Banned Rafaella Leon for copypasta plagiarism. — Baden

Well, one could of course quote Olavo De Carvalho. I guess that wouldn't be a reason to be banned. (If it would, I'm really starting to worry about this site).

And we might get an heated debate about current Brazilian politics! That might be educative.

(Here's the site of Olavo de Carvalho , from which I assume Raffaella copied at least one message of her.)

the United States were fascist under Franklin Delano Roosevelt — eduardo

Yet a wartime economy isn't the basis of the economic structure of a country, especially when at peacetime those limitations and government control is eased. Yes, once the industry was geared to fighting the war, not one single car was built for the consumer market. After the war such regulation was obviously lifted.

we had to put up with the nonsense of Russian collusion for years, — NOS4A2

The Mueller report was damning and would have been the basis for impeachment in any other administration. The problem was, Mueller left it up to Congress to act on the findings of obstruction, and Congress declined to act, because they were so thoroughly bullied and intimidated by Trump. — Wayfarer

Case example of Trump supporters being in an alternate reality.

But of course, they just see here that anti-Trumpers are attacking Trump and simply don't look at the facts objectively. Did the worst accusations I heard be found to be true by the Mueller report? No, but enough was found as Wayfarer states. And let's remember that the Mueller probe was of Trump's own making. Had Trump just shut up and remain calm, there wouldn't have been a Mueller probe in the first place and the FBI would have simply stated that "Yes, Russians were active in the 2016 elections. Period. Nothing else". And the Democrats would see the FBI director Comey as a Trump stooge (as Trumpsters don't selectively remember the October surprise that Comey gave to Trump with opening the Hillary investigations, which is the way Trumpsters work).

There's the similarity to the repetition of the statement of the elections being fraudulent and stolen clearly visible. And it works as we can see. This polarization will just continue.

Socialism has killed over 100 million dissidents and spread terror, misery, and famine over one quarter of the Earth. All of the earthquakes, hurricanes, epidemics, tyrannies, and wars of the last four centuries combined have not produced such devastating effects. — Rafaella Leon

Some have estimated, that in wars of the 20th Century about 108 to 150 million people were killed, with WW2 being the worst (with perhaps 70 million or so dead). Yet I agree that Stéphane Courtois, Andrzej Paczkowski and Nicolas Werth are totally at the correct range of putting such a high number on deaths related to communism.

Yet it's better to talk about simply about communism, the violent totalitarian side of socialism. That might be history now, but socialism isn't. Why? The fall of the Soviet Union and it's satellite states wasn't such a blow that as was given to fascism and national socialism at the end of WW2, so the ideology didn't become a banned one. There were no American tanks on the Red Square when the Soviet Union fell and the present Russian leader sees the collapse of the Soviet Union as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”. Obviously any kind of similar re-thinking of ideologies didn't happen in Post-Soviet Russia as happened in (West)Germany after WW2.

Then some socialists condemned Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet Union, even if those were a far smaller group as now people say. And lastly, not all socialism isn't Marxism. Western social democracy, which could generally be defined as socialism, is different from the totalitarian communists. And as they, the social democrats, have been in fact for ages the vehement enemies with communists (if one looks at the real history), they don't see themselves related to Soviet communism or maoism. To assume that social democrats are just some light-version of communists would be similar as to think that a libertarian and an authoritarian extreme right-winger are from the same mold.

All above makes it so that communism isn't treated as fascism or national socialism, even if Marxism-Leninism should be put in a similar way to the dustbin of history. That's just the World we live in.

If Trump is to blame for the expressions and acts of others, who should I blame for the expressions and actions of ssu? I’d love to know who possesses enough magical powers to control your tongue and motor cortex. — NOS4A2

What???

Are you now questioning if people can or cannot be incited? Oh boy.

Or wait a minute, did the second impeachment of Trump happen for the reason that Trump possessed magical powers to control peoples tongue and motor cortex? I think I missed that!

I think that Eric Weinstein had an interesting and a bit different take on what happened in DC. Interview by Saagar Njeti and Marshall Kosloff. As always, nice to listen to a bit something else:

In fact if money is a process of the living it stand to reason that it’s less of a jump than the statement “the living is a process of the dead/inanimate (physics/chemistry). — Benj96

So you mean as people are living entities and people have invented money, so there's the reductionist link? With extreme reductionism many fail to notice how information is lost in the reductionist thinking, which assumes everything can be answered by looking at the parts and not the whole, for example.

