I think it's true that the size of the US arsenal means the US is potentially the most destructive in history.

In reality, it's probably Europe collectively.

The myth is that the government should supply safety nets, and not the community. Nanny-statists prefer government safety nets because it absolves them from having to create and sustain their own. Advocacy, then, becomes a way of insulating oneself from the poor in ones own community, but at the same time it can only accrue power in the State while they steal it it from the hands of the people. If you believe the State was formed from conquest and coercion rather than a social contract this is not a happy outcome.

those who share a mythology (or a meme) are not searching for the factual truth — StreetlightX

Got that right. That's why they're so often contradicted by it.

The myth is that the government should supply safety nets, and not the community. Nanny-statists prefer government safety nets because it absolves them from having to create and sustain their own. — NOS4A2

That the government should supply safety nets, and people not have to depend on private charity, is not a myth--it's a collective choice. The states with the highest standards of living, best education and health outcomes, the best housing, and so forth are "nanny states'. They are at the top of the distribution because "the community" and "the state" overlap, and the common good is tended.

We could go back to 1930 when unemployment and destitution were handled at the local, city level. The amount of aid a city could offer was pitifully small. Imagine how bad Covid-19 would be without federal nanny state action.

Non-profits can and do provide a lot of social services--much of the safety net. The size of the budgets required for Lutheran Social Services or Catholic Charities et al to be effective could not possibly be met with contributions from churches and individuals. A lot of their money comes from government contracts (the nanny state one step removed). Given your loathing of the nanny state, I suppose you are out there haranguing the rich to cough up enough money to keep the private safety net operating.

If it was a choice there would be no punishment for refusing to do it. A better phrase might be “collective coercion”.

No I don’t believe in theft, whether it is legal or not. My conscience forbids me from coercing some to give their wealth to others. I do believe, however, in charity, philanthropy, and willingly helping others in need.

Given your loathing of the nanny state, I suppose you are out there haranguing the rich to cough up enough money to keep the private safety net operating. — Bitter Crank

NOS doesn't have to.

He's an expat tucked away safely in welfare-state Canada (if I have got it right), from where it's so pleasant to comment the huge Trump trainwreck that has happened in the US. Just like, uh, people like me from the other side of the Atlantic.

"[Who] thinks that Trumpists “believe” in the words of Trump in a literal sense? In the book Les Grecs ont-ils cru à leurs mythes? (Did the Greeks believe in their myths?), Paul Veyne questions the meaning of “belief.” His conclusion is that the force of mythology does not consist in believing a metaphor literally, in forgetting about the brackets before and after the metaphoric enunciation. Mythological belief (like memetic contagion) today similarly enables a sort of pragmatic coherence in the life of “believers.” It gives sense to the world of those who heed such mythology, amidst a world that has lost any sense. — StreetlightX

A modern parallel might be the phenomenon where everyone says "I don't believe what I see on the TV and Internet." This is manifestly contradicted by the fact that we get almost all of our information about everything from these two sources.

Even the tropes of fictional TV shows teach us how to think about things. This insidious level of conditioning doesn't typically rise to our conscious awareness.

o I don’t believe in theft, whether it is legal or not. My conscience forbids me from coercing some to give their wealth to others. I do believe, however, in charity, philanthropy, and willingly helping others in need. — NOS4A2

What do you think of the inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs, especially with respect to material wealth?

Online misinformation about election fraud plunged 73 percent after several social media sites suspended President Trump and key allies last week, research firm Zignal Labs has found, underscoring the power of tech companies to limit the falsehoods poisoning public debate when they act aggressively.

The new research by the San Francisco-based analytics firm reported that conversations about election fraud dropped from 2.5 million mentions to 688,000 mentions across several social media sites in the week after Trump was banned from Twitter.

~ Washington Post

Good. Having watched more video of the insurrectionists, it's clear they have been mentally poisoned. More gullible and desperate for the most part with some truly mendacious ring-leaders thrown in.

Every reason to hope that the advent of a normal presidency will continue to flush the toxin of Trump out of public discourse and that the whole sorry episode will end up like an infection which has resulted in greater immunity.

And let this thread go with it.

There is no final victory, as there is no final defeat. There is just the same battle, to be fought over and over again. So toughen up, bloody toughen up. — Tony Benn

Time to lock this thread on the 20th.

:up: :clap:

For whom or what are you an apologist or advocate - what are you for? — tim wood

The same thing MLK was for.

Having watched more video of the insurrectionists, it's clear they have been mentally poisoned. More gullible and desperate for the most part with some truly mendacious ring-leaders thrown in. — Baden

The New Yorker's Luke Mogelson's video is one of the "best" out there I've seen, which captures the moment. We see the Shaman and the gang in the Senate floor. In American fashion they had at least a prayer moment on the senate floor. Have to say that the part where the one sole policeman is trying to convince them to go is bizarre (policeman: "OK, can you please now go...").

