Interesting how your can theoretically pardon yourself. Very ethically sound.

Interesting how your can theoretically pardon yourself. Very ethically sound. — Benkei

There is an interesting aspect. Bobby Sands was a member of the IRA who died in prison on hunger strike while an elected member of the British parliament. I cannot help feeling that such an event as the election of a known criminal can only be understood as a democratic indictment of the democratic system itself. One has arrived at the borderline between normal politics and civil war. The winners of a civil war don't need to pardon themselves, because they are the lawmakers. It is the losers that need pardons.

Trump represents a constituency in rebellion against the government and the government needs to reach an agreement with that constituency one way or another. "Remember Bobby Sands!" became a slogan, and I always have. When a criminal gets elected, it is no good blaming the criminal. Something bigger than any individual is very wrong.

Something bigger than any individual is very wrong.
2h — unenlightened

But imagine that you're one of of Trump's
supporters. You really believe Trump has been unfairly targeted by authorities to keep him from fulfilling his Godly mission.

From a certain point of view, it's just a big movie screen we're projecting our myths upon, as we've done generation after generation. An epic saga is partly history, partly religion, partly a justification of the power structure, and partly entertainment.

You just have to allow yourself to be enchanted.

Indeed, democracy is a bad system when most of the population is insane.

As an aside, Sands is an interesting case because he died protesting the re-categorization of IRA members such as himself as criminals rather than de-facto prisoners of war. So his epistemic status was in dispute. The British "knew" he was a criminal because they decided to know that, whereas he and his supporters "knew" he wasn't because they decided not to recognize that decision.

Indeed, democracy is a bad system when most of the population is insane. — unenlightened

I tend to agree with Plato...democracy is the best system for a tyrannical state, but the worst system for a just state. Whatever the case, Nietzsche was right in calling democracy a slave morality.

democracy is a bad system when most of the population is insane. — unenlightened

I don't let my diagnosis define me.

Whilst, Julian Assange lies in Prison because he revealed crimes committed by our Democracies, every elected Representative is an accomplice to this crime. The whole electorate, acquiescent, robotic and morally reprehensible.

.

Nietzsche was right in calling democracy a slave morality. — Merkwurdichliebe

The criticism of democracy in light of the Trump example is not that democracy is a slave morality but it's that it allowed its leader to abide by a master morality and be above the law.

That is, N opposed democracy not because he thought the general public too stupid to select competent representation, but because he thought it crushed the uberman's quest for dominance by imposing the rules of the slaves upon the masters.

Trump might be seen by N as an uberman, so much a master that he was able to live by a master morality despite specific democratic structures that were designed to make sure he was not treated as above the common man.

Trump might be seen by N as an uberman, so much a master that he was able to live by a master morality despite specific democratic structures that were designed to make sure he was not treated as above the common man. — Hanover

I think Trump would be seen by Nietzsche as an exemplar of the last man. The uberman is first and foremost not a matter of dominance over others but of self-dominance, self-mastery, self-overcoming. The uberman is a higher man, a superior man, a man of a higher order. The creator of new higher values not someone who disregards values.

I think Trump would be seen by Nietzsche as an exemplar of the last man. The uberman is first and foremost not a matter of dominance over others but of self-dominance, self-mastery, self-overcoming. The uberman is a higher man, a superior man, a man of a higher order. The creator of new higher values not someone who disregards values. — Fooloso4

:100: :fire:

Lindsey Graham getting booed off stage at a recent Trump rally in SC was very interesting to me because it showed us a few things. Even though Graham has been a Trump sycophant, he has wavered enough to be seen as disloyal. In an authoritarian regime, nothing is worse than disloyalty and if you fail that test, the faithful will cast you out. Even Trump, who tried to defend Lindsey afterwards, got booed! That was amazing because it shows that even though Trump is the revered leader in this movement, he has tapped into something that is almost religious in nature, with the "faithful" not able to tolerate certain "sins."

Doesnt that show that its the people, not Trump? It tracks for Trump to merely be a mouthpiece for the real enemy, the cynical exploiter. Maybe its the movement thats revered, not Graham or Trump?