But that wasn't what I had in mind...

It was basically that with living entities we have a quite solid foundation with biology and natural sciences. To live a living organism needs energy. That's a fact and cannot be avoided or disregarded. It's simply false that we could assume that there are living organisms wouldn't need energy at all.

However with money and a monetary system, it is not dependent anything else that perhaps humans being around, but other than that, issues like what is money, what is the value of it differ arbitrarily and can be totally different. There is no right answer. And thus here it simply gets illogical. Some can view money one way while others view it another way. And economist can make an economic model of how the monetary system works, but that can change through time.

This is even more obvious as we think of money as debt or how important the trust in a monetary system. Now you can make a model of how the monetary system works at a specific time in a specific place, but that can change to something totally else. For example, some time ago you would have a big difficulty to make people think that something like Bitcoin would be money.

magine Trump were stupid enough to listen to this guy. — Michael

Not many guys going to Trump nowdays.

Besides, Trump has got the people around him who he wanted and who he deserves.

Biological systems are based on chemistry and physics. If it thrives or dies is based on quite logical reasoning. A monetary system is a faith based system.

Does this make a problem to your model?

It's funny (or it would be if it weren't so tragic) that right-wing anti-democratic rhetoric so often employs the notion of "the mob", the hoi polloi, the unwashed masse — Pfhorrest

That's an American phenomenon, leftists do the same in the US...when it's not the politically correct poor, but those for example who support Trump. Do note the extremely condescending way that so-called liberals often talk about Southern or countryside people as rednecks and hillbillies.

You see, there's a very strange phenomenon is the US where people fear above all to be called a racist, because of the ugly history. Yet for some reason, it's then totally OK to use similar language that racists would use at people of your own race. I get it, in many countries country folk or poor people are ridiculed, but not with such hostility and contempt as in the US. For example, the term "White Trash" comes I think from early 19th Century and is still used. If their would be more social cohesion, Americans wouldn't call poor people garbage, it simply would be a taboo. Such derogatory names for poor people vanished from use for example here in the early 20th Century.

But of course, everything the right every complains about is projection, so I should have seen this coming. — Pfhorrest

So, do you see how more worse it's going to get?

Ah, sorry.

So I guess the answer is to have free education up to the university level, where those academic graduates finally earn more than their working class counterparts when they reach their 40's.

And if a system keeps people stupid, then it's quite obvious that politics of that population might end up being stupid.

They're not my fellow citizens. — Baden

In general, fine, but it's a kind of milquetoast response. Needs more. (They've been told the truth since the election results in November. Made no difference.) — Baden

Milquetoast, feeble?

Well, those who broke the law should be dealt by the justice system. Those who incited them should be put to trial too. Those that believed the lies, but haven't broken the law, should be left alone.

You see, if those who were in the past your fellow citizens aren't anymore, then likely you see them as an enemy of some sort. That's the first step to dehumanize other people and prepare the way to a genuine civil war. Don't think that it's impossible.

Start by telling the truth.

Understand that your fellow citizens have been lied to and fallen to those lies, but that they still are your fellow citizens. The worst thing is to fall into thinking that this is the 'new normal'.

What has been stupid is the way elections are fought in the US, that's the start of the stupidity. Politicians really have made this so.

What is lacking here is how to stop this trainwreck of becoming even a bigger disaster.

Arguably the rhetoric of "healing" is utterly stupid from the Republicans. A simple zero tolerance violence and loud condemnation of the insurrection would be the first move. One ought to be consistent, if one has prior condemned the looting in the summer.

And those that indeed want to sink with the Trump ship and want to be on the crazy side of history (which historians obviously will find interesting later), they should turn the focus on 2024 and to treat the conspiracy theorist crowd by saying that now those contemplating violence are actually false flag operators that want to tarnish the reputation of Messiah Trump's image. Or something as bizarre like that.

Or then you make everything worse and the country goes to the similar kind of hysteria it was after 9/11 with arresting sikhs, because they wore turbans. And even more stupid.

And what do you mean by 'full force'?

I'm sure you can name a decent and reasonable Republican, but I cannot. Can you help me out? — tim wood

Eisenhower. gave some names and one interestingly is Liz Cheney, one of the 10, even if she is the daughter of Darth Vader.

Anyway, seems that the true conservatives are now called RINOs and the Republicans are totalitarian populists, or because they fear the mob are acting as totalitarian populists. Madness prevails.

