensitivity.

This argument could be used in the other way, noting the drawbacks of what Democrats stand to do. All of us stand to benefit from decent policies and suffer from bad ones (in some rare cases, there may end up being a bad policy that benefits some people and a good policy that hurts a small group of people, which are tradeoffs that we should be able to discuss rationally.)

I don't think it does much good for conservatives to be reflexively anti-Republican. The main result is that it makes it slightly awkward to agree with Republicans going forward.

The American political system is unique in that parties can change very quickly. We should want decent Republicans to stick with the party so that good candidates can have a foothold in the Republican party. Progressives wouldn't be happy if politically engaged conservatives who don't like Trump leave the Republican party, and become a major constituency in Democratic primaries.

He also said that there were very fine people on both sides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmaZR8E12bs

One side was majority Nazis.

Plenty of Trump supporters are Nazis, who know full well the evil that the Nazis committed. They lack the ability to commit the same crimes, not the desire. Frankly, you could argue that they are worse.

Technical point again, but Nazis were not a majority of the rally.

[Tendrin]

Technical point again, but Nazis were not a majority of the rally.

Yes, they were. Anyone who's willing to march with a Nazi is, themselves, a nazi.

if there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis.

[The Cool Thatguy]

Technical point again, but Nazis were not a majority of the rally.

Agreed. There were many there in opposition to the Nazis.

And anyone who stands shoulder to shoulder with people who chant 'The Jews will not replace us' is a Nazi, declared or not.