We don’t like Haley because she’s a neocon warmonger. No more forever wars. Say what you will about Trump, but he doesn’t want the country bogged down by endless wars.
Say what you want about a man who tried to overthrow the results of an election and talks about terminating the constitution and being a dictator on day 1, he doesn't want endless wars (even though he kept us in all our wars and increased drone strikes)
Yeah, so funny to joke about ending democracy. Also he literally appointed Nikki to be UN ambassador and put neocons like John Bolton in his administration. How is he anti war?
In other words, your entire personality is "triggering the libs" and even when Trump puts neocons in his administration you just ignore that because you don't actually care about policy
You moron, do you think Trump wanted John Bolton? Trump had to unite the party in 2016; he did not have 90% support like he does today; he had 40% support, so he had to give the establishment big roles in the administration. This won't be the case in 2025, as the establishment has been either removed or they have converted to a reasonable status like Ted Cruz and Tim Scott.
Is it a joke when he rapes women also? When he scams people as with the Trump University case and his whole career in real estate? Is it a joke that he tried to take away health care from millions of Americans? That he admires and models himself dictators and semi-dictators such as Putin, Orban and Erdogan?
For Gods sake, cancel your subscriptions to the NYTIMES and stop watching MSNBC. Become human again and then maybe we can all Make America Great Again.
I'm sure the multi-millionaire who dates supermodels definitely 'raped' a random ugly woman in some closet 40 years ago she has the evidence! It's on her dress! ignore the fact that brand of dress did not exist back then and there's nothing on it. ignore the fact the court ruled there was no rape, but the orange man'slandered' her by calling her a liar despite the fact she lied.
A one time riot that he was not involved with. And no court of law ever accused him of this. Fake News. The Summer of Love and Insurrection on the White House however were terribly serious because repeated, sustained and encouraged by elected officials.
Yes, he was not involved in the "riot" that attempted to execute his VP and stop Congress from certifying electoral votes, he just told his supporters in person moments before to march on the capitol and fight like hell.
Based Biden, nobody gives a shit about that filty, useless disgusting piece of human garbage known as palestoid race, only leftoids and Magacuck rightoids like you can feel sympathy for those dirty animals.
That said I can't wait Trump will go back to Jerusalem to sign another mulitibillion dollar agreements in favor of Bibi and his Chabad friends.
Stacy Abrams is the only one of those 3 that is remotely comparable. Al Gore going through a recount/court process, and Hillary conceding the election immediately, are not what Trump did.
Nope. All directly comparable in my eyes. All three of them tried to affect a decided election, one which they didn't like the outcome. Plus, Trump, being sworn to defend the constitution, was acting in good faith seeing as he truly believed that the left had cheated, which has been shown to be a very strong possibility by: Missouri v. Biden, Molly Balls Time magazine article about "fortifying" (read, bribing and blackmailing the election by liberal/leftist powers), etc. The biggest issue really comes down to it didn't happen the way he thought it did.
The three I mentioned do not get the benefit of having sworn that, as non of them were president.
Al Gore didn't relentlessly accuse anyone of cheating on baseless grounds. He just wanted recounts of an election that was won by 500 votes. I don't see how that's objectionable. If Donald Trump had lost by 500 votes and wanted recounts in the same way I would have had no issue with it. That's close enough that it could be swung either direction. But he lost by over 70,000 across a number of different states, and continued to object even after the recounts were completed. That's not the same?
And Hillary conceded almost immediately. What did she even do that you're accusing her of? She didn't try to overturn anything at all. She accepted the results within 24 hours.
She constantly accused him of Russian collusion, knowing that it was a falsehood. That is not accepting an election.
Al Gore conceded, knowing that Bush had won, and then took back his concession and put the country through all sorts of hell claiming (and still does to this day, even when the election totals have been looked at six way from Sunday) that he won. That is not accepting an election.
Most well organized insurrection ever. If you still believe the lies pushed by the Jan 6th committee and don't realize some of the people being tried in Jan 6th cases don't deserve it you're purposely ignoring a portion of facts that don't align with a bias you refuse to check.
By Democrat Marxist vocabulary, it was an insurrection because, in Democrat Marxist vocabulary, they believe any protest against them or their actions is an 'INSURREEECITONI' and any protest taken by Democrats, no matter how violent and rabid, is a 'peaceful protest!' hence BLM terrorist riots were the summer of love 'fiery but mostly peaceful'
Usually an attempt to stay in power through illegal means is called a autocoup, aka a form of insurrection. So im really not sure what you are so fk'in confused about.
The only insurrection was Biden stealing the 2020 election. Sadly, that insurrection succeeded, but thankfully, the 2024 win is going to be too big to rig #TRUMP2024.
Thought it was criminal mischief but that could not have been the plan for an insurrection that was put down by the Capitol Police? Why exactly hasn’t Smith charged Trump with insurrection?
He tried to overthrow democracy by telling people to peacefully protest and respect the police? He overthrew democracy by leaving power? Maybe watch less MSNBC, you retard.
You moron, he's literally making fun of you deranged liberals. 'I'll be a dictator for 1 day to close the border and drill oil, then I won't be a dictator anymore' And you're not getting it. Lmao, you're the joke, and you are using Trump's making fun of you to screech your delusions more; it's pure comedy.
Saying “forever war” equates this to Afghanistan when it’s not us fighting. Sending military kit when it’s clearly in our interest is a good thing. I appreciate your response, too bad Trump is a coward and robbed us of a debate on these ideas.
The Biden administration has deliberately been supplying Ukraine with just enough resources to lose slowly rather than win. Maybe that's in the best interests of the US but it's depopulated Ukraine.
They sure aren't doing enough, but I don't really see how that's a knock on them compared to the Republican alternative, which appears to be doing nothing.
100% agree. Biden is a disaster on this and won’t give them what they need to win. But Trump is on Putin’s side which is clearly a worse outcome for the U.S.
The problem is that's not clear to many Americans, especially Republicans. They think Europeans are liberal degenerates (except for Viktor Orban) and they don't particularly care what Putin does to them. They don't have any particular interest in standing up for democracy abroad, because they don't have any particular interest in standing up for it here either.
Why was there no Russian aggression when Trump was president?
Why did Biden approve the Nordstream pipeline?
But Trump is a Putin puppet! Despite being the only US president to prevent Russian aggression
You're still repeating 2016 Clintonite lies like a deranged broken record. Get a new line. Go make up a conspiracy about China or something. You lunatic. It's getting boring.
Actually, multiple Americans were killed after NATO officers got missiles struck in Ukraine. Of course, the media never reported it, and they also didn't report that UK troops are in Ukraine right now, which leaked phone calls have proven.
Trump seemed pretty willing to toy with getting directly involved in a shooting war with both Iran (targeted killing of Soleimani) and Syria (The 2017 Sharyat missile strike and proposed assassination of al-Assad) when it suited him.
Ah yes, the never-ending liberal cope Trump gets no credit for preventing war in Ukraine and Gaza, but somehow he gets blamed for a war with Iran that also never happened because the orange man is bad!!!
You know, we really should give George W. Bush credit for preventing the Syrian Civil War and Jimmy Carter credit for preventing the Falklands War. And how come no one ever talks about how Andrew Johnson avoided the Franco-Prussian War!!??? It’s a liberal conspiracy!
You're comparing apples to oranges, aren't you? But then again, you liberal hacks would never give Trump credit for anything. You would rather go full schizophrenic mode like you did during Biden's Afghanistan disaster, where somehow, according to liberals, Biden should get the credit for the withdrawal despite not being the one who got the withdrawal agreement and started the entire idea. But Biden doesn't get blamed for the disastrous way he withdrew, which is entirely his own doing, as he refused to start the withdrawal on the agreed date. He broke the agreement that was in place and gave the entire country to the Taliban on a silver platter. Then, he decided to withdraw anyway when the Taliban was already in full control of everything, including Kabul. He left billions of dollars of military equipment and hundreds of Americans stranded. He also refused the Taliban's offer for controlling Kabul until the withdrawal can complete because 'let's not negotiate with the terrorists!' which led to the actual terrorists, aka ISIS, being able to execute an attack, killing US soldiers. Every death is on the hands of Biden's incompetence. This was the biggest humiliation and failure of any US president in modern history. There's so much to add that you might have forgotten, but we are going to remind the voters that they will punish Biden for his incompetence in November.
Almost like convincing an enemy you've been fighting for 20 years that you want to make a peace deal and then convincing the hundreds of tribal leaders and militia's of signing onto the deal while sides are fighting for territory isn't an easy thing to do and takes actual time, and yet Trump got it done until, of course, Biden destroyed everything.
Biden just threw a bunch of translators and office workers into the maw of the Taliban. He allowed said Taliban to guard the out perimeter of the airport in Kabul, meaning a suicide bomber was able to enter said airport and kill 13 American soldiers. And he gave us the immortal image of desperate and terrified Afghans clinging to the side of US jets and the subsequent footage of their lifeless bodies flapping in the wind.
>We don’t like Haley because she’s a neocon warmonger. No more forever wars.<
Have you notified the GOP China-hawks (which includes large swaths of MAGA) about this policy preference? Because to a man (or woman) they seem to be spoiling for a war with that particular nuclear-powered dictatorship over the issue of Taiwan...
Trump tried to start a war with Iran and did not leave Afghanistan when he had the chance. Some of what is going on in Gaza can be ascribed to Trump giving Israel everything it wanted. Haley is a horrible neocon warmonger and Trump is no better
Funny that it's Biden that is the only president who has actually ended a forever war in living memory. So I guess I know who you're voting for in November
The only real word to quibble with here is "insurrection" to me.
Was it dangerous? In the literal sense, yes. Some of those people meant harm, or were at least doing a very convincing job of acting like they were.
Was it radical? You'd have a hard time convincing someone this wasn't a radical event. It was absolutely unprecedented.
Did it undermine the rule of law? Much of it was absolutely illegal, and it broke multiple long-standing taboos with regards to how we accept the electoral process and the reverence we afford the transition of power in this country.
Did it undermine the democratic process? A good chunk of voters still think Joe Biden was not the rightful winner of the election, despite all evidence to the contrary. Those people have had their faith in American democracy shaken. I would call that some serious undermining. I guess it wasn't JUST January 6th that did this, but the whole post-election Trump crusade, but I think it's applicable.
TDS is an actual mental affliction. These people have suffered terribly over the past eight years. Yes, we who are are awake are sick of listening to this noise, it is so boring. But the damage done to their psyches is real. Have some compassion for them.
"C'mon Nate. Your analysis is usually insightful and helpful, and I appreciate it. But you really hurt your credibility when say stuff like that."