The reality for a former Republican Presidential nominee and senator:

He said the rot really set in with Newt Gingrich who had a strong 'take no prisoners' animus towards any opposition. The Tea Party fundamentalists were also a major part in it. (Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows and Mike Pompeo were all associated with Tea Party fundamentalism.) — Wayfarer

Actually many see Gingrich as the person who ignited the hyper-partisan combative rhetoric. This of course was during the Clinton years, where on the domestic side Clinton was going from scandal to scandal and the Republican using every bit to sling mud on the Clintons making it a constant barrage toward the Clintons. It worked. The real hatred of the Clinton's was sown back then, starting with Whitewater and so on.

(For Hillary, it started a long time ago as the first lady)


From there came the deep hatred against Hillary Clinton and the birth of the conspiracy theories. Still, in the 1990's they were not at the Pizzagate/QAnon level with media vastly reporting on them. When Clinton was impeached in 1998, Newt was speaker of the House and the leader of the Republicans in Congress. During those times the divide started.

At least they could share a laugh and fit into the same picture...


It's interesting that the Tea Party, a movement that morphed from Ron Paul's 2008 campaign basically to the Tea Party Caucus in 2010, came up at similar time as there was Occupy Wall Street (happening in 2011, which then died quickly as it had no leadership). Before that there of course were the Seattle WTO protests in 1999, but otherwise there were long periods between the movements.

And now? Well, unfortunately there are deeply alienated people believing that they have lost their democracy, which is quite sad for the future. The Great American Train Wreck of the Trump train would be an apt name for this.

The more important question is whether the horn hat man is the messiah. — Hanover

He served in the navy, actually. His presumable first lawyer started with one pitch:

Attorney Al Watkins said in a statement that his client, Jacob A. Chansley, the Arizona man whose furry headdress and painted face went viral during the siege, was acting on the invitation of President Donald Trump when he and others forced their way into the U.S. Capitol and halted Congress’ debate on Electoral College votes.

“He took seriously the countless messages of President Trump. He believed in President Trump. Like tens of millions of other Americans, Chansley felt — for the first time in his life — as though his voice was being heard,” Watkins said.

Another one spin it a bit differently:

Defense attorney Albert Watkins told CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Thursday that clemency would be the only “honorable” thing after the president’s rhetoric whipped his supporters into a frenzy that sparked last week’s bloody Capitol riot. Trump, he added, “has an obligation” to dish out pardons.

Watkins said Chansley — also known as Jake Angeli and the QAnon shaman — hung “on every word” of the president and felt “very, very, very solidly in sync” with him. It was “like his voice was for the first time being heard,” the lawyer added.

Chansley, 33, of Phoenix, “loved” Trump and “felt like he was answering the call of our president,” Watkins said. He was in Washington “at the invitation of our president, who was going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue with him,”

Its been ramping up for years, decades. — DingoJones

This is so true. It started way before Trump. Trump has been just the pinnacle of where it all came to as not only this media personality turned politician is a vitriolic populist (and extremely good at it), yet he simply wasn't fit to be the US President. But still, if it would have been Hillary, the toxicity would be similar. This isn't only about one person.

Indeed. The battleground of ideas has been demolished and reseeded to grow a sturdy crop of dogma and toxic ideology. — DingoJones

And as long as you can debate others who have totally different ideas is a positive sign.

When you can't there isn't much else than either separation or violence.

If this is a sign of the times, then are we experiencing a flare up of tribalism, a tribalism growth spurt of some kind? — DingoJones

Unfortunately it is, it is a sign of the times, which indeed I find very worrisome. The US looks bad now, and I don't want similar things happening here.

I remember the old PF. When Dubya Bush invaded Iraq and the WoT was in full swing, it wasn't at all so hateful, even if it was a bit tense as people came on the Forum to defend the US decision while others naturally were against it. But that was 17 years ago on another site. Then there are a lot of the same people here. Yet it didn't go on the level of personal insults as now. Or if it did, snap, they were out of the forum.

Now it's acceptable at least for some to use language, even mods, to use language that would have gotten them off the old site. Just stick to the rules and them being the same for everybody. Some could point fingers, but I think that it indeed is about the times we live in.

PF is in my view a "canary in the coal mine". If here different ideas aren't tolerated, then where then?

You’re blowing smoke. — NOS4A2

Says the guys who's obviously smoking some serious shit.

