The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

You don't think Matt is on your level here?  I enjoy his concise responses to your often long diatribes.

That’s all good Ron, he supports many of the common biases. I just find him the most triggered and emotional. For me, it’s like talking to a member of a cult. There is just no upside. The Republican equivalent would be one of these MAGA rally patriots, hypnotised by the speaker. 

[Sandy Larsen]

Chris,

Please answer the following two questions:

Trump pressured Georgia's secretary of state into finding 11,000 additional votes for him after all the votes had been counted. Why did Trump do that?

Trump tried to talk Vice President Pence into blocking the electoral college count. Why did Trump do that?

 

[Joe Bauer]

To put Trump's surreally outrageous constitutional duty violating crime into it's true gravity context reality;

Imagine a just voted out Governor in America watching their state capital house ( in full attendance gubernatorial election certification session ) be violently attacked and overrun by a blind rage murder shouting and screaming mob of thousands ... beating, kicking, hitting, smashing, spraying, shoving to the ground and even spitting upon an overwhelmed state house security force and terrorizing all the house members in it ... "gleefully" ... FOR HOURS!

Without calling in state national guard troops and/or any other state police force agency to reinforce and help the beaten down state house security that is being torn to pieces and rescuing the terrorized house members ... simply because the viciously attacking mob of thousands are this election losing Governor's supporters?

All while scores of aides, staff, friends and family are begging this Governor to do something to stop the carnage...or at least call off the Governor's supporting attack dog mob?

Imagine this Governor being my own California Governor Gavin Newsom.

When one allows themselves to face the "true reality" of the resulting great mass physical human injury, symbolically sacred building structural damage and trapped victim emotional trauma of such a mob attack, there is no logical and responsible democracy respecting and protecting way to dismiss or downplay it's gravity and the sickening ultra self-serving motivation behind it.

Then, to add outrage to outrage after the allowed mob attack damage has been done, this Governor goes on national T.V. to tell these marauding injury causing thugs ...

"We love you." "We feel your pain." "You are special."  !!! ???

But no such loving and sympathetic message to the beaten up security force and traumatized legislators inside?

And later calling those thugs jailed for their attack "political prisoners." ???

There is a hugely financed campaign in every area of our media to numb the minds of Americans to the true gravity of Trump's almost unbelievable constitutional violating negligence in purposely avoiding protecting and rescuing his own federal government officials, their staffs and security forces in their ultimate time of need.

So far this criminal action down playing brainwashing campaign is working out well in spades with half our nation's citizens expressing their agreement with and acceptance of this dismissive mentality false reality.

It's a truly sad and even tragic state of affairs when half our nation refuses to see and admit the reality of the injurious harm to so many and our entire democratic/constitution based government and society Trump's constitutional duty crime of purposeful non-action negligence created.

IMO anyway.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Chris,

Please answer the following two questions:

Trump pressured Georgia's secretary of state into finding 11,000 additional votes for him after all the votes had been counted. Why did Trump do that?

Trump tried to talk Vice President Pence into blocking the electoral college count. Why did Trump do that?

 

Sandy, I don’t need to, as it doesn’t alter the crux of my argument. He still has to get the security apparatus and military to support him. The ones at loggerheads with him, largely. He needs to do that before attempting a coup. It’s essential. 
 

Its obvious, like every politician, he was desperate to win. I’ve said this before; the question isn’t whether voting fraud took place, it’s to what extent, its never pure. That includes both parties. It happens every time. Fundamentally the political class are not honest.  

 

[Paul Brancato]

To paraphrase someone, there a good people on all sides of this debate.