January 6 was the culmination of a series of decisions by the Trump administration which actively and purposefully worked to prevent the lawful results of the 2020 election being enacted. Other acts in service of this include the organization of slates of false electors and the attempt to pressure Mike Pence to throw out the electoral votes of seven US states, the latter of which culminated in a mass of pro-Trump rioters breaking into the Capitol Building while chanting "hang Mike Pence," after being directed to head there by Trump, and only told to stop by him once one of them was shot and killed.
This is simply what happened. Even Trump does not deny these facts, only claims he was totally justified because 2020 was totally stolen, and also the President should be immune to prosecution for anything bad he does. The fact that it sounds "mean" or that you heard the term "TDS" used to describe it, does not mean it did not happen.
So much to debunk there. But one thing: Trump told people to be peaceful even before the riot. In his speech on January 6th, he urged people to let their concerns about the election be known "peacefully and patriotically."
Why don't you debunk any part of it, then? If all that happened was he gave that speech, and then when the protestors broke into the Capitol, he said "oh no stop" after 10-20 minutes, sure, whatever, go for your narrative.
But that's not all that happened. Jan 6 was the flashy part that makes for good television, but the real thing was the Eastman memos, the false slates of electors, and the very intentional and purposeful goal of preventing the lawful transfer of power. In such a context, Trump sitting on his ass for three hours as his loyalists edge ever closer to actually killing somebody has a very different connotation.
"Maybe because I try not to waste my time with the indoctrinated."
All my political enemies are indoctrinated! Not me! That's why I don't have to talk to them, or come up with any arguments against their points! They're just indoctrinated, so why bother? Not even engaging with them is much smarter and makes me the least indoctrinated person ever!
I mean, I could have said this against your first post. I could have said it against this post. But I will engage with you as a fellow human being because I believe you are wrong and believe that you, like me, would like to believe only things that are true and not believe things that are false. Perhaps I am wrong, and you would rather believe things that are false. If so, simply tell me, and I can leave it at that.
"BTW, alternative slates of electors are NOT a new thing. Democrats have done that in past elections."
Yes. It would be totally fine to have alternate slates of electors for the circumstance where it turned out Trump won his court cases. However, he didn't do that. He attempted to use the false slates of electors, who had signed affidavits claiming they were the duly appointed electors from their states (they were not), to create ambiguity, in order to get the Vice President to throw out the electoral votes, as outlined in the first Eastman memo, steps 2 and 3:
"2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment – is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected."
Now, be fair. I've read good articles from him that avoid taking sides but just presents and interprets data. He's at his best when he does that. If he wasn't helpful on his good days, I wouldn't bother reading him.
Yes. And his interpretation of the data that is a mob of trump supporters storming congress in order to overturn a presidential election is entirely accurate and unbiased.
There remains a strain of the GOP intelligencia that write for the NYT, NRO and The Dispatch that yearn for a return to 2004. Thus, Nikki Haley essentially became George W. Bush in heels and revealed just how small that faction of the party truly is now.
The GOP changed and they didn’t. But it’s important to notice that Trump didn’t change the GOP. He exploited the opportunity, sure. But he honed in on what base GOP voters deeply wanted. A secure and functioning border and immigration process, the end of global, military adventurism and economic policies that focused on Americans, not necessarily multinational corporate juggernauts.
Trump is a weathervane. He hasn’t an ideological bone is his body. And perhaps once the Never Trump GOPers who have rendered themselves useful only to Democrats wake up and accept that Reaganism has run its course within the GOP, then they can propose candidates that speak more to their voters than the D.C. and Vermont crowd does.
Trump is the symptom, not the underlying disease. The failure to understand that is what's going to complicate the lives of the Dems and coastal elites for years.
It's a bit irrational to claim that "January 6 was a dangerous, radical insurrection that undermined the rule of law and the democratic process," as opposed to what it actually was: a protest that turned into a riot. But I realize that this irrational opinion is shared by many.
Objectively, what you had was an unarmed mob which stormed and paraded through the Capitol and then left after taking selfies and stealing some "souvenirs". How could this possibly constitute an "insurrection"? How could such a mob possibly threaten "rule of law and the democratic process"? Yes, they wanted Congress to refuse to certify the election, but so what? They had no power to impose their will on Congress, and plenty of people in the past have asked government to do legally questionable things -- including Hillary supporters in 2016 who tried to encourage faithless Trump electors.
Greenwald and Taibbi seem to have a much better perspective on this than you do, Nate.
Even if you wish to characterize wielding stun guns, pepper spray and baseball bats as being "unarmed", you're leaving out that over a hundred police officers were injured.
Sure it's possible to exaggerate the events, but if you are trying to be the objective one here, I think you're falling short.
Exactly. And one of the most important ways in which the times are a changing is through radical and dangerous political violence undermining democratic process.
A lot of attempted coups are huge failures. The conspirators don't always have a whole army on their side. Instead they have a small number of allies, and they hope that they can inspire a whole lot more -- more protesters, more police, more soldiers, and especially more leaders. But it doesn't happen. None of the dominoes fall. Trump's attempt was pretty bad. But it wasn't insane either. A few Congress people here-- a few judges there-- a VP who does what he's told to do-- things might have gone differently.
As for the insurrectionists, I half agree. It was a protest turned riot for sure. But it was also a riot against democracy. And they definitely wanted the heads of our leaders, even if they couldn't control the government. They were just a bit too stupid to realize that you're not supposed to riot against the US government itself.
> How could this possibly constitute an "insurrection"? How could such a mob possibly threaten "rule of law and the democratic process"? Yes, they wanted Congress to refuse to certify the election, but so what?
January 6 was the culmination of a series of decisions by the Trump administration which actively and purposefully worked to prevent the lawful results of the 2020 election being enacted. Other acts in service of this include the organization of slates of false electors and the attempt to pressure Mike Pence to throw out the electoral votes of seven US states, the latter of which culminated in a mass of pro-Trump rioters breaking into the Capitol Building while chanting "hang Mike Pence," after being directed to head there by Trump, and only told to stop by him once one of them was shot and killed.
This is simply what happened. Even Trump does not deny these facts, only claims he was totally justified because 2020 was totally stolen, and also the President should be immune to prosecution for anything bad he does. The fact that it sounds "mean" or that you heard the term "TDS" used to describe it, does not mean it did not happen.
Nate is better than most of the people who comment on his posts. I feel like I'm the only straight white dude who sees, or cares, that the Republicans are coming hard after women, they are coming hard after LGBT people, they are going to eliminate much of the government and turn it over to churches, and they will come after the human rights and civil liberties of anyone who stands up against any of this. The only people who can stop this are other Republicans but they don't dare. Trump is not in control; his strings are being pulled by this movement. I don't think this is what a majority of Americans want, but they don't want what the Democratic party is offering in 2024 either so here we are.
Nate’s comment section is surprisingly full of foaming at the mouth right wingers, unlike the comment section of other centrist Substack writers for some reason.
Many of them I wouldn't even necessarily describe as foaming at the mouth right wingers (although some are, and there are definitely some trolls). It's more that everyone else seems to ignore or minimize the issues I'm talking about, which is why I made the straight white dude reference, wondering if that explains it. Although straight dudes of color might not care either.
Well, Zach, if you think the most important issues are women having the right to kill their babies and children having a right to slice off their genitals, you should vote for Joe Biden.
Personally, I don't think either of those issues are particularly important. I would love to see something between a 6-12 week limit on abortions (just like most of Europe -- you know, that continent run by far-right, Christian-ethno-nationalists). It's not my preferred position, but in a republic, political solutions require compromise. And I think kids who can't get a tattoo shouldn't be slicing off their boobs.
As for "coming after the human rights and civil liberties of anyone who stands up against any of this", have you looked at the behavior of Left lately? The threat to civil liberties today ain't coming from the Right.
Yeah, tbh I think basing the pro-Biden case (which is a very good case) around a defence of the progressive end of culture-war issues isn't necessarily the smartest idea. (Abortion gets decent support even in red states, but even then I think the median opinion is "abortion is sadly sometimes necessary, in an ideal world we wouldn't have so many unwanted pregnancies but we do not live in that world" rather than "abortion is a beautiful liberation from the patriarchy who want to turn us into baby factories". And youth gender medicine is something that maybe 0.1% of the population is qualified to have an opinion on, but everybody offers their two cents regardless.)
Nonetheless, in simple material/utilitarian terms, the plans a Republican Congress would enact here are somewhat frightening. I expected the overturning of Roe v Wade to cause Republicans to release they were on the losing side of this crusade electorally speaking, and to moderate their views accordingly (it's hardly the sort of thing their corporate paymasters care about, after all - as long as they get low taxes they're happy). But what instead seems to have happened is that, faced with opposition to its offering from the demos, the party has simply amped up its hostility towards democracy. The inmates truly are running the asylum.
It would be nice to have an alternative to the choices: "a 33 week old baby still inside mom is morally equivalent to a cancer tumor" and "a 1 day old zygote is morally equivalent to a toddler".
I think it was Sarah Huckabee Sanders in her response to the SOTU last year that said: "the divide in America isn't between Right and Left. It's between normal and crazy." There's plenty of crazy on both sides. But only one side controls essentially every lever of power in the country right now.
He believes it's the end of the world if the US has the same abortion policy as Sweden and Denmark. He wants the US to copy Communist Cuba and North Korea instead committing baby murder on demand.
Oh noo, they might stop showing kids gay pornography at schools if Trump wins, and women might have to compete against other women instead of men in dresses so horrifying!
When you actually break it down like that, it's amazing what the Left is hanging their electoral hopes on. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (not my favorite Republican) had a good line in her response to the SOTU last year. "Increasingly, the divide in America is less about Left and Right than about Normal and Crazy". (And to be clear, there's plenty of crazy on both sides, but 1 side controls every source of cultural power in the country.)
Republicans have moved to the left on basically every social issue, while Democrats have moved to the far left to compensate. Thankfully, it seems at least the former has stopped for now, while the latter meanwhile continues to go down to crazyville.
Almost every straight white dude I know in the blue state where I live thinks exactly like you. The fact is, y'all have an outdated view of the GOP and severely misunderstand Trump.
I left the GOP because of its resistance to gay rights and what I perceived to be a desire to impose their religious and moral views on everyone--even people on the other side of the world. That isn't Trump. Trump is a liar, a blowhard, and a so close-mindedly overconfident that he is ignorant of obvious things such that he appears stupid at times. But Trump isn't trying to convince Iraqi's and Afghans to adopt his political or religious values via war. He isn't trying to force you to act like him in your bedroom or control who you marry (I guess that would mean mandating divorce?) like the Bush-era GOP.
I don't like Trump because I want leaders who have principles and to hold themselves to a moral standard we can aspire to. I want leaders who set an example of what it means to be a great American. Someone who seems honest and trustworthy, even if I don't always agree with them. But I'm aware of no way in which Trump is anti-woman. And Trump is 100% in control of the GOP base...their voters believe everything he says, no matter how crazy.
