I don’t reckon she’s the candidate, and I also don’t reckon she would want to be. The Democratic Party has a lot of talent, let’s see who comes out of the Convention on 19th-21st August in Chicago. (I don’t think Kamala Harris has been bad in her role, but I just don’t think she’s what the electorate wants. Not that I have any credentials.)

Meanwhile, news is in on Trump’s 90 minute ( :yikes: ) acceptance spiel. Apparently the first ten minutes was electrifying, the remainder just the usual mix of exaggerations, hyperbole, and lies. Business as usual, in other words. So much for Trump V2.0.

That’s exactly what you lot said in 2016, and you were wrong. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. Repeating the lies isn’t going to make them any more real.

Repeating the lies isn’t going to make them any more real — NOS4A2

Something you’ve demonstrated every day for the last four years. Why anyone bothers with your nonsense is beyond me.

English, not American, — tim wood

Eastern bloc, I’ve always thought.

Incidentally - on the Judge Aileen Cannon case - as is well-reported, Cannon has made a series of questionable judgements about the classified documents charges, culminating in her decision to toss the case, on the basis that the Special Prosecutor was improperly appointed (judgement will be appealed.) I wonder if the real motivation in all this, is her unwillingness to face the possibility of actually being a judge in a case involving Trump. She is a demonstrably inexperienced justice who had hardly adjudicated an important case before being assigned this one (by a kind of ‘blind process’ as I underestand it.) So I wonder if it’s a possibility that she’s basically just chickened out. Anyone know if this is being considered a possible motive?

What's the general beliefs here regarding Trump's culpability for the infamous events of January 6?

The two main takes are:

he incited what happened
he didn't incite what happen

each of those takes usually has two subtakes, ...and it was good/acceptable, or ...and it was bad.

I have a kind of in-between take when it comes to the two main takes - I'm not convinced he did incite it, but I am convinced his actions after it started make him ethically culpable for it anyway. His actions after it started, reportedly, are he watched it unfold on TV, just sitting there watching it, and people around him kept asking him to make an announcement to stop it, an announcement that would hopefully reach the people at the capitol somehow, a request for them to stop and go home. And when he was requested to do that, repeatedly, he refused.

This makes me think that one of the two situations is the case:
1) he did deliberately incite what happened, even if his literal words allow for some plausible deniability
2) he didn't deliberately incite what happened, but *he was perfectly happy to see it unfold anyway*

There's not a good argument to be made that he didn't want it to happen, because he's a Leader, allegedly, and as a leader if he didn't want it to happen, and he didn't lift a finger to stop it, then... that's no leadership at all. If you want to excuse his lack of action, you cannot simultaneously believe he's a good leader. So either he wanted it to happen, or he's an exceptionally poor leader, not both. And it's clear to me that he IS able to get people to follow him, so if it was his will to stop what happened, he absolutely could have. He didn't want to stop it.

But is that criminal? If he has (a) plausible deniability in the words that led to the riot, and (b) just failed to do anything to stop it, is that criminal? Should it be?

Obviously if you think storming the capitol was good or ethically neutral, then that question doesn't really matter. But if you think it was bad, what happened at the capitol, then the obligation of a person to stop something bad from happening does matter. Some people don't beleive in obligations like that - some people believe you don't have to stop anything bad from happening if you didn't directly make it happen, and his plausible deniability in his words at the rally that preceded the storming arguably give the defense that he didn't directly make it happen.

So, how much plausible deniability does he have for what happened?
And, regardless of that deniability, was what happend *bad*?
And what kind of responsibility does he have given his refusal to lift a finger to stop it?

I’m sorry I cannot really respond because my eyes gloss over as soon as I see your name, for some reason.

Repeating the lies isn’t going to make them any more real. — NOS4A2

What lies, please? You seem akin to a climate change denier - maybe you are one. "Don't bother me with facts! Don't bother me with science!"

You seem to live in BS universe. And being a BS person you think that BS is the common coin. It isn't and your offerings of BS are offensive and insulting. You don't even rise to the level of nonsense - you don't possess any of the redemptive qualities of nonsense.

Your contention is that Trump did nothing wrong? — tim wood

That’s right. — NOS4A2

Disgusting.

What's the general beliefs here regarding Trump's culpability for the infamous events of January 6? — flannel jesus

I don't think Jan 6th happens unless Trump gives the speech he gave right before.

Disgusting.

I’d love to see the range of your moral compass, if it isn’t just a fallacious and bad-faith sponge. Tell me what he did wrong, then.