I think we are generally confusing two aspects of what some are calling an attempted coup. The first is the attempt by Trump to overturn the election results by mucking with the electors and the counting of votes. The second is the riot on Jan. 6th. 
Trump was still hoping things would break his way. He most assuredly attempted, through phone calls and political threats to change the vote count. He failed. Had he succeeded what would we have called it? A bloodless coup? The groundwork to change election rules in State houses controlled by Republicans, the efforts to win a majority in the House by all means necessary, those are ongoing in an attempt to make sure that he has a quasi legal way to ensure victory in 2024 even if he loses both the popular and electoral votes. For several years now Bill Maher has called this a slow moving coup, and it’s ongoing. How to stop this? I think the Democrats don’t know how to do so, and their fear is palpable. 
He is guilty of inciting a riot. It was not a full blown attempt to take power with mob violence. If it were it would have looked very different. Greenwald is right when he points out that this rally turned mob wasn’t truly armed. It looks more like a dry run, part of a long game. What would have happened on Jan 6th if the mob was carrying the assault weapons that many of them surely own? So I don’t think I agree that Jan 6th was an attempted coup, even though I’m sure that Trump wanted his mob to be successful. There was planning leading up to that day, and many Republicans are guilty in that regard. But sending out a weaponized army was a bridge too far, and I am convinced a deliberate decision was made not to for that reason. 
In my opinion Trump will not be convicted of anything except perhaps sometime in the future tax evasion. But he is a criminal through and through, and he should be behind bars. I could say the same for many power brokers and mega rich crooks. But our legal system cannot cope with people who hire phalanxes of powerful lawyers. Rich criminals rarely get punished. Ex presidents are nearly untouchable. The current hearings are both truth telling and political theater, put on by a Party that simply doesn’t know what else to do in the face of nearly complete obstructionism by the other Party. To me the future looks bleak indeed. 
Ben has been making a point repeatedly about ID politics, which I wish he would define. I wonder what the rest of you think about the extreme effort to change our language to accommodate the gender neutral movement. I do think language is important. But when we are guilted for using a term like women’s rights because some some people born female but now identifying as male, yet still able to carry a fetus to term, object to being left out I think we’ve lost it. If we would fight half as hard to tackle inequality I might feel differently. 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Sandy, I don’t need to [answer your questions], as it doesn’t alter the crux of my argument.

 

What argument? I didn't say a word about any argument. I merely stated two facts and asked a simple question about each. For some reason you refuse to answer them.

 

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

He still has to get the security apparatus and military to support him. The ones at loggerheads with him, largely. He needs to do that before attempting a coup.

 

No he doesn't. Anybody can ATTEMPT a coup without ANY preparation at all. Proper preparation is only necessary in order to SUCCEED.

And Trump didn't succeed. But it wasn't for lack of trying. He made multiple attempts to deny Biden his new position as president, and he failed in each one.

For some reason you aren't able to even admit that he tried. You can't even answer questions about his attempts.

 

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Its obvious, like every politician, he was desperate to win.

 

But we are talking about what Trump did after he lost the election. He was past the "desperate to win" stage. He was in the "desperate to remain in power" stage. And that is not something that's "like every politician," as you state it. He's the only President in U.S. history to try to remain in power after losing an election.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

34 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

To paraphrase someone, there a good people on all sides of this debate.

I think we are generally confusing two aspects of what some are calling an attempted coup. The first is the attempt by Trump to overturn the election results by mucking with the electors and the counting of votes. The second is the riot on Jan. 6th. 
Trump was still hoping things would break his way. He most assuredly attempted, through phone calls and political threats to change the vote count. He failed. Had he succeeded what would we have called it? A bloodless coup? The groundwork to change election rules in State houses controlled by Republicans, the efforts to win a majority in the House by all means necessary, those are ongoing in an attempt to make sure that he has a quasi legal way to ensure victory in 2024 even if he loses both the popular and electoral votes. For several years now Bill Maher has called this a slow moving coup, and it’s ongoing. How to stop this? I think the Democrats don’t know how to do so, and their fear is palpable. 
He is guilty of inciting a riot. It was not a full blown attempt to take power with mob violence. If it were it would have looked very different. Greenwald is right when he points out that this rally turned mob wasn’t truly armed. It looks more like a dry run, part of a long game. What would have happened on Jan 6th if the mob was carrying the assault weapons that many of them surely own? So I don’t think I agree that Jan 6th was an attempted coup, even though I’m sure that Trump wanted his mob to be successful. There was planning leading up to that day, and many Republicans are guilty in that regard. But sending out a weaponized army was a bridge too far, and I am convinced a deliberate decision was made not to for that reason. 
In my opinion Trump will not be convicted of anything except perhaps sometime in the future tax evasion. But he is a criminal through and through, and he should be behind bars. I could say the same for many power brokers and mega rich crooks. But our legal system cannot cope with people who hire phalanxes of powerful lawyers. Rich criminals rarely get punished. Ex presidents are nearly untouchable. The current hearings are both truth telling and political theater, put on by a Party that simply doesn’t know what else to do in the face of nearly complete obstructionism by the other Party. To me the future looks bleak indeed. 
Ben has been making a point repeatedly about ID politics, which I wish he would define. I wonder what the rest of you think about the extreme effort to change our language to accommodate the gender neutral movement. I do think language is important. But when we are guilted for using a term like women’s rights because some some people born female but now identifying as male, yet still able to carry a fetus to term, object to being left out I think we’ve lost it. If we would fight half as hard to tackle inequality I might feel differently. 

 

I agree with virtually everything you said, Paul. January 6 wasn't a coup attempt. How could it be given that the participants thought that Trump was still president.