Everything Republicans have done since Dobbs (and in Texas' case, before it) demonstrates that they have no ability to restrain or defy that wing of their party. It's the one thing that's killing Republicans politically, and yet they won't change it. So I see no reason it would be any different if they win the election and get full power. You'd expect it to be worse, because they'd say they have a 'mandate'. The Christian Nationalists - and people here like to make fun of that term but whatever you want to call them - are Trump's biggest supporters. They don't believe in democracy but in God's law. They tell Trump that God sent him. It's effective because Trump is motivated by vanity and narcissism. And if you look at all the policy documents Republicans are putting out, like Project 2025, and who would be staffing a Republican administration, it's those people. It's a very effective disguise for their movement, because no one believes Trump is like that. And I'm not saying a majority of Republican voters are even like that. What I'm saying is that's the policy outcomes we're going to get, and it will start with executive orders on 1.20.25. I would love to be wrong. But I'm seeing it with my own eyes every day.
The country (and the Trump/populist wing of the GOP) are very pro LGB. DeSantis hurt himself in the primary by catering to the religious right. The country (especially women) are not on board with some of the recent activism for the letters after LGB in the LGBTQIA+ acronym. Medical interventions for minors and eliminating female-exclusive sports and spaces are particularly creating concerns among feminists.
They've made the most noise on abortion but their agenda is broader than that - against contraception, against no fault divorce, favoring public money for religious organizations, and yes against same sex marriage and adoption (or IVF) by same sex couples. I would disagree with your characterization of feminism even as I am intuitively more trans skeptical than most feminists. The Republican party is not able to accept that other people's bodies, and other people's families, are no one's business, because a large faction of their party is interested in restoring 'natural law', which is their code for their interpretation of their bible. It doesn't look to be able to stop them from winning this election, so we're all going to find out the hard way.
You are applying 2004 GOP to the modern GOP. There is indeed a wing (the Mike Pence wing) that basically agrees with the "every sperm is sacred" Monty python song, but they got throttled in the primary by the Trump populist wing. You probably wouldn't know this if you only listen to left wing news sources like NPR, NYT, NBC, CBS, etc, but immediately after the Alabama Supreme Court ruling about IVF Trump came out firmly that IVF must be protected. The Alabama GOP then immediately did his bidding to start working to protect it.
Seriously, the religious-hawk wing of the party (e.g., Ben Shapiro) really doesn't like Trump. They like him better than Biden, but they don't like him.
You seem intelligent and intellectually honest, and like you are a standard sane Democrat. I recommend Breaking Points. I listen on podcast, but it's also on YouTube if that's your bag. They are independent/non-partisan, but are openly biased and have strong opinions. The two main hosts are populist (one centrist, the other socialist) and on Wednesdays they have separate hosts-one standard lefty Democrat and one standard libertarian-ish Republican. They cover the news...no arguing...and provide commentary from their perspectives. Really great way to get "all sides" without partisan spin or annoying talking points.
The people hanging pride flags over the White House are confused about 'Christian nationalism.' How about your wake-up indoctination?
Also, you claim to care about women, yet you couldn't tell me what a woman is. You want men to go into women's sports and literally beat them up. You want to import millions of military-aged men from third-world countries unvetted.
Riots are bad. That doesn't make them insurrections. I wish people on both sides would admit that burning police precincts in MN, shooting fireworks at federal buildings in Portland, and breaking into/rioting at the capital are all unacceptable forms of "protest" that should warrant prison time.
I don't "really really" like him, I preferred Vivek or De Santis. But the insane hatred of the left for Trump, mostly for completely false reasons, can not be denied. You have been subjected to military grade propaganda. Because Trump fought against the Military Industrial Complex.
I find myself in the same boat. I was a very reluctant Trump voter in 2016, somewhat less reluctant in 2020 (the guy didn't start any new wars, which counts for a lot with me -- my how my standards have slipped). And I voted against him in my primary yesterday.
But I will vote for Trump in November. This level of venom on the Left is like nothing I've ever seen in my 50 years. The Democrats are hoping people will say "well, Trump has so many criminal cases against him that he can't be President". But a rival response is "gee, the Democrats have dragged us into banana republic territory; maybe I'll vote for Trump just to reign them in."
And for the record, I would never support a Republican president who tried to throw his Democratic opposition in prison. And before anyone says it, no, Trump did not do that.
Is South Korea a banana republic? Is France? Both have charged and found guilty former presidents recently. What are your feelings regarding the charges against Bob Menendez? Should they be dropped for fear that the FBI has a political bias against Democrats?
I don't know about you, but if politicians allegedly commit crimes, the legal system should be trusted to judge them guilty or innocent, the same as for any other citizen.
The problem is two-fold. There have been years of accusations against Trump, many of which have been determined to be based on false information and even knowledge that the people ordering the investigations *knew* to be false (Steele dossier). Secondly, at least some of the current accusations are nakedly partisan and obviously legal stretches that we should really hope are not accepted as valid uses of laws and courts.
If there are real legal cases against Trump, I'm okay with that. There have been so many false claims against Trump that it's hard to take the possibility of real ones very seriously, mixed in with the obvious junk. It's not hard for people to recognize that the prosecutors elected specifically on a platform of indicting Trump (without specifying any specific charges or accusations), who then indict Trump on novel legal theories, are not interested in good jurisprudence.
Take for instance the Stormy Daniels case. He is being charged with *not* using campaign funds to pay her off. The legal theory is that he should have used campaign funds to do it, not that he isn't allowed to do it. That's insane. Nobody thinks the situation would be better if he used campaign funds to pay her off, but they don't care.
I don't like Trump, but I like him being president a lot more than allowing partisan enemies the ability to make up charges against an opposing candidate in order to try to force them out of a race. That there may be legitimate charges mixed in with the obviously illegitimate isn't helping much, when trust in Democrat prosecutors is close to 0% among Trump's supporters.
Isn't the legal issue in the Stormy Daniels case that Trump paid the funds out of his business account and as a result took it as an expense and didn't pay taxes on the income used to make the payment?
of all the cases the Bragg's case is the weakest and yet the most frightening. He literally criminalized activity after the fact and if the cases succeeds no one is ever safe. I get not liking Trump but the precedents being established as resistance will last long after Trump has left the stage.
These are not great examples. Korea was a monarchy for 500 years until the Japanese conquered it in WWI. France is currently the "5th republic" today because the first 4 failed in spectacular and sometimes bloody fashion. Neither is a country I would want America to model it's democratic behavior on.
I agree with you that "no politician should be above the law". However, the law should also not be used to target people. That's what defines a banana republic. It's not just arresting former leaders; it's using the law for political ends.
3 of the cases against Trump are being brought by elected officials (from the opposing party) who ran on a literal promise to "get Donald Trump" (NY AG James, NYC DA Bragg, Willis in GA). That's not equal justice; that's using the law to target someone.
I have worked in real estate; no other person would have been prosecuted for Trump's behavior in NYC. And no other person ever has been without a victim (a monetary loss of some kind.) That's not equal justice; that's targeting.
"And no other person ever has been without a victim".
So what about DUIs? Do I have to actually have an accident to get charged? Or is simply being a danger on the roads enough?
I get that Trump's behavior might be common in the real estate world, but the lack of a "victim" is not a problem for me. If his actions helped destabilize the financial industry with shady loans, valuations, insurance, that should be enough.
Again, if it's common practice, fine, maybe not worth the prosecution. But, the lack of a victim is not a problem.
Perhaps it was unclear that I was talking about Trump's behavior, not any behavior at all. We have all kinds of victimless crime laws, yes, but fraud is generally not one of them. In civil court, bringing a case for fraud requires that you demonstrate a real loss to get standing. In criminal court in NY, everything I've read is that the statues Trump was prosecuted under are not generally used without a victim.
There is no evidence that Trump's behavior did or even could "help destabilize the financial industry with shady loans, valuations, insurance".
This isn't like financing a house. The actual process for financing a building (my own experience is with apartment buildings in CA, but any commercial building is pretty similar) is: 1) go to several banks and tell them what you think the building is worth, bring receipts or lease rolls or comparables to back up this valuation; 2) let each bank push back, low-balling the valuation so a higher loan-to-value ratio yields a higher interest rate; 3) negotiate until you find a bank willing to make the loan, or you don't.
Trump is being prosecuted (persecuted?) for step 1 in this list. But that ignores steps 2 and 3. The act of completing the loan means that every party involved (bank and Trump) was fine with the valuation. And the fact that the loan was paid off means no one was defrauded. Ergo: no crime.
All state Attorneys General are elected officials so in a sense what you're saying is that AGs can never hold a politician accountable for committing a crime because they'd just be "targeting" that person. Not pursuing legal charges when a crime has been committed - remember that grand juries were involved in the process of determining whether there was grounds to charge - is tantamount to saying that all politicians are immune to the law. Where does your line of argument stop?
Were those former presidents charged and prosecuted by their political opponents who ran for office on a platform of "I will prosecute [politician] for something."?
I understand your perspective. You legitimately think he is guilty of crimes. You honestly do not believe your motivation to prosecute him is political. Let me ask you this: If your favorite politician did the exact same thing would you want them prosecuted?
Consider a few facts:
-Many on the left, including VP Harris, contributed to bail funds for rioters that burned the minneapolis 3rd precinct. This makes ire over Jan 6th less credible.
-No one on the left advocated prosecuting Clinton for the blatant violations related to using a private email server and later destroying evidence.
-Most people in the center and the right see little difference between Trumps actions and those of legacy politicians more skilled at plausible deniability.
Now consider the real question: Is it really worth it to attempt to jail Trump at the cost of the perception that this is a political prosecution? Assuming he did actually break the law. Will the prosecution be a deterent of any kind? Are the consequencesof his actions (GOP loss of the senate? Failure of the GOP to secure a larger majority?) so bad that it justifies the risk of political prosecutorial retaliation?
I would argue no. Not unless there was indisputable evidence of 1st degree murder or quid pro quo bribery above 10 million dollars.
>Were those former presidents charged and prosecuted by their political opponents who ran for office on a platform of "I will prosecute [politician] for something."?
Have either Attorney General Merrick Garland or President Joe Biden called for the prosecution of former President Donald Trump? To the best of my recollection, they never have, but it's possible I missed it.
Also, for the record, I do not personally have an opinion one way or the other on whether Donald Trump has committed any crimes. I simply trust the FBI and the DoJ to conduct investigations and prosecutions impartially. If Comey's FBI decided that the case against Hillary Clinton wasn't strong enough to bring charges but the case against, for example, Anthony Weiner (former Democratic congressman from NYC), then I feel comfortable accepting their best judgement on that.
