This is exactly what it's come to.
If Trump is encouraging white supremacists he's a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
If Trump doesn't really support white supremacists but he's just so like himself, gets carried away and sometimes people interpret him that way - white supremacists too - even though he didn't mean it that way - then he's a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
If Trump is sending 'dog whistles' then he's a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
If Trump doesn't know what standby means or otherwise behaves in such a way that elicits debates among folks over whether Trump knows what 'standby' means or in any case what he really meant to say then he's a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
The fact that it's been fours years and people are still having debates like this makes Trump a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.
If I can only see the inner truth of Trump by doing another 4 years of research and debate over this, maybe watching 4 more years of Breitbart to get the real story, then Trump is a fucking loser and unsuitable for office.

“Trump said...”.

Sorry, but every time you guys wring your hands about the words coming out Trump’s mouth I know you have nothing. — NOS4A2

That is actually true. If you're citing Trump, you got nothing.

:up: :clap:

:fire: :100:

The approach of another civil war in the disunited state of America? — Janus

Well, there are certainly ominous signs.

A republican governor saying that democracy might be suspended in favor of "stability and prosperity".

A party official of the democrats has concluded that the threat of secession might be employed to stop an all out attempt by the GOP to have Trump elected by the electoral college.

I think the only situation where the US might avoid violence in the streets is if Trump is behind after election night and the republicans loose the senate. They might then drop Trump and bide their time.

In all other situations, I fully expect violent clashes. The level and degree of organisation of the violence is hard to predict.

The liberal fantasy of an explosion of violence that would mark the US's descent in fascism is just that: a fantasy. It's particularly pernicious too because it serves nothing but a pacifying effect: short of that spectacle of violence, Americans will sit around and wait for the fabled Big Bang while piece by piece the fascists install themselves into power.

When - as has been happening - fascism comes to America, it will do so by way of its storied institutions. Its courts, its legislature, its public services, its media. Fascism will arrive by officialdom, and not violence. And when Americans wake up the next morning waiting for the killing to begin, the fascists will already be there, and the liberals will still be wondering where it is.

I think the plan is fairly obvious in it's broad strokes by now. There are obvious avenues to pursue via violence in that plan. I think it's unlikely that violence will not be used where it seems tactically expedient. That's not the same as saying there'll be an "explosion" of violence.

Whatever violence there will be will be carried out by agents of the state - police, national guard, and so on. And they'll be carrying out the dictates of law. All your 'anti-government' 2A militia rednecks have proven to be nothing more than bootlicking leeches when push comes to shove, and your liberals will demand nothing other than yet another town hall meeting or somesuch.

All I'm saying is - don't expect violence to play anything more than some minor role. There'll be no 'civil war' in the US. Everything will be codified and done by the book, because the book itself will be rotten.

You need to support identity politics to be a true left-winger over here in the States, so sorry to say but you'd be considered regressive in some circles and possibly racist.

I'm sure you think you're making some kind of relevant point, and it's really cute.

I'll spell it out for you a little clearer: You're somebody's right-wing extremist, Streetlight.

God it's like watching a puppy trying to make human noises.

Whatever violence there will be will be carried out by agents of the state - police, national guard, and so on. And they'll be carrying out the dictates of law. — StreetlightX

I highly doubt that. Today, it's much easier to leverage a mob via Facebook then it is to bend standing institutions to your will. Of course agents of the state will also be in play, but the justification will probably be existing unrest.

All I'm saying is - don't expect violence to play anything more than some minor role. Everything will be codified and done by the book, because the book itself will be corrupt. — StreetlightX

The problem with that argument is that there isn't a book. I am sure legalistic arguments will be made, but the actual outcome will depend on who is able to impose their will - in the courtroom and outside of it.

The system is beginning to drive a wedge between itself and Trump. Cleave Trump off, and the pre-existing issues that gave rise to Trump remain, but all those who mistakenly think that Trump is the problem will celebrate that Trump is gone.

Something that struck me as rather self-defeating nonsense...

Trump is supposed to be running on a law and order type of platform. At least, he loves to say the words. Here's the problem...

The FBI are law enforcement officers.

There's talk of 'covid fatigue' being a cause of increasing case and death numbers. I think that there can and ought be a very strong case made regarding how Trump's approach, as well as others', is the root cause of the fatigue.

People are tired of this new normal. We are not creatures who thrive in isolation. Rather, we are interdependent social creatures and necessarily so. We need intimate connections with other people.

Trump's approach to addressing covid has caused covid fatigue. We must get past covid. The only way to do that is to contain it. The only way to contain it is to stop the spread. The only way to stop the spread is to reduce close interpersonal contact.

Had we pressed pause on all financial transactions, on all debt repayment, mandated isolation and self quarantine, while guaranteeing the necessary resources for each and every individual American to live in relative comfort during the meantime, all the while putting every bit of the resources needed into ramping up testing, ppe, and contact tracing efforts, we would have long since already been in a place to be able to effectively begin safe efforts to re-open the economy and/or go back to life 'as normal'.

That remains the best path forward.

Something that struck me as rather self-defeating nonsense...