 

[Matt Allison]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

In my opinion Trump will not be convicted of anything except perhaps sometime in the future tax evasion.

He will be indicted for election crimes before the end of this month. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What argument? I didn't say a word about any argument.

You misunderstood - an argument - point of debate. I asked one central question. 
 

As if anyone on this forum is trying to argue that Trump didn’t want to stay in power, that’s ridiculous. 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

No he doesn't. Anybody can ATTEMPT a coup without ANY preparation at all. Proper preparation is only necessary in order to SUCCEED.

This idea means you think Trump is stupid. Which is an opinion. Its contrary to the evidence what some people who have profiled him say. If you think its just luck becoming president, I think you’re wrong. 
 

This is a common thing here, that if you don’t represent the blue position, by default you must represent the red position. I have zero skin in the game and I am entirely unemotional about it. You guys are running high on passion, and emotions, ultimately that will impair judgement. 
 

We can sit and watch what happens. If I am right, I won’t chime in to remind anyone. 

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

In my opinion Trump will not be convicted of anything except perhaps sometime in the future tax evasion.

That’s the way it looks from the outside. The whole system is rotten to its core, and should he be convicted he’ll sing like a canary and bring many others with him. It will perhaps irrecoverably damage the public perception of American politicians. Thats why I think even if there were sufficient evidence, they’d still give him a pass. He’s protected. 
 

As with the tax thing, wouldn’t he be pretty dumb not to use an accountant who uses legal loopholes to enable paying almost zero taxes? 
 

You’re correct IMO that two things are being conflated here. The riots and stifling the changeover of presidents. Did the founding fathers ever envisage such a scenario where a sitting president would allege election fraud and try to prevent the incumbent taking the reins? I am sure somewhere here will know. 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The current hearings are both truth telling and political theater, put on by a Party that simply doesn’t know what else to do in the face of nearly complete obstructionism by the other Party. To me the future looks bleak indeed. 

It’s getting worse and worse, more like Huxley’s vision of a world where truth is lost in a sea of irrelevance. People don’t hanker for it, all they want is to win, at any cost. 

 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Ben has been making a point repeatedly about ID politics, which I wish he would define. I wonder what the rest of you think about the extreme effort to change our language to accommodate the gender neutral movement. I do think language is important. But when we are guilted for using a term like women’s rights because some some people born female but now identifying as male, yet still able to carry a fetus to term, object to being left out I think we’ve lost it. If we would fight half as hard to tackle inequality I might feel differently. 

Jordan Peterson made quite a stand about Bill C16 in Canada, even being prepared to be jailed over his stance. We’re in big trouble when the state is redefining language and compelling speech. 
 

@Paul Brancato

[Joe Bauer]

Trump has worked up this nation into a continuously hateful, angry, fearful, shouting match bar brawl.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Paul Brancato]

44 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

That’s the way it looks from the outside. The whole system is rotten to its core, and should he be convicted he’ll sing like a canary and bring many others with him. It will perhaps irrecoverably damage the public perception of American politicians. Thats why I think even if there were sufficient evidence, they’d still give him a pass. He’s protected. 
 

As with the tax thing, wouldn’t he be pretty dumb not to use an accountant who uses legal loopholes to enable paying almost zero taxes? 
 

You’re correct IMO that two things are being conflated here. The riots and stifling the changeover of presidents. Did the founding fathers ever envisage such a scenario where a sitting president would allege election fraud and try to prevent the incumbent taking the reins? I am sure somewhere here will know. 

It’s getting worse and worse, more like Huxley’s vision of a world where truth is lost in a sea of irrelevance. People don’t hanker for it, all they want is to win, at any cost. 

 

Jordan Peterson made quite a stand about Bill C16 in Canada, even being prepared to be jailed over his stance. We’re in big trouble when the state is redefining language and compelling speech. 
 

@Paul Brancato

Inadvertently you attributed to Sandy several things from my recent post. 
“Lost in a sea of Irrelevance”. Feels like it to me. 
Two parts of our body politic are at odds with each other. I think these differences are being purposefully magnified, because a divided nation cannot come together and enact any meaningful change that might threaten status quo power structures and attendant financial interests. The mechanisms for this magnification are numerous, some hidden some not. 
Beneath all the noise there is a long standing battle of ideas, one progressive, one regressive. Human rights vs property rights, nationalism vs egalitarianism, many other dualities. This goes back thousands of years. 
Here’s a question: if there is a US deep state, and if they benefit from division, would they prevent a takeover by autocrats? There is ample proof that Social Democrats will never be allowed to assume the mantle of power, even within the political party under whose umbrella they function. This is because, in my view, redistribution of wealth not promoted by the elites themselves but imposed on them by a Democratic government is anathema, and elites clearly have the power to prevent it. But is the same true on the other side of the divide? I think this will be put to the test soon. Is divided government better for them than an autocratic nationalist ruler? 
 