Joe Biden and Merrick Garland don't have to say anything when they have Democratic underlings who are happy to do the dirty work. Although I would suggest that calling your opponent and all his 70M voters a "danger to democracy" for years on end could reasonably be inferred equivalent to "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" (Henry II)
I understand your trust of the FBI--i actually envy it. I used to share that trust. Unfortunately, the circumstances of the investigation of Trumps 2016 campaign--and the output of the two special council investigations resulting from it--killed that trust for me.
I don't blame the HRC campaign for laundering their Steele dossier to trick the Feds into investigating...those are the standard political dirty tricks all campaigns have done for 250 years. I blame the admittedly partisan FBI agents who pretended to believe the unsubstantiated allegations and falsified documents to obtain FISA warrants to wiretap political enemies. I further blame the overall FBI and its leadership for creating an environment that could allow such abuses.
Don't think the FBI deception is good because they were only using dirty methods to spy on the big, bad Trump, either. I've heard reporting that they've pursued left wing organizations they disagree with using some of the same shady tactics.
Most media is partisan. You have to read/listen to a lot of news to get both sides. That's probably why you haven't heard of the corrupt FBI practices (particularly Crossfire Hurricane and the FBI-planned Gretchen Witmer kidnapping plot).
1. You broke 250 years of precedent by trying to persecute a US president.
2. You are trying to persecute him over 'Le documents' something you literally excused Hillary Clinton for in 2016 despite her obvious guilt because it was an 'election year' Now your deranged lover Jack Smith is desperate to do everything to make sure these hoax trials are before the election so he can help Joe Biden.
3. Joe Biden is guilty of taking and illegally storing classified documents for decades. Joe Biden had no right to declassify anything while he was senator or vice president, and Hillary did as well, but Trump had every right to every classified document because he was president when those documents were taken under the presidential records act. Do you not find it even slightly disturbing how Trump is being persecuted for something that Biden and Hillary are guilty of but were let off Scott free for?
4. Liberals love to say, 'Nobody is above the law'; nobody is supposed to be below the law either; they are supposed to be on even footing, but apparently that doesn't apply to Trump; he must be guilty! ignore facts ignore reason, ignore logic! We must get Trump! or else, god forbid, the voters might get to decide who the president will be!
That prosecutor was a Bush Republican like the Trump appointee that appointed Mueller…why would anyone care about the opinions of Bush Republicans like Comey and Mueller and McCabe and Rosenstein??
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy people like you now realize how awful Bush/Cheney were and how stupid invading Iraq was…but Trump simply continued the military policy of Obama for the most part. Once again, thank you for realizing you were a dumbass in 2004…just know you might still be a dumbass. ;)
Chow Mein, believe me, I have firmly come to terms with my dumb-assedness of the Bush years. :-) It's actually one of the reasons I'm so skeptical of our institutions today -- they lied for 20 years to everyone and faced no consequences. That realization has caused a real crisis of trust for me, and I suspect I'm not the only one.
Donald Trump isn't the answer. He might arrest the speed of our slide, but he lacks the attention span to change course. But he is apparently the best we can hope for in 2024.
All I care about is our troops—you believed it made sense to sacrifice 800 of our best and brightest a year to slaughter Muslims on the other side of the world…I thought that was dumb. But Obama also reduced defense spending from Bush/Cheney levels and Trump and Biden have kept it at those levels.
I'm a conservative and I actually loved ranked-choice voting. I think it's a great way to get more responsive politicians.
Between now and November, neither Joe Biden or Donald Trump will face any real threat. Ranked choice voting would fix that. Imagine being able to vote for Robert Kennedy first, and then for one of those two other guys if Kennedy doesn't make it. It's a great system.
Nate, the actual history of the word "liberal" is really interesting and deeper than the Enlightenment. I just covered this last week with my civics students.
"Liberal" was originally an insult. In Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, a young girl’s undeserving suitor is likened to a “liberal villain” by her family’s chosen fiancée. A liberal was "one opposed to the natural order", an agent of chaos. The natural order of John Locke’s day was feudalism and monarchy, thus he repurposed the term to signify opposition to this hierarchy of nobility. That quintessential liberal idea — that all are free and equal before God — resonates from Locke, through Thomas Jefferson’s “all men are created equal”, to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, asserting universal rights and principles based on in inherent dignity of each individual person. Locke didn't change the definition; he changed the world to make the definition desirable instead of insulting.
All modern political movements in the West derive from this "liberal" ideology. The only competitor was Burke, and there are few Burkeans today. Sohrab Amari and his few dozen strong cadre of Catholic integralists are the only ones I can think of.
Regarding Haley: this is what party realignments look like. The Democrats have gone all in for the educated and wealthy. Most of Haley's "moderate Republicans" are likely college educated and will end up as Democrats within a decade. The Republicans are trying to cobble together a working class party for the first time in 90 years. We're already seeing minorities begin gravitating toward the GOP on the basis of class and culture. They'll figure it out (likely) or die and be replaced with a party that does (unlikely).
Trying to read the tea leaves in the middle of such a realignment is pretty much pointless. I don't envy your job right now.
I blame demographic change. Working class voters of all races and ethnicities are migrating to the Republican Party and country club Republicans like McConnell, Romney, Lynn Cheney, and Haley are increasingly going to be a minority.
The idea of nonwhites migrating to the GOP is still mostly theoretical at this point, the narrative is highly overplayed. Trump underperformed GWB among both blacks and Hispanics, but he did significantly better in 2020 than 2016. And he did better than Romney -- who was admittedly running against a black man. Maybe in 2024 the trend will continue and he'll break new ground, but until then it's reversion to the mean at best.
I'd say the possibility remains very real that demographic change renders the GOP unable to win a national election after the Boomers are gone, if not sooner, even if it remains relevant within many states.
It isn't entirely theoretical at this point, but you're right that there's some wishful thinking.
However... the Democrats are attempting to marry the interests of the uber-educated and wealthy with those of the urban, non-white poor. That seems like a pretty tall order. Maximal individual autonomy and all of it's associated policies (open borders, free love, free trade, no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, transgenderism) works well for the former, but it has largely been a disaster for the latter.
Culturally, the urban, black underclass is conservative and religious. Hispanics even more so on both counts. When the urban minority underclass figures out that they have more in common with the white underclass than they do with the uber-educated... look out! It may be mostly theoretical now, but there's a reason the GOP is optimistic about it long term.
"When the urban minority underclass figures out that they have more in common with the white underclass than they do with the uber-educated"
I think there's a valid point that the Hispanic working class might someday converge politically and culturally towards the white working class. But it doesn't seem there's been much measurable progress since even the days of Reagan. If Hispanic migration to the US collapsed for a generation, maybe things would be different.
As for blacks, the distance is much greater. I live in a small city in the Deep South, near the Black Belt, have gone on numerous police ride-alongs in the city and the rural county, so I've observed a fair bit over the years. Take crime and policing. If a name like "George Floyd" or "Ahmed Arbery" comes up, the reactions of poor whites and poor blacks are going to be diametrically opposed. There's religiosity, sure (these days, much less likely to be reflected in actual church attendance among the poorer classes, white or black), but when the name "Jeremiah Wright" came up in 2008, the reactions were diametrically opposed.
On all these matters, the actual opinions of poor blacks continue to have far more in common with educated white liberals than with poor whites. And that's before we go down the road of affirmative action, DEI, etc.
I guess what matter is whether class or race is the defining cleavage of American society today. I hope it's class. It would be really sad if it was still race.
Well, as a society we certainly like to talk a lot more about race than class.
But I think the educated professional-managerial class is pretty cohesive. It doesn't have big racial divides. And what divides do exist are largely a product of the fact that a lot of nonwhite members of this class are immigrants or the children of immigrants; after another generation, the differences are basically gone unless you're in a social environment that goes out of its way to highlight or preserve them.
The divide between poorer whites and blacks is much deeper. They've been living alongside one another in some cases for 400 years while maintaining very distinct cultures, dialects, attitudes, and politics. Granted, slavery and the lack of legal equality exacerbated it for most of that era, but 60 years after Civil Rights, it's clear to me that the divide there isn't fading at nearly the same pace that the divides within the professional-managerial class are.
Interesting perspective. Maybe the PMC group is forced to work together more? Poor blacks and whites have similar lives and problems, but their lives are often geographically separated even if by only a few blocks. Maybe higher education and intelligence results in more openness? I'm not sure, but I think your point is both valid and unfortunate.
Yeah, the NYT/Siena polls are also showing Trump getting 3x the black votes that he did last time. I don’t buy it. That’s not just a big improvement, it’s something busted with their polling.
The magnitude of the shift of minority voters may vary from poll to poll but they're all showing Trump picking up more votes from blacks, Hispanics, asians, etc. Given that I would be very surprised if he doesn't do better with minorities across the board come November.
I can believe that -- but in all likelihood we're still talking about migrating towards the upper end of the historic range of minority support for Republicans. Not breaking out of that range. And all else equal, I'd expect the next GOP candidate to revert to the mean and do worse among minorities again.
If a Republican ever wins 45-50% of the Hispanic vote nationally, we'll have something interesting to talk about.
Numerous polls have shown Trump winning an outright majority of Hispanic voters.
As for the GOP reverting back to the mean: here's an alternative theory. Blue collar workers are migrating to the GOP regardless of color lines. Hispanics, who are disproportionately blue collar, are a very visible example of this phenomenon.
Still boggles my mind to think about it. Democrats shouting for handouts to upper class phd's for student loan debt relief, and Republicans wanting tariffs to create blue collar domestic jobs. Feels like up is down.
Yeah, I'm still wrapping my brain around that one too. Glad to see it -- I'm happy for the Dems to own the 20% of the country that goes to college and the GOP own everything else. But it's going to take some getting used to, and for people like me who are college-educated and upper-middle-class, my new party-mates are sometimes a cultural challenge. But I'll get over it. Besides, it's kind of fun being a class traitor. It makes me feel like a rebel. :-) Now I just need long hair and a motorcycle... or is 50 too old for that?
There are comments saying Jan 6 wasn’t an “insurrection”. I happen to agree, I think, that that particular word is maybe a stretch. But what’s clear is that Trump wanted the federal government to overturn the results of elections in the states. Imagine if Al Gore in 2000 went through all of the same motions. There’d be no doubt that he tried to steal the election. This is a case where the actual conduct is worse than media’s distortions of it. (And in Nate’s case, a very very slight distortion at worst.)
And the definitive study had Gore winning if a constitutional recount had been allowed to transpire. But what many people don’t realize is that most of the legal rationale Trump employed was developed in 2000/04 under the Bush/Cheney campaign. So I truly believe had Bush won the popular vote by 3 million as he did in 2004 while losing the Electoral College as almost happened he was prepared to blow up the EC and remain in office. Obviously Bush Republicans are very loyal and never talk out of line…but all of the evidence we have points to them taking that route in 2004.