Now body armour is a reimbursable purchase for Congres members. Last time I remember members of a Parliament having body armour and being armed was just before the Civil War broke out in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

And NOS, perhaps here it would be useful to widen the focus from just one speech to get the picture, if you would (and not stay high on Trump all the time). Just look at the Trump diehards like "QAnon Lauren" among others.

During the Floyd marches they did their best to quell violence. — frank

Ok.

And what was their best? This is a sincere question, because I didn't notice that in media at the time. If you have links, I'd be happy about that. This is simply something that I don't know.

I don't think those three women have power over those who go to a BLM demonstration.

BLM never called for violence. They did their best to quell it. — frank

Sure, yet that's a bit problematic. Especially "their best to quell it" part.

For starters, If they would have a clearer organization with a far more active leadership, they could argue that they are in charge of BLM. Yet I think they wisely understand that it's not the way to go: if the leadership would take central stage, go on a media circus, they would likely just start to annoy people. Now there's a) those who call themselves as official BLM b) those who support BLM, but don't have links to a) and c) those who loosely support basically agenda. All actors a), b) and c) are viewed as BLM. And I guess many that actually aren't.

How many know Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi?


These times organizations or movements, just like the militant Trumpists, start from denying having any involvement in anything that would make them look bad. The 'direct action' wings are always kept separately. The right-wing extremists have perfected with the "lone nut" terrorist: the terrorist that takes great care that he cannot be linked to organizations that he supports (like being an official member etc.), which simply would mean that the organization would be disbanded as a terrorist organization. Even the FBI has said that this is the modus operandi.

So things happen like this: BLM later denies that they have anything to do with those branches of BLM that do make stupid comments, like one founder of Greater Branch of New York BLM, Mr Newsome:

"if this country doesn't give us what we want, then we will burn down this system and replace it. All right? And I could be speaking ... figuratively. I could be speaking literally. It's a matter of interpretation.

"Let's observe the history of the 1960s, when black people were rioting," he went on. "We had the highest growth in wealth, in property ownership. Think about the last few weeks since we started protesting. There have been eight cops fired across the country."

"I don't condone nor do I condemn rioting," Newsome added. "But I'm just telling you what I observed."

I think the reason why socialism has such a poor reputation in America, is that it requires too much a sense of social responsibility and commitment to basic social justice to be tolerable to them. And it takes smarts to implement. Americans much prefer a individualist ideology where to the winner goes the spoils, and you have to win by whatever means necessary. — Wayfarer

I think that real problem is that Americans don't understand that Western Social Democrat parties aren't against capitalism, aren't such a revolutionary force and already is basically present in the US system.

Basically with the Democratic Party ruling, be it the Clinton or the Obama administration, you have similar policies that in Europe a coalition of a social democratic party and centrist/conservative party would make.

In a way, social democracy has already been in US politics:

She is so impressive! Even outshines Jacinta Adern who has a stellar reputation in this part of the world. — Wayfarer

Before the pandemic her "lipstick-administration", as someone in the opposition dubbed it, was taking a beating with her foreign minister (a male from the Green party) getting into a political debacle with Finnish ISIS moms in Syria, but that all changed when the pandemic hit. Then it was the Conservatives and the True Finns that demanded tougher Covid-measures and she quickly did exactly what the opposition wanted. That simply silenced the opposition and meant that the Covid-policy was a true consensus policy, which meant the policy itself hasn't been a subject of bickering that erodes people's trust. This actually meant that she gained the initiative, the political clout and the popularity of her party increased. Excellent example of how bi-partisan politics can lead to political success.

(At first it didn't look great, with all those young women leading the administration (and the political parties)..., but then came the pandemic. Translation: Rumours of disagreements in the administration are rubbish. The administration appears still as totally uniform.)


Her example actually shows just how incredibly fatuous, stupid and inept Donald Trump was.

Donald Trump was totally incapable of understanding that Covid-19 was his 9/11, his WW2, his stake to be a credible President that would lead the country through a major crisis. Because let's face it. Assume if Trump would not have listened to Rush Limbaugh and not feared for his hotels and golf courses, but gone with tough measures and put his lackeys (those that reurgitate his every line) to say how dangerous the pandemic is and how the country has to go through a dark time, but it will endure. Think the Democratic Party would have been against that? Think the DNC would have started courting libertarians? No. And with that backing, or simple silence from the opposition, suddenly Trump would have been a leader and very likely would have waltzed into his second term.