Trump is supposed to be running on a law and order type of platform. At least, he loves to say the words. Here's the problem...

The FBI are law enforcement officers. — creativesoul

At first it doesn't seem to make any sense: how can the same person talk of being for a law and order platform and praising the law enforcers and then, instantly, when the topic is changed, talk about a deep state conspiracy against him by the same people. But populism doesn't go with the lines of ordinary logic.

A conspiracy theorist usually believes that there's an evil network of people working against ordinary people and the result is to replace these people with your own people, just as propaganda is fought against with your own propaganda. Populists typical believe in democracy only as long it works for them.

Yeah, Trump's all for law and order unless he's the one it's being enforced against.

But a populism based on fairness and justice is able to distinguish between law-enforcement proper and abuse of power. One is worthy of admiration while the other of scorn. Consequently, one can be for law and order while being against the abuse of power.

But a populism based on fairness and justice is able to distinguish between law-enforcement proper and abuse of power. One is worthy of admiration while the other of scorn. Consequently, one can be for law and order while being against the abuse of power. — NOS4A2

Black Lives Matter

Black Lives Matter

What about it?

It is a populism based upon fairness and justice that is able to distinguish between law and order and an abuse of power.

Do you not see the connection?

:lol:

It is a populism based upon fairness and justice that is ale to distinguish between law and order and an abuse of power.

Do you not see the connection?

I do not.

Trump just got endorsed by stalwart champions of fairness and justice, the Taliban.

Yes, civil war is not an all or nothing thing; obviously there are degrees. Perhaps civil terrorism would have been a better term. I do think the pressure is rising within the vessel, how it's gonna play out is anybody's guess.

But a populism based on fairness and justice is able to distinguish between law-enforcement proper and abuse of power. One is worthy of admiration while the other of scorn. Consequently, one can be for law and order while being against the abuse of power. — NOS4A2

One should not confuse populism and something being popular (although populism is often popular). Populism seeks to divide people into two categories: "the elites" and "the common people" and that these are inherently against each other. A common definition would be: "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." Not much thought is given there being people between these groups and that the system might not be so polarized.

Hence notice populism is quite common also in the leftist narrative and the best example of successful leftist populism is Hugo Chavez and the "Bolivarian revolution" in Venezuela. The evil elite is just portrayed differently, as the classic right-wing imperialists, not as leftist liberals.

What I find typical for both leftist and right-wing populism is their lack of trust in the "prior" democratic institutions as both sides view them to have worked badly and the correct path is only when they get to power. Populism doesn't respect other voices as people are either on their side or against them.

Trump just got endorsed by stalwart champions of fairness and justice, the Taliban. — Baden

Well, it would be nice that the war in Afghanistan would finally end. A nation having war for over 40 years is extremely depressing.

Last February the U.S. signed a conditional peace agreement with the Taliban, so there's that. Knowing Republicans, it's far easier for Trump to seek a peace & withdraw the troops than later for a Biden administration do the same thing. If only his administration would be capable of taking the deal to the end.

The idea that the US has to be in Afghanistan because otherwise the country might become a safe haven terrorists planning strikes against the US is far more delirious than the domino-theory was as the reason for the Vietnam war.

Populism seeks to divide people into two categories: "the elites" and "the common people" and that these are inherently against each other. A common definition would be: "a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups." — ssu

Right-wing populism also positions the common people against the underclass or anyone who may threaten to displace their socioeconomic status, such as immigrants or minorities, and utilize ‘law & order’ to help suppress them.

Black Lives Matter is a movement that champions fairness and justice; equal treatment under the law. Equal treatment under the law is the standard lying between law and order and an abuse of power.

Trump has used the powers of the presidency to influence matters that are beyond the carefully designed parameters bestowed upon that office in the Constitution. Trump uses the powers of the office of the presidency to discredit any and all people who disagree with him in a manner that can only be categorized as silencing one's own critics prior to presenting them in the worst possible light, simply because they disagree. That is to devalue, deny, and deride the free speech of American citizens, at the very least.

The rights of the accused are shared, especially when the accusations are coming from the president of the United States of America.

A distinction, you say?

Right-wing populism also positions the common people against the underclass or anyone who may threaten to displace their socioeconomic status, such as immigrants or minorities, and utilize ‘law & order’ to help suppress them. — praxis

That's how the left typically portrays the right, quite like the classical view of the bourgeoisie as a willing partner of the elite in suppressing the lower classes, especially the working class. The view has roots in traditional leftist thinking. Yet in societies people rarely displace others, which is an odd thing to happen when you think of it. If economic hardships make a society less prosperous, many indeed can fall into poverty, but it's not that someone has then displaced them. The rare occasion happens if a country invades and conquers another country with the objective to annex and assimilate the conquered people or to simply make them be second class citizens in their previously own country. Displacement and suppression are then quite real.

Anti-immigration and nativism are quite often on the agenda of the populists, however I think the main reason is now days more about transfer payments and income distribution, then fears of crime etc. Few might fear immigrants taking their jobs or corporations using cheaper foreign labor. However I think it's better to view as a separate agenda as not only populists can have those opinions.