Well, I think this shows that there is a complicated dynamic going on. It's not just about Trump, it is about the movement he created it or I would say tapped into. The conservative Tea Party was probably one of the main movements that he tapped into and won over. Another time Trump got booed on stage was when he talked about being vaccinated and taking credit for how fast the vaccine rolled out. It just goes to show you that even though the MAGA base is fiercely loyal to Trump if he diverges too far from their core values or beliefs they will boo him and voice their disapproval.

It just goes to show you that even though the MAGA base is fiercely loyal to Trump if he diverges too far from their core values or beliefs they will boo him and voice their disapproval. — GRWelsh

Yes, if anyone shows even a modicum of intelligence and/or compassion, except for the "plight" of white people, they become persona non grata.

I didn't think anyone could be worse than Trump as a candidate. But DeSantis may actually be worse. He seems like a meaner, dumber, younger and less charismatic version of Trump. Of all the things DeSantis could attack Trump on, he chooses to go after Trump being too friendly with LBTQ+. That's running an ad with a slogan like "He's not close-minded enough."

But DeSantis may actually be worse. He seems like a meaner, dumber, younger and less charismatic version of Trump — GRWelsh

In that case guess he has good chances with the hard-core Republicas, I guess.

It is interesting to me to see how the various Republican candidates are challenging Trump. The strategy of DeSantis seems to be to court the conservative base by portraying himself as even more conservative than Trump... But that isn't appealing in a general election. I think Pence would like to portray himself as a traditional conservative and return to normalcy. Based on the interviews I've heard, I could live with a Pence presidency as I think he'd be boring and after Trump craziness that would be great, actually. The ones who aren't directly insulting Trump -- such as Kari Lake -- may be wanting to position themselves as possible VP candidates. Chris Christie's entire platform thus far as been a non-stop attack on Trump, to attack his record, to attack his character. Can Christie win on that? Probably not, but he probably has the best chance of getting through to Republican voters on the things Trump fails at or is weak on... They aren't going to listen to criticisms from liberals, but may from a Republican. So, Christie may have the most effect on this race, even if he doesn't win. It amazes me that anyone who seems normal and level headed in the Republican party doesn't even seem to have a chance in hell of winning the nomination. It's s testament to how crazy things are now that I would be thrilled to have Mitt Romney, Adam Kinzinger or even Liz Cheney be the next president!

As a Democrat, what I'm hoping for from the Republican candidate is (1) who will do the least harm and (2) who will respect the Constitution the most.

Hell, at this point it would be an improvement to have a republican president commit to a peaceful transfer of power, and then honour that commitment.

Hell, at this point it would be an improvement to have a republican president commit to a peaceful transfer of power, and then honour that commitment. — flannel jesus

Peaceful transfers are for losers.

yes, that's the idea. You lose the election and you peacefully transfer power

And so are violent transfers. Because :—

All political lives, unless they are cut off in midstream at a happy juncture, end in failure, because that is the nature of politics and of human affairs. — Enoch Powell

.

It's true. William the Conqueror died as a result of an injury to his groin caused by the horn on his saddle as he was proceeding out to squash someone. He should have allowed a peaceful transfer of power.

Lately, I've been thinking about what I call the "reality warping" effect of Trump -- and not just Trump personally, but any charismatic demagogue that people become loyal to in a political sense. Of course, I'm not suggesting he actually warps reality in a physical way like a black hole. What I mean is that people who support Trump tend to try living in their own version of reality, with their own facts, like a sort of bubble that insulates itself from facts that are inconvenient. What is going on here, philosophically? For example, if you are a Trump supporter, can you simply say Trump lost the 2020 election and state that is a fact? Or, do you have to dance around that when in the presence of Trump himself or his other supporters? Is it a kind of loyalty test one fails if one doesn't adhere to the alt-facts that are accepted in the Trump reality bubble? Is this similar to religion in the sense that you have a list of things you accept as true, and if you diverge from any of them you are considered a heretic and cast out (called a RINO, etc.)? An example of a specific situation would be that if you are Trump supporter and you are in Trump's presence, would you tell him something you believe is a fact if you knew he disagrees and would be infuriated by you contradicting him?