Now that would be a fascinating poll. Unfortunately, people can't be polled about past events. I think Nate pointed out that if you poll people today, 12% more of them say they voted for Biden than Trump in 2020, but Biden only won by 4%.
The modern GOP has become the Reddit conspiracy forum. "Every politician who I oppose (and their voters) is a baby-eating pedophile who needs to be destroyed."
It's funny - I did everything that the GOP of the Reagan/Bush era said was "the right way to do things": go to school, get good grades, avoid drugs, get a marketable degree, get a job, buy a house in the suburbs. However the GOP has decided that they don't want my vote and would rather pursue voters who are motivated purely by jealousy and resentment. That's fine.
Reddit is one-sided one-minded with deep infiltration by the feds in any subreddit that matters.
There's a minority of Trump voters - wouldn't even call them GOP - that are calling out the corporate media propaganda arm and those who follow it. The good old days have been washed and the ugly head of the corrupt uniparty is now more evident that ever before
What I - and I would reckon many voters like me - are looking for is the promise of some stability and order. This is not on offer from either party today.
Agreed. That was the promise of the uniparty in the last several decades. I would say that is still the Democratic party's promise, as long as the facade of stability includes foreign wars, printing money leading to inflation, and corrupt special interests writing laws in Congress. That system is so embedded, that the current options are either to accept it or disrupt it
Calling a riot...especially an unarmed riot...an insurrection is ridiculous.
The Whiskey Rebellion was an insurrection. Civil War was an insurrection on steroids
Misusing the term not only demonstrates a level of fantasizing in denial of reality that damages the perpetrator's credibility greatly, it mocks those who died putting down REAL insurrections.
January 6 was the culmination of a series of decisions by the Trump administration which actively and purposefully worked to prevent the lawful results of the 2020 election being enacted. Other acts in service of this include the organization of slates of false electors and the attempt to pressure Mike Pence to throw out the electoral votes of seven US states, the latter of which culminated in a mass of pro-Trump rioters breaking into the Capitol Building while chanting "hang Mike Pence," after being directed to head there by Trump, and only told to stop by him once one of them was shot and killed.
This is simply what happened. Even Trump does not deny these facts, only claims he was totally justified because 2020 was totally stolen, and also the President should be immune to prosecution for anything bad he does. The fact that it sounds "mean" or that you heard the term "TDS" used to describe it, does not mean it did not happen.
> No exculpatory evidence in all the hearings were allowed to be aired.
Such as? I'd be amazed to hear about this exculpatory evidence that wasn't allowed to be aired, since it seems like there's just a bunch of emails bouncing around between involved parties where they discuss the plan and then try to carry out the plan. Please, do share. I would love to be proven wrong!
> And that still wasn't 'coup'..
Well, yes. It failed. If it had succeeded it would be a coup.
> And claiming an election isn't a couple or insurrection, either.
No, but attempting to prevent the lawful transfer of power by extralegal and violent means is, which is what Trump did.
> Or if so, why are these ppl still walking free?
The indictment for the Jan 6 charges makes it quite clear Trump was fully within his rights to say that the election was rigged. What he was not within his rights to do was attempt to prevent the certification of the lawful results through a mixture of legalistic and violent means. If Stacey Abrams had tried to prevent her loss by a mixture of paper-thin legal theories and violent force, I would also support her being locked up.
Changing the subject because I trashed your insurrection narrative is also simply changing the subject because I trashed your insurrection narrative. That's called a red herrings. Look it up.
fairly well thought out plan, you mean the dude with a hat or the Federal assets sho were salted about the place. IN that case things do appear thought out.
January 6, where the only death was a protestor shot by Biden's fascist cops, was the end of the republic, according to liberals.
But the BLM riots, where dozens of people were killed, billions of dollars of property damage was caused, and entire streets were burned down, were the'summer of love!'
We don’t like Haley because she’s a neocon warmonger. No more forever wars. Say what you will about Trump, but he doesn’t want the country bogged down by endless wars.
Say what you want about a man who tried to overthrow the results of an election and talks about terminating the constitution and being a dictator on day 1, he doesn't want endless wars (even though he kept us in all our wars and increased drone strikes)
Trump is making fun of your stupidity when he talks like that. You don't see it? It is a joke. On you.
You probably also think #GenocideJoe is bringing the world together and that all these wars are Trump's fault.
Yeah, so funny to joke about ending democracy. Also he literally appointed Nikki to be UN ambassador and put neocons like John Bolton in his administration. How is he anti war?
The rest of us have had to listen to Trump haters blathering for eight years straight and we are so incredibly bored with it. So yes, it was funny.
In other words, your entire personality is "triggering the libs" and even when Trump puts neocons in his administration you just ignore that because you don't actually care about policy
No, but we are just so tired of listening deranged Trump hatred for eight years. Please find something new to hate and center your life around.
You moron, do you think Trump wanted John Bolton? Trump had to unite the party in 2016; he did not have 90% support like he does today; he had 40% support, so he had to give the establishment big roles in the administration. This won't be the case in 2025, as the establishment has been either removed or they have converted to a reasonable status like Ted Cruz and Tim Scott.
It's funny to joke about how insane and stupid liberals are.
'END OF DEMOOOCURADCY INSUUURECIOTN!!! ORANGE MAN DICIITAAATOOORO!' You're deranged; you're literally insane.
Trump stays in the news by stoking outrage and controversy. Good job in being his useful idiot.
So, you can’t criticize the words of the GOP presidential frontrunner because it gives him attention? lol…
Does the criticism do anything? Nope. Does it give Trump free publicity? Yup.
Trump was more than happy to bombard Al Qaeda, Syria, etc. from afar. In terms of peer to peer conflicts like what is going on in Ukraine however?
True. He made mistakes. Hopefully he's learned from them. Not a perfect president like here likes to say but still the best choice.
Is it a joke when he rapes women also? When he scams people as with the Trump University case and his whole career in real estate? Is it a joke that he tried to take away health care from millions of Americans? That he admires and models himself dictators and semi-dictators such as Putin, Orban and Erdogan?
For Gods sake, cancel your subscriptions to the NYTIMES and stop watching MSNBC. Become human again and then maybe we can all Make America Great Again.
honey your username is your email account, i think you should sit down.
Do you have a problem with that?
If Trump has raped anybody file the criminal charges. Until then it's all just bluster and ranting.
Does that apply to the insurrection innuendo as well?
Given the amount of lawfare directed at Trump I would say so.
I'm sure the multi-millionaire who dates supermodels definitely 'raped' a random ugly woman in some closet 40 years ago she has the evidence! It's on her dress! ignore the fact that brand of dress did not exist back then and there's nothing on it. ignore the fact the court ruled there was no rape, but the orange man'slandered' her by calling her a liar despite the fact she lied.
So Trump bragging about sexual assault to Billy Bush just doesn't impact your take on what he might do at all. LOL OK.
Are you scared that he might grab you because you're such a big pussy ?
It’s a really bad, distasteful scary joke. Those ideas should not be normalized.
After listening to eight years of non-stop Trump hatred from propagandized zombies, I don't care. I am so bored and sick of it.
I'd be more inclined to take his riffing on becoming a dictator as a joke if he hadn't, you know, actually tried to stage a coup.
A one time riot that he was not involved with. And no court of law ever accused him of this. Fake News. The Summer of Love and Insurrection on the White House however were terribly serious because repeated, sustained and encouraged by elected officials.
Yes, he was not involved in the "riot" that attempted to execute his VP and stop Congress from certifying electoral votes, he just told his supporters in person moments before to march on the capitol and fight like hell.
Can’t tell if you are really dumb or actually believe trump jokes like that. Just wow.
Based Biden, nobody gives a shit about that filty, useless disgusting piece of human garbage known as palestoid race, only leftoids and Magacuck rightoids like you can feel sympathy for those dirty animals.
That said I can't wait Trump will go back to Jerusalem to sign another mulitibillion dollar agreements in favor of Bibi and his Chabad friends.
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Al Gore? Stacy Abrams? Hillary "Russia, Russia, Russia" Clinton?
Not sure who you are talking about.
Stacy Abrams is the only one of those 3 that is remotely comparable. Al Gore going through a recount/court process, and Hillary conceding the election immediately, are not what Trump did.
Nope. All directly comparable in my eyes. All three of them tried to affect a decided election, one which they didn't like the outcome. Plus, Trump, being sworn to defend the constitution, was acting in good faith seeing as he truly believed that the left had cheated, which has been shown to be a very strong possibility by: Missouri v. Biden, Molly Balls Time magazine article about "fortifying" (read, bribing and blackmailing the election by liberal/leftist powers), etc. The biggest issue really comes down to it didn't happen the way he thought it did.
The three I mentioned do not get the benefit of having sworn that, as non of them were president.
Al Gore didn't relentlessly accuse anyone of cheating on baseless grounds. He just wanted recounts of an election that was won by 500 votes. I don't see how that's objectionable. If Donald Trump had lost by 500 votes and wanted recounts in the same way I would have had no issue with it. That's close enough that it could be swung either direction. But he lost by over 70,000 across a number of different states, and continued to object even after the recounts were completed. That's not the same?
And Hillary conceded almost immediately. What did she even do that you're accusing her of? She didn't try to overturn anything at all. She accepted the results within 24 hours.
She constantly accused him of Russian collusion, knowing that it was a falsehood. That is not accepting an election.
Al Gore conceded, knowing that Bush had won, and then took back his concession and put the country through all sorts of hell claiming (and still does to this day, even when the election totals have been looked at six way from Sunday) that he won. That is not accepting an election.
I had no idea Abrams, Clinton, and Gore were in the ballot this year. Won't be voting for Trump, but won't vote for any of them either!
Most well organized insurrection ever. If you still believe the lies pushed by the Jan 6th committee and don't realize some of the people being tried in Jan 6th cases don't deserve it you're purposely ignoring a portion of facts that don't align with a bias you refuse to check.
So, it can’t be an insurrection because the Trump supporters who attempted it were too stupid to achieve their end goals?
That’s certainly… a claim
By Democrat Marxist vocabulary, it was an insurrection because, in Democrat Marxist vocabulary, they believe any protest against them or their actions is an 'INSURREEECITONI' and any protest taken by Democrats, no matter how violent and rabid, is a 'peaceful protest!' hence BLM terrorist riots were the summer of love 'fiery but mostly peaceful'
Usually an attempt to stay in power through illegal means is called a autocoup, aka a form of insurrection. So im really not sure what you are so fk'in confused about.
The only insurrection was Biden stealing the 2020 election. Sadly, that insurrection succeeded, but thankfully, the 2024 win is going to be too big to rig #TRUMP2024.
Didn't make that claim, CHRIS lol
Thought it was criminal mischief but that could not have been the plan for an insurrection that was put down by the Capitol Police? Why exactly hasn’t Smith charged Trump with insurrection?
Exactly, well put.