How do we know these women on the photo are social democrats? — god must be atheist

Because they belong to a social democratic party's women's wing, to one regional section of it. Members who belong to a political party usually share the ideology of that party. OK, there's the Grand Old Party in the US, so there's that exception as it's unclear what ideology that party now stands for (or it's members).

Of course I could a picture of AOC, the democratic socialist, or this young woman social democrat from here, but the ordinary members of a political party are a better example of what the movement is really like.

Well, there is a reason just why the debate is on political threads...

Of course you can ask, but likely they won't answer.

Would give some probability, but not anywhere close to 1.

Oh, because it's sexist and degrading capitalist humbug, I guess? But as physical exercise to ones hips, back and abdominal muscles, you might get them to do that perhaps.

In the long run, social democracy does more damage to society and souls than autocratic communism. — Rafaella Leon

How?

Why is Norway worse than North Korea?

I have to point out what social democratic women look like. These are female social-democrats. Note the attire. Usually not very angry.

It seems quite consistent to be in support of some violent insurrections and not in support of others. Neither the violence nor the insurrection parts of it are inherently wrong, it's a matter of how it's done, why it's done, and what're the consequences. — fdrake

Hence discretion, reasoning and knowledge is important. Many don't have that.

Especially thanks to the fact that people can create their alternate reality echo chamber and join their others, and politicians are willing to go along with the wild narrative, this can lead to mass hysteria that enforces false reality. This can become a real problem. I've heard it myself in 2019: a Republican member of the House giving a speech (to an empty chamber) on what a threat the FBI poses on the US people. It was then absurd as it is now, even if Washington DC was peaceful and beautiful back then. This is the consequence of the rhetoric.

Usually it's not so. The classical terrorist cell is a group which works like a cult. Hence terrorists can be totally estranged from reality. I remember an interview of an old German leftist activist, who had debated Baader-Meinhof gang (or Red Army Fraction, 1970-1998) members, who believed literally that they were living in Nazi Germany. The activist tried to convice them that post-WW2 West Germany isn't the Third Reich or the continuation of the Third Reich, but to no, the terrorists had made up their minds.

Yet once that thinking starts to spread from a small cult to mainstream, then you have a problem. And even if there is now a media frenzy about it, it is understandable that if a person totally believes in what Trump says (and the other politicians for example in the Stop the steal rally on January 6th) then it's on to Capitol Hill to "protect the Constitution". Understanding that doesn't mean you accept of support that, but gives a better picture of how dangerous the situation is.

But never before 2016 have I been aware of claims the process was rigged, or a widespread refusal to accept the result. — counterpunch

I can assure you this has a long tradition in the US.

Here's a short introduction to various elections that have been disputed: A history of contested presidential elections, from Samuel Tilden to Al Gore

And one article after Al Gore (from 2006) about the 2004 elections: Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

What was unique for Trump was that he didn't accept at all the results or that he lost ...until after January 6th.

It would be nice if they applied their arbitrary standards to everyone. — NOS4A2

It would be nice if you applied your arbitrary standards to everyone.

But I guess Americans look at an event and then decide if their role is either to be the defense attorney or the prosecutor based on their political tribe. And naturally deny this and say that they objectively judge what has happened.

His speech is not considered incitement by any American law, state or otherwise. — NOS4A2

...Until it would be an Ocazio-Cortez using exactly similar rhetoric talking to the BLM or some Black block.

Then it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!! :grin:

No it hasn't. — counterpunch

The year 2000 elections with Bush vs Gore going to the courts far too distant in history for you to remember?

Sorry, do you mean the the insurrectionists who do exist who attempted to overthrow democracy, or some hypothetical insurrectionists who attempt to reinstate it? If the former, very. If the latter, not at all. — Kenosha Kid

A very telling answer from you.

Nearly Half Of Democrats Think The 2016 Election Was ‘Rigged’ — counterpunch

Yet I remember Hillary Clinton accepting the outcome.

Yes, that elections have been manipulated has been a long lasting topic in the US. But again here it's the way that Trump far over the top than anyone other had done before him. As I wrote earlier, the culture of vitriolic accusations to motivate your base has been for long the basic problem in US politics. And since there is no possibility of the two ruling parties having to have coalition parties, the discourse can be as hostile as it has been.