what I call the "reality warping" effect of Trump — GRWelsh

I wonder if it is anything very different to what happens in science? There is a current theory that is accepted, and as anomalies start to appear, ad hoc additions are made to explain them - 'dark matter', 'dark energy' for examples, and it seems a bit uncomfortable to some but what can you do, until eventually someone will come up with a new theory that does not need these arbitrary additions to make it work, and then it is easier to change one's mind, but some are still reluctant..

Conspiracy and deep state are like dark matter, and dark energy - ad hoc additions to save a theory in trouble. In this case the theory is that Trump is going to make America great again - just as soon as he's dealt with the pesky deep state, etc.

I have a radical new theory that dispenses with the need for conspiracies — That America never was that great, at least in terms of giving opportunities to the poor, or freedom or democracy or morality; rather a few people made a lot of money from slavery and exploitation at the expense of a great many people's hardship and misery. And those days never ended, but continue unabated. I don't think it'll catch on though.

I suppose in science there is also a psychological angle but science is different in that it has some built-in self-correcting mechanisms (peer review, the concept that theories are falsifiable but not verifiable, focus on observation and testing, experiments that are repeatable by anyone, etc.). Some things in science do seem crazy but often may be place-holders until better explanations come along, as you said. And they are hypotheses. I wouldn't equate those things with conspiracy theories... To me, the better analogy there would be pseudoscience such as homeopathy.

Another example of what I'm talking about is how Mike Pence has to tell people over and over again that he didn't have the power to overturn the election. But Trump said he did, so people believe it. They believe it even though it has been explained over and over again that the VP doesn't have the power to do this.

But Trump said he did, so people believe it. They believe it even though it has been explained over and over again that the VP doesn't have the power to do this. — GRWelsh

I'm sure Pence is right in law; but he could have done it anyway. People do break the law sometimes. Trump clearly feels the function of the law is to be on his side, and he wanted the result overturned.

But I'm not saying science is the same as politics, but that psychologically the same resistance to change operates. This is not an original observation on my part.

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth. —  Max Planck

There was a moral panic when Trump showed up on the scene. He was the next big dictator, compared to everyone from Mussolini, to Mugabe, to Mao. He was the harbinger of a new fascism. He was a Manchurian candidate. He was going to start world war 3 and throw us into nuclear holocaust.

None of this would turn out to be true, but the reality warp you speak of was so severe and traumatizing for some that it has had its immediate effects in reality. There was a spate of fake hate crimes, for example, most notably the case of Jussie Smollette, where people tried to exploit the moral panic for their own gain. It worked, however briefly, because some people refuse to come to their senses.

I remember when over 50 democrats refused to attend Trump’s inauguration, with people like John Lewis calling him illegitimate because something something Russia. That was unprecedented, but there was no psychoanalysis of his supporters. It was all above board. Or when mass worldwide protests occurred during Trump’s inauguration, even right outside of it, to the point where supporters were told by police not to wear their hats for fear of a beat down. In retrospect I’m glad Trump didn’t do what Biden did, which was ban the public from attending and use the US military to enforce a perimeter, because that’s what fascism is.

Questioning the results of a rigged election is small potatoes to the greatest feat of election denialism ever, which was the proliferation of the Russia hoax. This conspiracy theory reached the highest levels of the establishment and the US government. They spied on an American political campaign and obstructed the winner throughout most of his term. This reality warp you speak of is still persisting.

There was a moral panic when Trump showed up on the scene. He was the next big dictator, compared to everyone from Mussolini, to Mugabe, to Mao. He was the harbinger of a new fascism. He was a Manchurian candidate. He was going to start world war 3 and throw us into nuclear holocaust. — NOS4A2

That's what you hoped he would be because you wanted him to wreck the system. The system abides.

I knew they were wrong from the get go. But you believed it.