He tried to overthrow democracy by telling people to peacefully protest and respect the police? He overthrew democracy by leaving power? Maybe watch less MSNBC, you retard.
You moron, he's literally making fun of you deranged liberals. 'I'll be a dictator for 1 day to close the border and drill oil, then I won't be a dictator anymore' And you're not getting it. Lmao, you're the joke, and you are using Trump's making fun of you to screech your delusions more; it's pure comedy.
No U.S. soldier has broken a fingernail in Ukraine. The fact you have to lie tells everything we need to know.
Nobody claimed that there are US soldiers in Ukraine. Nice straw man.
Are you going to deny though that UK and (most likely) French soldiers are?
Saying “forever war” equates this to Afghanistan when it’s not us fighting. Sending military kit when it’s clearly in our interest is a good thing. I appreciate your response, too bad Trump is a coward and robbed us of a debate on these ideas.
The Biden administration has deliberately been supplying Ukraine with just enough resources to lose slowly rather than win. Maybe that's in the best interests of the US but it's depopulated Ukraine.
They sure aren't doing enough, but I don't really see how that's a knock on them compared to the Republican alternative, which appears to be doing nothing.
If the goal is to let the Ukrainians lose I think it's in the best interests of Ukraine to do it sooner rather than later.
100% agree. Biden is a disaster on this and won’t give them what they need to win. But Trump is on Putin’s side which is clearly a worse outcome for the U.S.
The problem is that's not clear to many Americans, especially Republicans. They think Europeans are liberal degenerates (except for Viktor Orban) and they don't particularly care what Putin does to them. They don't have any particular interest in standing up for democracy abroad, because they don't have any particular interest in standing up for it here either.
Why was there no Russian aggression when Trump was president?
Why did Biden approve the Nordstream pipeline?
But Trump is a Putin puppet! Despite being the only US president to prevent Russian aggression
You're still repeating 2016 Clintonite lies like a deranged broken record. Get a new line. Go make up a conspiracy about China or something. You lunatic. It's getting boring.
The question is what the difference will be then between a Trump presidency and a Biden administration on Ukraine.
Actually, multiple Americans were killed after NATO officers got missiles struck in Ukraine. Of course, the media never reported it, and they also didn't report that UK troops are in Ukraine right now, which leaked phone calls have proven.
Technically the German intercepts are getting mainstream media coverage. That's how I heard about it.
Literally just learned about that from the mainstream media.
Trump seemed pretty willing to toy with getting directly involved in a shooting war with both Iran (targeted killing of Soleimani) and Syria (The 2017 Sharyat missile strike and proposed assassination of al-Assad) when it suited him.
Ah yes, the never-ending liberal cope Trump gets no credit for preventing war in Ukraine and Gaza, but somehow he gets blamed for a war with Iran that also never happened because the orange man is bad!!!
You know, we really should give George W. Bush credit for preventing the Syrian Civil War and Jimmy Carter credit for preventing the Falklands War. And how come no one ever talks about how Andrew Johnson avoided the Franco-Prussian War!!??? It’s a liberal conspiracy!
You're comparing apples to oranges, aren't you? But then again, you liberal hacks would never give Trump credit for anything. You would rather go full schizophrenic mode like you did during Biden's Afghanistan disaster, where somehow, according to liberals, Biden should get the credit for the withdrawal despite not being the one who got the withdrawal agreement and started the entire idea. But Biden doesn't get blamed for the disastrous way he withdrew, which is entirely his own doing, as he refused to start the withdrawal on the agreed date. He broke the agreement that was in place and gave the entire country to the Taliban on a silver platter. Then, he decided to withdraw anyway when the Taliban was already in full control of everything, including Kabul. He left billions of dollars of military equipment and hundreds of Americans stranded. He also refused the Taliban's offer for controlling Kabul until the withdrawal can complete because 'let's not negotiate with the terrorists!' which led to the actual terrorists, aka ISIS, being able to execute an attack, killing US soldiers. Every death is on the hands of Biden's incompetence. This was the biggest humiliation and failure of any US president in modern history. There's so much to add that you might have forgotten, but we are going to remind the voters that they will punish Biden for his incompetence in November.
This comment is hilarious.
Peace through strength only works if you are much stronger than your opponent. I doubt that Russia would have been impressed.
Then why did he keep us bogged down in Afghanistan for all four years of his presidency?
Almost like convincing an enemy you've been fighting for 20 years that you want to make a peace deal and then convincing the hundreds of tribal leaders and militia's of signing onto the deal while sides are fighting for territory isn't an easy thing to do and takes actual time, and yet Trump got it done until, of course, Biden destroyed everything.
The alternative has clearly proven to be much better. Whoops, maybe not.
So...Trump is great because he doesn't fight endless wars, and also he was right to keep fighting endlessly in Afghanistan? That makes no sense.
He didn't _invade_ anybody. He inherited messes from everybody else but at least he didn't make those messes worse, unlike Biden in Afghanistan.
Neither Biden nor Haley invaded anybody either, so I'm not sure how any of this is relevant.
Nulland literally started a civil war in Sudan. Biden's regime has propped up opponents to try and overthrow the Sudanese government.
Biden just threw a bunch of translators and office workers into the maw of the Taliban. He allowed said Taliban to guard the out perimeter of the airport in Kabul, meaning a suicide bomber was able to enter said airport and kill 13 American soldiers. And he gave us the immortal image of desperate and terrified Afghans clinging to the side of US jets and the subsequent footage of their lifeless bodies flapping in the wind.
>We don’t like Haley because she’s a neocon warmonger. No more forever wars.<
Have you notified the GOP China-hawks (which includes large swaths of MAGA) about this policy preference? Because to a man (or woman) they seem to be spoiling for a war with that particular nuclear-powered dictatorship over the issue of Taiwan...
Haley doesn’t support forever wars…nobody is as fucking stupid as Republican voters in 2004. Btw, who did you vote for in 2004?? ;)
Trump tried to start a war with Iran and did not leave Afghanistan when he had the chance. Some of what is going on in Gaza can be ascribed to Trump giving Israel everything it wanted. Haley is a horrible neocon warmonger and Trump is no better
Funny that it's Biden that is the only president who has actually ended a forever war in living memory. So I guess I know who you're voting for in November
More I heard people accusing others to be "warmonger" more I come to conclusion "warmonger" today means "everyone who's heterosexual".
"January 6 was a dangerous, radical insurrection that undermined the rule of law and the democratic process."
C'mon Nate. Your analysis is usually insightful and helpful, and I appreciate it. But you really hurt your credibility when say stuff like that.
The only real word to quibble with here is "insurrection" to me.
Was it dangerous? In the literal sense, yes. Some of those people meant harm, or were at least doing a very convincing job of acting like they were.
Was it radical? You'd have a hard time convincing someone this wasn't a radical event. It was absolutely unprecedented.
Did it undermine the rule of law? Much of it was absolutely illegal, and it broke multiple long-standing taboos with regards to how we accept the electoral process and the reverence we afford the transition of power in this country.
Did it undermine the democratic process? A good chunk of voters still think Joe Biden was not the rightful winner of the election, despite all evidence to the contrary. Those people have had their faith in American democracy shaken. I would call that some serious undermining. I guess it wasn't JUST January 6th that did this, but the whole post-election Trump crusade, but I think it's applicable.
You might need more than "C'mon Nate" if you expect any of us to know what you are talking about.
Well, I mean, come on! Calling a dangerous, radical insurrection dangerous, or calling it radical, or calling it an insurrection, is just...come on!
It literally was that. I live in DC. I was there. Get real fool.
If you are like most people that live in DC, you are the one that needs to get real.
Like, you know DC is a real city and not just the fed, right?
Are you joking? Or just dumb? Is your only experience about DC is through Fox News? lol.
Take your conspiracies elsewhere fool.
Flyover State Mark: "I can't form a cohesive argument, so I'll just say stupid stuff"
TDS is an actual mental affliction. These people have suffered terribly over the past eight years. Yes, we who are are awake are sick of listening to this noise, it is so boring. But the damage done to their psyches is real. Have some compassion for them.
"C'mon Nate. Your analysis is usually insightful and helpful, and I appreciate it. But you really hurt your credibility when say stuff like that."
January 6 was the culmination of a series of decisions by the Trump administration which actively and purposefully worked to prevent the lawful results of the 2020 election being enacted. Other acts in service of this include the organization of slates of false electors and the attempt to pressure Mike Pence to throw out the electoral votes of seven US states, the latter of which culminated in a mass of pro-Trump rioters breaking into the Capitol Building while chanting "hang Mike Pence," after being directed to head there by Trump, and only told to stop by him once one of them was shot and killed.
This is simply what happened. Even Trump does not deny these facts, only claims he was totally justified because 2020 was totally stolen, and also the President should be immune to prosecution for anything bad he does. The fact that it sounds "mean" or that you heard the term "TDS" used to describe it, does not mean it did not happen.
So much to debunk there. But one thing: Trump told people to be peaceful even before the riot. In his speech on January 6th, he urged people to let their concerns about the election be known "peacefully and patriotically."
Funny how Democrats always "forget" that.
> So much to debunk there.
Why don't you debunk any part of it, then? If all that happened was he gave that speech, and then when the protestors broke into the Capitol, he said "oh no stop" after 10-20 minutes, sure, whatever, go for your narrative.
But that's not all that happened. Jan 6 was the flashy part that makes for good television, but the real thing was the Eastman memos, the false slates of electors, and the very intentional and purposeful goal of preventing the lawful transfer of power. In such a context, Trump sitting on his ass for three hours as his loyalists edge ever closer to actually killing somebody has a very different connotation.
Maybe because I try not to waste my time with the indoctrinated.
BTW, alternative slates of electors are NOT a new thing. Democrats have done that in past elections.
"Maybe because I try not to waste my time with the indoctrinated."
All my political enemies are indoctrinated! Not me! That's why I don't have to talk to them, or come up with any arguments against their points! They're just indoctrinated, so why bother? Not even engaging with them is much smarter and makes me the least indoctrinated person ever!
I mean, I could have said this against your first post. I could have said it against this post. But I will engage with you as a fellow human being because I believe you are wrong and believe that you, like me, would like to believe only things that are true and not believe things that are false. Perhaps I am wrong, and you would rather believe things that are false. If so, simply tell me, and I can leave it at that.
"BTW, alternative slates of electors are NOT a new thing. Democrats have done that in past elections."
Yes. It would be totally fine to have alternate slates of electors for the circumstance where it turned out Trump won his court cases. However, he didn't do that. He attempted to use the false slates of electors, who had signed affidavits claiming they were the duly appointed electors from their states (they were not), to create ambiguity, in order to get the Vice President to throw out the electoral votes, as outlined in the first Eastman memo, steps 2 and 3:
"2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment – is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected."
It's a factual statement.