But seriously speaking this was an extremely close call for the US.

Had the US President not been the Ultimate Disaster President, but a marginally efficient autocrat with the balls to push through, it would have been totally possible situation to stage and to have a successful autocoup. Just put at the late stage Michael Flynn to be the acting acting secretary of Homeland defense or /and head of the Defence department (or similar whackos), Giuliani as the acting attorney general and into the crucial places with QAnon people. The Democrats would not seen what would have hit them. They simply wouldn't have had the imagination to think that it would be possible in the US, just as the Capitol Police didn't understand what the Trump crowd could do. You see, someone like Flynn would have understood that it's going to be really two possibilities: either go through or it's a life sentence. When suddenly people are put into that kind of situation, choose either power or certain jail or death, they would have to truly committed. The essential crowd rejoicing on the streets would have been there, when the election results would have been sent back and a committee would have been put up to "really look at the fraud".

Biggest issue would have been the armed forces. Trump did use extensively generals (to later fire them or them resigning from their positions), yet Trump never got pro-Trump generals into leadership positions. And it is telling that the armed forces was even now an important actor in this fiasco: they had to come out and say that Biden is the next President and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had to say to Nancy Pelosi that the nuclear weapons were safe. Hence the military has been part of the political equation, which actually is terrible.

Now (luckily?) it was the epic fail of Trump. Trump as usual was clueless and didn't understand that he did instigate sedition. Only thing for him was to tweet and watch his television at what his supporters, who he loves so much, were doing.

Time to lock this thread on the 20th. — Benkei

Oh you think Trump will instantly go away with an impeachment on the way and other court cases? It's over when Ivanka Trump, in order to get money and public commiseration, releases her tell all book about she was sexually abused by her father. That's way down the road. Sorry Benkei, Trumps not past. Only his sudden death would stop the debate about this huge trainwreck that just happened.

It still will be appropriate to lock this thread at the precise time that Trump steps down. It won't stop anyone commenting on Trump, but there won't be the Trump Omnibus thread, which has made it very easy for the MAGA Patrol to step in with disinformation as they've been doing regularly.

I think that would be a uniquely bad idea. The reason this thread is here is to stop the proliferation of Trump threads that would otherwise spread across the forum like a cancer. The cute, self-satisfied symbolism of it is not worth having the headache of that crap.

Time to lock up Trump this thread on the 20th. — Benkei

Politicians have and will contest the election results and express doubt about the winner, as is their right. Elizabeth Warren, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Stacy Abrahms have all done it. Hell, we had to put up with the nonsense of Russian collusion for years, and people like Jimmy Carter saying Trump is illegitimate. That's why I treat these claims with utter suspicion. No amount of glittering generalities such as "undermining our democracy" are persuasive, even as propaganda. The ability to contest election results, to express doubt, and to share with others those beliefs is a feature of democracy. Criminalizing and censoring that doubt is undemocratic. — NOS4A2

This is irrelevant. Trump questioned the election results until the cows came home, as was his right, but then he rabble roused a mob and flung it directly at the capitol building. By compromising the safety of congressmen and senators (or at least contributing to it), he committed a high crime or at least a misdemeanour (even if he was too stupid to realize what he was doing, which is itself a misdemeanour). By doing it during an allegedly important electoral session, he therefore also undermined the process of democracy, unequivocally and unambiguously.

In Trump's own words, the demonstration was designed to sway the hearts and minds of senators (sway them toward unconstitutional de-certification of the election results) through an on-site show of strength.

Yes, Congress can invent "high crimes and misdemeanours" at their whim and fancy and impeach their opponents for it while absolving themselves of the same crime. They have already done it. My contention is that it is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent. — NOS4A2

Congress is supposed to invent high-crimes and misdemeanors as necessary. It's by design. Since congress is also elected by the people and sworn to uphold the constitution, it's actually their duty to make decisions about what constitutes an impeachable offence when necessary. It's one of the adversarial setups that is built in to the madisonian government structure you lauded earlier.

What kind of precedent would be set if they did not impeach him? First, it would show that American democracy is a complete joke to the rest of the world, and it would show corrupt American politicians that anything can be gotten away with as long as your are unapologetic and control the senate, including mobilizing street thugs to exert political control, which is what Trump did at the capitol.

Louis Gomert recently quoted Nancy Pelosi talking about "uprisings" and calling Trump an "enemy of the state" on the House floor. Journalists were actually complaining that he was inciting violence. This is peak clown world. These nutters have lost their minds. — NOS4A2

But I thought that it was Pelosi's right to openly express doubt about the President's loyalties? If it's Trump's right to outright lie about election fraud, then Pelosi is allowed to call him an enemy of the state. That's only fair, don't you think?