Vance is growing on me. He's in favor of monarchy. Can you imagine? Think about how easy it would be to do something substantial about climate change if we had a king. Wall St's power could easily be broken. The US becomes hyper isolationist. Let China and Russia do whatever they want. Project 2025? I'm asking why not? For real.

I don't think Jan 6th happens unless Trump gives the speech he gave right before — RogueAI

Possibly an act of sedition, but not one of treason.

Hopefully, Biden will be eased out of the race and replaced by a more worthy opponent for Trump. Kamala Harris is good at reading teleprompters, but does she have presence of mind and ability to argue off the cuff? — jgill

She's a prosecutor so I'm not worried about her ability to make a factual case. It's her ability to not seem fake that's more worrisome about her. That being said, still better than the corpse we have now.

There we go again.

Trump uses false claim about Chinese auto plants in Mexico to call for UAW president to be fired
^{— Tom Krisher, Mark Stevenson · AP · Jul 19, 2024}

Serial bullshitter, serial liar, going for the White House.

Hopefully, Biden will be eased out of the race and replaced by a more worthy opponent for Trump. Kamala Harris is good at reading teleprompters, but does she have presence of mind and ability to argue off the cuff? — jgill

And others I did not tag here:

So, may I ask, who's the next best thing to replace Biden now that he contracted covid? Is it too late to find a good one? Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, Andy Beshear, Gavin Newsom?

I cannot believe what's happening in the American election.

Vance is growing on me. He's in favor of monarchy. Can you imagine? Think about how easy it would be to do something substantial about climate change if we had a king. Wall St's power could easily be broken. The US becomes hyper isolationist. Let China and Russia do whatever they want. Project 2025? I'm asking why not? For real. — frank

I'm pretty sure that a monarchy arising out of a Trump-Vance presidency-become-king would not result in addressing climate change, or addressing problems of class, or make the US hyper isolationist.

Vance is hyper-isolationist and concerned with real wages. The two issues are linked for him. It's like he wants to turn the USA into a bubble country. He's what Trump has been missing: brains and a real social agenda.

I just brought up climate change because that's the issue that made me start thinking about abandoning democracy. It's wild for me to see the Republican party morphing before my eyes into a party that embraces the dark Enlightenment principles.

For a while now the polls have been showing that young Americans favor Trump over Biden. I think Trump is just a sort of vanguard. I don't think politics in America is ever going to go back to the way it's been.

I just brought up climate change because that's the issue that made me start thinking about abandoning democracy. — frank

Sure, and same, given that our current versions of democracy don't seem to be able to address this real problem that we all face.

Vance fits the form of a moral hero that Trump needs: it was a good pick for him, strategically. But the "why not, for real?" is the various connections the Republican party has: Republicans will be anti-labor, no matter the elegies written. Trump already proved this with his presidency.

Congratz :up: :cool:

Republicans will be anti-labor, no matter the elegies written. Trump already proved this with his presidency. — Moliere

I think we're watching the Republican party going into metamorphosis. The message Trump won with was that China and immigrants are the reason for the diminished security of blue collar workers. The answer was to stop immigration from the south, put tariffs on China's goods, stop spending money on foreign wars, and withdraw from NATO. None of that is Reagan. This is all stuff that would have been palatable to Democrats in the 1980s, loosely, anyway. Instead of seeing government as the problem, the Republican agenda going forward will be to put Trump allies in all corners of the civil service including the Pentagon so the next time Trump wants help, nobody is pushing back. There won't be a coup. The presidency will just change into a rightist instrument.

Now that this blueprint is in play, it's energizing the Republican party, propelling the change. Even if Biden or Harris wins this time, Vance will be there next go round with the same network ready to go. And if Trump wins, all bets are off.

The key to understanding how this is happening is to see the similarities between young Democrats and young Republicans. If you listen closely, you'll notice that they're saying the same thing: get out of Ukraine, get out of the Middle East, and focus on Main St. The people who are trying to say no to that are mainstream Democrats: Bill Clinton's people with their NAFTA and reduced support for the poor.

Look behind the curtain of Trump's bullshit and you'll see a pending American reformation. That's how the puzzle pieces are coming together for me. How about you?

the Republican agenda going forward will be to put Trump allies in all corners of the civil service including the Pentagon so the next time Trump wants help, nobody is pushing back. There won't be a coup. — frank

A quiet bloodless coup? Or a fundamental shift in our understanding of how the world works and our role in it? Or perhaps the movement of popular public opinion that can change with the wind?

How about you? — frank

Eh, it doesn't look good, though I doubt that's a surprise since you're asking me :D

I could say who I'd vote for, but since this is a place of truth it doesn't matter who I'd vote for: living in Missouri I already know who I'm voting for regardless of who I vote for.