No. He would hurt his credibility by denying it.
care to actually articulate an idea instead of air a grievance?
Fact - Nate Silver couldn’t write an unbiased article about politics and the current political environment if his life depended on it.
Now, be fair. I've read good articles from him that avoid taking sides but just presents and interprets data. He's at his best when he does that. If he wasn't helpful on his good days, I wouldn't bother reading him.
Yes. And his interpretation of the data that is a mob of trump supporters storming congress in order to overturn a presidential election is entirely accurate and unbiased.
There remains a strain of the GOP intelligencia that write for the NYT, NRO and The Dispatch that yearn for a return to 2004. Thus, Nikki Haley essentially became George W. Bush in heels and revealed just how small that faction of the party truly is now.
The GOP changed and they didn’t. But it’s important to notice that Trump didn’t change the GOP. He exploited the opportunity, sure. But he honed in on what base GOP voters deeply wanted. A secure and functioning border and immigration process, the end of global, military adventurism and economic policies that focused on Americans, not necessarily multinational corporate juggernauts.
Trump is a weathervane. He hasn’t an ideological bone is his body. And perhaps once the Never Trump GOPers who have rendered themselves useful only to Democrats wake up and accept that Reaganism has run its course within the GOP, then they can propose candidates that speak more to their voters than the D.C. and Vermont crowd does.
Trump is the symptom, not the underlying disease. The failure to understand that is what's going to complicate the lives of the Dems and coastal elites for years.
It's a bit irrational to claim that "January 6 was a dangerous, radical insurrection that undermined the rule of law and the democratic process," as opposed to what it actually was: a protest that turned into a riot. But I realize that this irrational opinion is shared by many.
Objectively, what you had was an unarmed mob which stormed and paraded through the Capitol and then left after taking selfies and stealing some "souvenirs". How could this possibly constitute an "insurrection"? How could such a mob possibly threaten "rule of law and the democratic process"? Yes, they wanted Congress to refuse to certify the election, but so what? They had no power to impose their will on Congress, and plenty of people in the past have asked government to do legally questionable things -- including Hillary supporters in 2016 who tried to encourage faithless Trump electors.
Greenwald and Taibbi seem to have a much better perspective on this than you do, Nate.
Even if you wish to characterize wielding stun guns, pepper spray and baseball bats as being "unarmed", you're leaving out that over a hundred police officers were injured.
Sure it's possible to exaggerate the events, but if you are trying to be the objective one here, I think you're falling short.
What part of "a protest that turned into a riot" do you not understand?
That "riot" disrupted our peaceful transition of power. Something that hasn't happen in our democracy in how long?
The US has entered into a period of heightened political conflict. Comparisons with the recent past are meaningless. The times, they are a changing.
Exactly. And one of the most important ways in which the times are a changing is through radical and dangerous political violence undermining democratic process.
As compared to entrenched powers abusing existing mechanisms to target their opposition?
Way to dodge the question. Perhaps because you understand that's what makes it an attempted insurrection, not just a riot...
During the summer of 2020 numerous protests for BLM devolved into rioting and looting. Looting is after all the cry of the powerless. Same with Jan 6.
But the country is entering a period now of greater civil conflict, so recent history is not as applicable.
A lot of attempted coups are huge failures. The conspirators don't always have a whole army on their side. Instead they have a small number of allies, and they hope that they can inspire a whole lot more -- more protesters, more police, more soldiers, and especially more leaders. But it doesn't happen. None of the dominoes fall. Trump's attempt was pretty bad. But it wasn't insane either. A few Congress people here-- a few judges there-- a VP who does what he's told to do-- things might have gone differently.
As for the insurrectionists, I half agree. It was a protest turned riot for sure. But it was also a riot against democracy. And they definitely wanted the heads of our leaders, even if they couldn't control the government. They were just a bit too stupid to realize that you're not supposed to riot against the US government itself.
> How could this possibly constitute an "insurrection"? How could such a mob possibly threaten "rule of law and the democratic process"? Yes, they wanted Congress to refuse to certify the election, but so what?
January 6 was the culmination of a series of decisions by the Trump administration which actively and purposefully worked to prevent the lawful results of the 2020 election being enacted. Other acts in service of this include the organization of slates of false electors and the attempt to pressure Mike Pence to throw out the electoral votes of seven US states, the latter of which culminated in a mass of pro-Trump rioters breaking into the Capitol Building while chanting "hang Mike Pence," after being directed to head there by Trump, and only told to stop by him once one of them was shot and killed.
This is simply what happened. Even Trump does not deny these facts, only claims he was totally justified because 2020 was totally stolen, and also the President should be immune to prosecution for anything bad he does. The fact that it sounds "mean" or that you heard the term "TDS" used to describe it, does not mean it did not happen.
Greenwald and Taibbi are lunatics.
Nate is better than most of the people who comment on his posts. I feel like I'm the only straight white dude who sees, or cares, that the Republicans are coming hard after women, they are coming hard after LGBT people, they are going to eliminate much of the government and turn it over to churches, and they will come after the human rights and civil liberties of anyone who stands up against any of this. The only people who can stop this are other Republicans but they don't dare. Trump is not in control; his strings are being pulled by this movement. I don't think this is what a majority of Americans want, but they don't want what the Democratic party is offering in 2024 either so here we are.
Nate’s comment section is surprisingly full of foaming at the mouth right wingers, unlike the comment section of other centrist Substack writers for some reason.
It's because most (all?) of the Substacks you're referring to limit the comments section to paying members.
Many of them I wouldn't even necessarily describe as foaming at the mouth right wingers (although some are, and there are definitely some trolls). It's more that everyone else seems to ignore or minimize the issues I'm talking about, which is why I made the straight white dude reference, wondering if that explains it. Although straight dudes of color might not care either.
Well, Zach, if you think the most important issues are women having the right to kill their babies and children having a right to slice off their genitals, you should vote for Joe Biden.
Personally, I don't think either of those issues are particularly important. I would love to see something between a 6-12 week limit on abortions (just like most of Europe -- you know, that continent run by far-right, Christian-ethno-nationalists). It's not my preferred position, but in a republic, political solutions require compromise. And I think kids who can't get a tattoo shouldn't be slicing off their boobs.
Considering that more than half the country doesn't even go to church (only 20% attend weekly), I don't think you have to worry about "the country being turned over to churches." (https://www.statista.com/statistics/245491/church-attendance-of-americans/)
As for "coming after the human rights and civil liberties of anyone who stands up against any of this", have you looked at the behavior of Left lately? The threat to civil liberties today ain't coming from the Right.
Yeah, tbh I think basing the pro-Biden case (which is a very good case) around a defence of the progressive end of culture-war issues isn't necessarily the smartest idea. (Abortion gets decent support even in red states, but even then I think the median opinion is "abortion is sadly sometimes necessary, in an ideal world we wouldn't have so many unwanted pregnancies but we do not live in that world" rather than "abortion is a beautiful liberation from the patriarchy who want to turn us into baby factories". And youth gender medicine is something that maybe 0.1% of the population is qualified to have an opinion on, but everybody offers their two cents regardless.)
Nonetheless, in simple material/utilitarian terms, the plans a Republican Congress would enact here are somewhat frightening. I expected the overturning of Roe v Wade to cause Republicans to release they were on the losing side of this crusade electorally speaking, and to moderate their views accordingly (it's hardly the sort of thing their corporate paymasters care about, after all - as long as they get low taxes they're happy). But what instead seems to have happened is that, faced with opposition to its offering from the demos, the party has simply amped up its hostility towards democracy. The inmates truly are running the asylum.
It would be nice to have an alternative to the choices: "a 33 week old baby still inside mom is morally equivalent to a cancer tumor" and "a 1 day old zygote is morally equivalent to a toddler".
I think it was Sarah Huckabee Sanders in her response to the SOTU last year that said: "the divide in America isn't between Right and Left. It's between normal and crazy." There's plenty of crazy on both sides. But only one side controls essentially every lever of power in the country right now.
He believes it's the end of the world if the US has the same abortion policy as Sweden and Denmark. He wants the US to copy Communist Cuba and North Korea instead committing baby murder on demand.
Oh noo, they might stop showing kids gay pornography at schools if Trump wins, and women might have to compete against other women instead of men in dresses so horrifying!
When you actually break it down like that, it's amazing what the Left is hanging their electoral hopes on. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (not my favorite Republican) had a good line in her response to the SOTU last year. "Increasingly, the divide in America is less about Left and Right than about Normal and Crazy". (And to be clear, there's plenty of crazy on both sides, but 1 side controls every source of cultural power in the country.)
Republicans have moved to the left on basically every social issue, while Democrats have moved to the far left to compensate. Thankfully, it seems at least the former has stopped for now, while the latter meanwhile continues to go down to crazyville.
Almost every straight white dude I know in the blue state where I live thinks exactly like you. The fact is, y'all have an outdated view of the GOP and severely misunderstand Trump.
I left the GOP because of its resistance to gay rights and what I perceived to be a desire to impose their religious and moral views on everyone--even people on the other side of the world. That isn't Trump. Trump is a liar, a blowhard, and a so close-mindedly overconfident that he is ignorant of obvious things such that he appears stupid at times. But Trump isn't trying to convince Iraqi's and Afghans to adopt his political or religious values via war. He isn't trying to force you to act like him in your bedroom or control who you marry (I guess that would mean mandating divorce?) like the Bush-era GOP.
I don't like Trump because I want leaders who have principles and to hold themselves to a moral standard we can aspire to. I want leaders who set an example of what it means to be a great American. Someone who seems honest and trustworthy, even if I don't always agree with them. But I'm aware of no way in which Trump is anti-woman. And Trump is 100% in control of the GOP base...their voters believe everything he says, no matter how crazy.
Everything Republicans have done since Dobbs (and in Texas' case, before it) demonstrates that they have no ability to restrain or defy that wing of their party. It's the one thing that's killing Republicans politically, and yet they won't change it. So I see no reason it would be any different if they win the election and get full power. You'd expect it to be worse, because they'd say they have a 'mandate'. The Christian Nationalists - and people here like to make fun of that term but whatever you want to call them - are Trump's biggest supporters. They don't believe in democracy but in God's law. They tell Trump that God sent him. It's effective because Trump is motivated by vanity and narcissism. And if you look at all the policy documents Republicans are putting out, like Project 2025, and who would be staffing a Republican administration, it's those people. It's a very effective disguise for their movement, because no one believes Trump is like that. And I'm not saying a majority of Republican voters are even like that. What I'm saying is that's the policy outcomes we're going to get, and it will start with executive orders on 1.20.25. I would love to be wrong. But I'm seeing it with my own eyes every day.
Are you exclusively referring to abortion?