[Steve Thomas]

Jan. 6 investigators appear to have ‘stumbled on another’ crime committed by Trump: legal expert

by Sky Palma June 13, 2022

https://www.rawstory.com/jan-6-hearing-trump-crimes/

“This Monday, the House committee investigating the Capitol riot said that former President Donald Trump fundraised off his false claims of mass voter fraud in the 2020 election.

“The Trump campaign knew that these claims of voter fraud were false yet they continued to barrage small-dollar donors with emails encouraging them to donate to something called the ‘Official Election Defense Fund,’” senior investigative counsel Amanda Wick said. “The select committee discovered no such fund existed.”

During a segment on MSNBC this Monday, former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade said the revelation shows that the committee "in investigating one crime may have stumbled on another."

"...if [Trump] is using a lie as a false pretense to collect money from people, that could also be a charge of wire fraud, so, in that way, we may have seen an expansion of the potential liability here," McQuade said”

No such fund existed. Fancy that.

Steve Thomas

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Inadvertently you attributed to Sandy several things from my recent post.

That’s why I tagged you, I was too lazy to go copy and pasting it all again from my phone. 
 

6 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Two parts of our body politic are at odds with each other. I think these differences are being purposefully magnified, because a divided nation cannot come together and enact any meaningful change that might threaten status quo power structures and attendant financial interests.

I could not agree more. There is this amplification of everything and the outcome is a society without unity, strength or cohesion. I know I sound like a broken record but, my own country did this to India with great effect. The answers to me are with the social scientists. 

 

Orwell feared books would be banned, Huxley feared there would be no need to ban them as nobody would want to read them, they’d be so distracted and high in pleasurable substances and narcotics. CS Lewis headed a society at Oxford University and they regularly debated the way they though society would go. All eventually agreed that we’d end up in scientific dictatorship (technocracy). HG Wells was another who wrote about this. With chemical releasing substances, entertainment and propaganda, you have a perfect storm of things to distract and control the citizenry. Huxley pointed this out in 58. 

Question is; are we in this reality? Or headed for it? If the answer is yes, then we have a harsh reality to face, that it can’t be accidental, if critical thinking is used. The idea started in the late 20’s or early 30’s in intellectual circles. Technology is enabling it. 

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Here’s a question: if there is a US deep state, and if they benefit from division, would they prevent a takeover by autocrats? There is ample proof that Social Democrats will never be allowed to assume the mantle of power, even within the political party under whose umbrella they function. This is because, in my view, redistribution of wealth not promoted by the elites themselves but imposed on them by a Democratic government is anathema, and elites clearly have the power to prevent it. But is the same true on the other side of the divide? I think this will be put to the test soon. Is divided government better for them than an autocratic nationalist ruler? 

Let me answer; the objective is for this control to be achieved by peaceful means, for society to live in shackles that they can’t see. It would be better to go the collectivist route, where the tyranny is achieved by dressing up the purpose as always the greater good. It doesn’t carry the risk that an autocratic takeover does. The key is for society and government to appear as if it's for the good of all but, it actually to be neo-fuedalism in reality. I think we’re seeing a caste system emerges with no mobility. China is the forerunner. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

I missed the second J-6 committee hearing this morning (grandkids swimming lessons, wife's physical therapy).

Looking to watch them completely this afternoon I had problems at two sites, PBS played, stopped then wouldn't.  The Hill audio/video was not synced.  So, I was really surprised to find this at this site.  Anyone who has not watched it should take the time.

 Watch Live: January 6 Committee Holds Second Hearing (breitbart.com)

Damn.  Barr pretty much ripped his former boss a new, ah, um, yeah.  About fraud I counted three times he said he told him it was bullsh*t.  He thought "If he really believes this, he's lost touch with reality."  Checking out all the rumors (which they did) referred by the administration was like "Whack A Mole".  He told him Philadelphia rumors were rubbish.

They are also showing Rudy Guliani make a bigger fool of himself than he already was.

Was it that greatest republican elections lawyer in the last thirty years (I didn't note his name) who said "it was a Coup in search of a legal theory." ?

The Election Defense Fund was a scam, of his own poorest supporters.  Such an entity never existed.  I read today about possible separate charges on this.

The whole enchilada is well worth your time if you are objective.  If you don't have time for the whole thing starting at about the last twelve minutes is pretty damming.