As democracies do.

This Missouri?

naw this one:

https://youtu.be/rfywkvRq4Ns?si=utbm4wP1Afol_8ed&t=34

I watched that whole thing dude.

Heh. Musical theatre is good for entertainment at least :D

It came to mind cuz:

:joke:

The key to understanding how this is happening is to see the similarities between young Democrats and young Republicans. If you listen closely, you'll notice that they're saying the same thing: get out of Ukraine, get out of the Middle East, and focus on Main St. The people who are trying to say no to that are mainstream Democrats: Bill Clinton's people with their NAFTA and reduced support for the poor. — frank

I think what you're seeing is the trend away from the old left / right distinction and the movement towards a system of multiple elites with their respective supporting and opposed groups, as put forward by Piketty.

The situation used to be that young people tend to vote against the elite, i.e. for the left. This is no longer the case as experience in Europe already shows. But the voting behaviour will depend on whether the "elite" is identified as the economic elite or the academic elite.

In addition, the big wedge issue that defines politics in the non-asian industrialised nations seems to be migration. There seems to be a culture shift where younger voters, traditionally more accepting of social changes, including migration, are now more pessimistic about it.

I think what you're seeing is the trend away from the old left / right distinction and the movement towards a system of multiple elites with their respective supporting and opposed groups, as put forward by Piketty. — Echarmion

People are still using right/left terminology, though. It's just that they've redefined it. The new American right is skeptical of liberal democracy, which would have been a blasphemous position previously. They're populist and anti-establishment. They basically want to fire everyone in the US government who isn't loyal to their cause. They've already talked about how to defy the SCOTUS if they resist this transition. I don't know who the significant elites are in this situation, but it looks like the existing establishment has nothing to gain from this and quite a bit to lose.

The situation used to be that young people tend to vote against the elite, i.e. for the left. This is no longer the case as experience in Europe already shows. — Echarmion

I think that's because the present establishment is very centrist, isn't it? The rising movement is rightist. That's a big switch from the old days. Everything used to be pretty moderate.

In addition, the big wedge issue that defines politics in the non-asian industrialised nations seems to be migration. There seems to be a culture shift where younger voters, traditionally more accepting of social changes, including migration, are now more pessimistic about it. — Echarmion

For the American right, this is specifically about jobs. They want to stop immigration and force out all the illegal aliens presently here. That would up-end the economy, so it's bizarre that they're actually thinking about doing that.

People are still using right/left terminology, though. It's just that they've redefined it. — frank

Sure, they're still being used as shorthand, but whereas in the past those categories actually represented a social spectrum with voting behaviours changing from left to right as you travelled from poor to rich, they no longer do.

The new American right is skeptical of liberal democracy, which would have been a blasphemous position previously. They're populist and anti-establishment. They basically want to fire everyone in the US government who isn't loyal to their cause. They've already talked about how to defy the SCOTUS if they resist this transition. I don't know who the significant elites are in this situation, but it looks like the existing establishment has nothing to gain from this and quite a bit to lose. — frank

That's their rhetoric in any event. Though in my view, the republican party can hardly be anti-establishment given that they're half the establishment. It's not like they want to abolish their own position, they intend to remain an elite. They just want to extend their power.

So some part of the establishment has a lot to lose, but not all of it. The republicans will be fine. Their donors will be fine. Republicans aren't looking to curb the power of Elon Musk.

That's what I mean by multiple elites: the republicans represent one elite (the elite of wealth), leveraging the anger of one disadvantaged group, who favor a populist nationalism, to extend their influence at the expense of another elite - the "intellectual" elite whose power is less directly based on wealth but on influence in the media and in education.

I think that's because the present establishment is very centrist, isn't it? The rising movement is rightist. That's a big switch from the old days. Everything used to be pretty moderate. — frank

This is a difficult question to answer because of the unclear definition of the terms. We could say that the establishment is centrist by definition.

I'd say the current establishment is internationalist, economically liberal, socially progressive and bureaucratic. What's historically unusual is the socially progressive part. So in that sense yes, the different establishment also means a different counterculture. What's different is also that the rising right wing movement is not traditionally conservative but progressive in the sense that they want to actively change society.

For the American right, this is specifically about jobs. They want to stop immigration and force out all the illegal aliens presently here. That would up-end the economy, so it's bizarre that they're actually thinking about doing that. — frank

I think economic anxieties are a big part of it everywhere. And young people specifically are (seemingly) facing a world of dwindling resources and intensified competition, so that might be one reason for the change in attitude.