All the "it's his right!" and "but what if?" defences that you raise for Trump can also be raised for the nutty dems. I could sit here and feign some moral-esque political belief like: "The congress are elected by the people to exercise their judgment and initiate impeachment proceedings if they honestly believe it is necessary. It is in fact their duty to initiate these proceedings to uphold the constitution, regardless of how much it hurts the feelings of weak-spined ideologues."

the nonsense of Russian collusion for — NOS4A2

Tell a lie often enough and you now what happens? It's still a lie, and you a liar.

Well, that's something. But where do you think it starts? Puritan ethic? Monroe Doctrine? Revolution? Mexican War? Spanish-American? Both pre- and post-WW1 the US was mainly isolationist. But what's the history of the 19th century? European adventurism and wars. The 20th? Germany, the Axis, Korea, the Soviets. No defense here of abuses, but the violence of America is simply a reflection of the violence of the world. And against that violence, look at Germany and Japan today - can you say Marshall Plan. Can you add up all the money the US has given out? Whether always wisely a different question. The point is not that I'm right or you're wrong, only that your ranting lacks depth and dimension, the result being yours are just rants.

But what would you have be different? And when and in which situations? How would it work, with what consequences? I think you either do not give the world itself enough credit for being a difficult and dangerous place, or the US too much credit in thinking it had many other options. But what is the world like today if the US had been in some significant ways less of a player? And a related question: what do you think the US should do now and in the near future? I agree, btw, its future cannot be altogether like its past.

If it was a choice there would be no punishment for refusing to do it. A better phrase might be “collective coercion”. — NOS4A2

Right out of Ayn Rand.

You wouldn’t have wealth we see in the US without a strong nanny state. So I agree— we should get rid of it. I don’t want my tax dollars going to massive corporate subsidies.

But “charity” is the real problem, of course. Forget the 700 billion a year on defense contracts— Those damn welfare queens are the true problem.

What a sick, perverted, warped worldview. Again I repeat: you can’t die off quickly enough.

but the violence of America is simply a reflection of the violence of the world. — tim wood

The violence of America is a reflection of the violence of America, utterly unique in the history of the planet. Dissimulate and what-about and excuse all you want. My point, like MLKs, is simply that the US is the most violent nation the earth has ever seen - and continues, to this day, to remain. You can play twenty questions with someone who is as equally as interested as you in your imperialist murder apologetics.

It is a very interesting time that we're living in...

After 4 whole years of Trump, most of America and its corporate patrons have finally and fully rejected Trump and Trumpism, but I think it took too long to get here...

Some small nucleus of morons are so emotionally invested at this point (small compared to the entirety of America, but still a significant portion of conservatives), that it's unlikely many of them will ever reconcile. The ideological schism within the GOP is cementing itself, with neo-cons and fox on one side (who are willing to leave Trump behind), and the OANN + Newsmax + Qanon idiots on the other side (a big chunk of what used to be politely called "religious conservatives" I think). It's also unclear if OANN and Newsmax can live off Trump going forward...

Now that the GOP itself has basically lost everything, with a permanently fractured base, what will become of it? For how many years will we be hearing that nucleus of idiots say things like "the election was stolen from Trump" as a matter of course? What set of rocks are they going to scurry under given that they are the world's chosen reserve laughing stock? And what sort of fungus are they wont to spawn... More ridiculous internet conspiracy games? Emotionally unstable and potentially violent extremists and extremism? Maybe Trump will just keep holding rallies, and somehow the circus/show will go on?

In short, are political tensions about to escalate, or de-escalate, and in what ways?

One could hope. It amazes me how much energy is put into the social and political black hole that is Trash. We can always delete whatever Trash OPs are started, which will be low quality by definition.

It amazes me how much energy is put into the social and political black hole that is Trash. We can always delete whatever Trash OPs are started, which will be low quality by definition. — Benkei

Exactly. A thread which acted as nothing but an advertising platform for NOS's brand of sycophancy should never have been allowed on the front page in the first place. Having a thread entirely devoted to what amounts to conflict therapy for a single person's obsession with a former president seems absurd.

The reason this thread is here is to stop the proliferation of Trump threads that would otherwise spread across the forum like a cancer. — StreetlightX

:up: Better quarantine the politically diseased to one thread only.

Had the US President not been the Ultimate Disaster President, but a marginally efficient autocrat with the balls to push through, it would have been totally possible situation to stage and to have a successful autocoup. — ssu

This is probably the most important lesson that America must learn from Trump. The simple fact that after the coup attempt Republicans did not unanimously support impeaching Trump shows just how many people in this country do not really support the system that is in place anymore. It shows how ignorant people are to really believe that it would be better to have totalitarianism than the current system.

Our Democracy literally won't survive. Even if we deal with Trump in the most severe way, the next Republican will be dictator.