This is a substitution error. The subject was not people accusing other people of fraud, baseless or otherwise. The subject was violent insurrectionists attacking and killing police with the intent to attack and kill lawmakers. — Kenosha Kid

There have been many incidents of people wanting to kill and killing the police in the US recently, and I don't think lawmakers would be a bad target for them. That's where the US is now.

Yet I was referring to Trump here. The guy who talked of an "the egregious assault on democracy" and was going to walk down with them to the Capitol and was saying that "you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated".

And if Trump's autocoup would have been successful?

So what if the Electoral voting count on January 6th would have been stopped, the votes (as Trump wished) would have sent to be re-certified to the states and a committee (that was actually suggested) would have been formed to inspect the "widespread election fraud", perhaps lead by Rudy Giuliani, and for the time being that the committee works (perhaps 6 to 12 months or more) the current Trump administration would have continued for the time being despite what Article II the Constitution says? Perhaps Biden and the democratic leadership would be put into house arrest, into pretrial detention?

How terrible insurrectionists would be those violently protesting the events then?

(This is of course quite hypothetical as Trump simply is so inept leader that he couldn't manage to stage a successful autocoup, but still just shows logic behind those who believe the falsehoods said to them over and over.)

Do I think him a fascist? I wouldn't use that language. — Banno

I do, based on: — Kenosha Kid

Nevertheless, if the election was a fraud, those people did the right thing. They occupied the seat of power - and that's exactly what people should do if the system is corrupted. Afterall, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution both begin "We, the people...." It belongs to them. It's shameful that a police officer shot someone dead for trying to enter a building that they own.... The people who occupied THIER seat of power to prevent a fraudulent election have nothing to be ashamed of. — counterpunch

Legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government because his lot can't wrap their heads around why Trump was a turn-off is still legitimising a violent coup against a democratic government. — Kenosha Kid

I don't think that above makes him a fascist. Note the "if". The question is that if elections would be fraudulent, naturally then the winner of the elections wouldn't be lawful. And of course if the elections aren't fraudulent, then this act of saying that they were is itself sedition, a thing that might be added there.

And note that those that have accused others of a fraud have been the leadership of the US administration itself. So technically it isn't a coup as a coup is defined as the removal of an existing government. The correct term is a Self-coup or autocoup. This happens when:

A nation's leader, despite having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures taken may include annulling the nation's constitution, suspending civil courts and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers.

I do see why it has come to this. No rally goer or protester would need to carry guns and to wear riot gear to protest if they weren’t routinely set upon by violent mobs of delusional soy drinkers. No citizen would need to stock up on weaponry if his business wasn’t burned to the ground, or if some Antifa pedophile didn’t seize entire blocks of their city. No patriot would need to exercise 2nd amendment rights if he wasn’t locked down by state order, only to find out that those who made the order are allowed to flout their very own rules. . — NOS4A2

Actually you don't see it. Your partisanship just blinds you, just like many of the ranting leftists here, who eagerly go with the flow and embrace the polarization and see this as a great wonderful struggle. The inability to look the situation objectively is here the key. Sure, there have always been a tense relation between the right and the left, but typically the fringes have been viewed as clowns and eccentric losers. The playing field has just been tense political discourse, but not extra-parliamentary action in the US. Neonazis were a joke just as were the leftist revolutionaries. Yet now the fringes have changed to be something sinister and dangerous, which just feeds the polarization and increases their popularity and the popularity to oppose them violently. And people are enthusiastic about their side, fighting for the right cause. That Americans staunchly walk under various kinds of flags is direct sign of deep polarization.

Various flags, red and black...



Perhaps it's just been such a gradual descent or that you haven't noticed it how it has change. Since the time of Bill Clinton there has been ferocious political culture of mudslinging and vitriolic accusations that has been used to rally the base. And it has worked. With Trump this type of rouse to a new level. Add then the fact how the social media has created separate echo chambers. Then take into account the recession brought down by the pandemic.

So the end result...

Trump won Texas. — frank

That's why she operated from Texas. All those seven million (or so) votes!!! :wink:

Or maybe he's full of shit, never actually believing the election was stolen, but never anticipating the rabble he was rousing would nut up and cost him all his influence, so now he's trying a new approach. — Hanover

And do notice that he is reading from a teleprompter and not speaking whatever he wants, as usually.

This is classic Trump. When you go too much over, have the lawyers / aides prepare a statement that you then read and Republicans and your supporters can say that Trump "has learned" and has stepped back to the line.