The country (and the Trump/populist wing of the GOP) are very pro LGB. DeSantis hurt himself in the primary by catering to the religious right. The country (especially women) are not on board with some of the recent activism for the letters after LGB in the LGBTQIA+ acronym. Medical interventions for minors and eliminating female-exclusive sports and spaces are particularly creating concerns among feminists.
They've made the most noise on abortion but their agenda is broader than that - against contraception, against no fault divorce, favoring public money for religious organizations, and yes against same sex marriage and adoption (or IVF) by same sex couples. I would disagree with your characterization of feminism even as I am intuitively more trans skeptical than most feminists. The Republican party is not able to accept that other people's bodies, and other people's families, are no one's business, because a large faction of their party is interested in restoring 'natural law', which is their code for their interpretation of their bible. It doesn't look to be able to stop them from winning this election, so we're all going to find out the hard way.
You are applying 2004 GOP to the modern GOP. There is indeed a wing (the Mike Pence wing) that basically agrees with the "every sperm is sacred" Monty python song, but they got throttled in the primary by the Trump populist wing. You probably wouldn't know this if you only listen to left wing news sources like NPR, NYT, NBC, CBS, etc, but immediately after the Alabama Supreme Court ruling about IVF Trump came out firmly that IVF must be protected. The Alabama GOP then immediately did his bidding to start working to protect it.
Seriously, the religious-hawk wing of the party (e.g., Ben Shapiro) really doesn't like Trump. They like him better than Biden, but they don't like him.
You seem intelligent and intellectually honest, and like you are a standard sane Democrat. I recommend Breaking Points. I listen on podcast, but it's also on YouTube if that's your bag. They are independent/non-partisan, but are openly biased and have strong opinions. The two main hosts are populist (one centrist, the other socialist) and on Wednesdays they have separate hosts-one standard lefty Democrat and one standard libertarian-ish Republican. They cover the news...no arguing...and provide commentary from their perspectives. Really great way to get "all sides" without partisan spin or annoying talking points.
Today's episode had all four (a rarity):
https://omny.fm/shows/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/3-6-24-nikki-haley-drops-out-refusing-to-endorse-t
The people hanging pride flags over the White House are confused about 'Christian nationalism.' How about your wake-up indoctination?
Also, you claim to care about women, yet you couldn't tell me what a woman is. You want men to go into women's sports and literally beat them up. You want to import millions of military-aged men from third-world countries unvetted.
Maybe you should watch less MSNBC you nutjob
Riots are bad. That doesn't make them insurrections. I wish people on both sides would admit that burning police precincts in MN, shooting fireworks at federal buildings in Portland, and breaking into/rioting at the capital are all unacceptable forms of "protest" that should warrant prison time.
Let’s not forget Antifa and BLM trying to storm the White House. Or the havoc they wreaked on DC during Trump’s inauguration.
I don't "really really" like him, I preferred Vivek or De Santis. But the insane hatred of the left for Trump, mostly for completely false reasons, can not be denied. You have been subjected to military grade propaganda. Because Trump fought against the Military Industrial Complex.
I find myself in the same boat. I was a very reluctant Trump voter in 2016, somewhat less reluctant in 2020 (the guy didn't start any new wars, which counts for a lot with me -- my how my standards have slipped). And I voted against him in my primary yesterday.
But I will vote for Trump in November. This level of venom on the Left is like nothing I've ever seen in my 50 years. The Democrats are hoping people will say "well, Trump has so many criminal cases against him that he can't be President". But a rival response is "gee, the Democrats have dragged us into banana republic territory; maybe I'll vote for Trump just to reign them in."
And for the record, I would never support a Republican president who tried to throw his Democratic opposition in prison. And before anyone says it, no, Trump did not do that.
Is South Korea a banana republic? Is France? Both have charged and found guilty former presidents recently. What are your feelings regarding the charges against Bob Menendez? Should they be dropped for fear that the FBI has a political bias against Democrats?
I don't know about you, but if politicians allegedly commit crimes, the legal system should be trusted to judge them guilty or innocent, the same as for any other citizen.
The problem is two-fold. There have been years of accusations against Trump, many of which have been determined to be based on false information and even knowledge that the people ordering the investigations *knew* to be false (Steele dossier). Secondly, at least some of the current accusations are nakedly partisan and obviously legal stretches that we should really hope are not accepted as valid uses of laws and courts.
If there are real legal cases against Trump, I'm okay with that. There have been so many false claims against Trump that it's hard to take the possibility of real ones very seriously, mixed in with the obvious junk. It's not hard for people to recognize that the prosecutors elected specifically on a platform of indicting Trump (without specifying any specific charges or accusations), who then indict Trump on novel legal theories, are not interested in good jurisprudence.
Take for instance the Stormy Daniels case. He is being charged with *not* using campaign funds to pay her off. The legal theory is that he should have used campaign funds to do it, not that he isn't allowed to do it. That's insane. Nobody thinks the situation would be better if he used campaign funds to pay her off, but they don't care.
I don't like Trump, but I like him being president a lot more than allowing partisan enemies the ability to make up charges against an opposing candidate in order to try to force them out of a race. That there may be legitimate charges mixed in with the obviously illegitimate isn't helping much, when trust in Democrat prosecutors is close to 0% among Trump's supporters.
Isn't the legal issue in the Stormy Daniels case that Trump paid the funds out of his business account and as a result took it as an expense and didn't pay taxes on the income used to make the payment?
of all the cases the Bragg's case is the weakest and yet the most frightening. He literally criminalized activity after the fact and if the cases succeeds no one is ever safe. I get not liking Trump but the precedents being established as resistance will last long after Trump has left the stage.
My feelings exactly. I'm not keen on Trump. But I'm even less keen on lawfare against Presidential candidates.
These are not great examples. Korea was a monarchy for 500 years until the Japanese conquered it in WWI. France is currently the "5th republic" today because the first 4 failed in spectacular and sometimes bloody fashion. Neither is a country I would want America to model it's democratic behavior on.
I agree with you that "no politician should be above the law". However, the law should also not be used to target people. That's what defines a banana republic. It's not just arresting former leaders; it's using the law for political ends.
3 of the cases against Trump are being brought by elected officials (from the opposing party) who ran on a literal promise to "get Donald Trump" (NY AG James, NYC DA Bragg, Willis in GA). That's not equal justice; that's using the law to target someone.
I have worked in real estate; no other person would have been prosecuted for Trump's behavior in NYC. And no other person ever has been without a victim (a monetary loss of some kind.) That's not equal justice; that's targeting.
"And no other person ever has been without a victim".
So what about DUIs? Do I have to actually have an accident to get charged? Or is simply being a danger on the roads enough?
I get that Trump's behavior might be common in the real estate world, but the lack of a "victim" is not a problem for me. If his actions helped destabilize the financial industry with shady loans, valuations, insurance, that should be enough.
Again, if it's common practice, fine, maybe not worth the prosecution. But, the lack of a victim is not a problem.
Perhaps it was unclear that I was talking about Trump's behavior, not any behavior at all. We have all kinds of victimless crime laws, yes, but fraud is generally not one of them. In civil court, bringing a case for fraud requires that you demonstrate a real loss to get standing. In criminal court in NY, everything I've read is that the statues Trump was prosecuted under are not generally used without a victim.
There is no evidence that Trump's behavior did or even could "help destabilize the financial industry with shady loans, valuations, insurance".
This isn't like financing a house. The actual process for financing a building (my own experience is with apartment buildings in CA, but any commercial building is pretty similar) is: 1) go to several banks and tell them what you think the building is worth, bring receipts or lease rolls or comparables to back up this valuation; 2) let each bank push back, low-balling the valuation so a higher loan-to-value ratio yields a higher interest rate; 3) negotiate until you find a bank willing to make the loan, or you don't.
Trump is being prosecuted (persecuted?) for step 1 in this list. But that ignores steps 2 and 3. The act of completing the loan means that every party involved (bank and Trump) was fine with the valuation. And the fact that the loan was paid off means no one was defrauded. Ergo: no crime.
All state Attorneys General are elected officials so in a sense what you're saying is that AGs can never hold a politician accountable for committing a crime because they'd just be "targeting" that person. Not pursuing legal charges when a crime has been committed - remember that grand juries were involved in the process of determining whether there was grounds to charge - is tantamount to saying that all politicians are immune to the law. Where does your line of argument stop?
Were those former presidents charged and prosecuted by their political opponents who ran for office on a platform of "I will prosecute [politician] for something."?
I understand your perspective. You legitimately think he is guilty of crimes. You honestly do not believe your motivation to prosecute him is political. Let me ask you this: If your favorite politician did the exact same thing would you want them prosecuted?
Consider a few facts:
-Many on the left, including VP Harris, contributed to bail funds for rioters that burned the minneapolis 3rd precinct. This makes ire over Jan 6th less credible.
-No one on the left advocated prosecuting Clinton for the blatant violations related to using a private email server and later destroying evidence.
-Most people in the center and the right see little difference between Trumps actions and those of legacy politicians more skilled at plausible deniability.
Now consider the real question: Is it really worth it to attempt to jail Trump at the cost of the perception that this is a political prosecution? Assuming he did actually break the law. Will the prosecution be a deterent of any kind? Are the consequencesof his actions (GOP loss of the senate? Failure of the GOP to secure a larger majority?) so bad that it justifies the risk of political prosecutorial retaliation?
I would argue no. Not unless there was indisputable evidence of 1st degree murder or quid pro quo bribery above 10 million dollars.
>Were those former presidents charged and prosecuted by their political opponents who ran for office on a platform of "I will prosecute [politician] for something."?
Have either Attorney General Merrick Garland or President Joe Biden called for the prosecution of former President Donald Trump? To the best of my recollection, they never have, but it's possible I missed it.
Also, for the record, I do not personally have an opinion one way or the other on whether Donald Trump has committed any crimes. I simply trust the FBI and the DoJ to conduct investigations and prosecutions impartially. If Comey's FBI decided that the case against Hillary Clinton wasn't strong enough to bring charges but the case against, for example, Anthony Weiner (former Democratic congressman from NYC), then I feel comfortable accepting their best judgement on that.
NY AG James ran on a pledge to get Trump.
NYC DA Bragg ran on a pledge to get Trump.
GA DA Fani Willis ran on a pledge to get Trump.
Joe Biden and Merrick Garland don't have to say anything when they have Democratic underlings who are happy to do the dirty work. Although I would suggest that calling your opponent and all his 70M voters a "danger to democracy" for years on end could reasonably be inferred equivalent to "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?" (Henry II)
I understand your trust of the FBI--i actually envy it. I used to share that trust. Unfortunately, the circumstances of the investigation of Trumps 2016 campaign--and the output of the two special council investigations resulting from it--killed that trust for me.
I don't blame the HRC campaign for laundering their Steele dossier to trick the Feds into investigating...those are the standard political dirty tricks all campaigns have done for 250 years. I blame the admittedly partisan FBI agents who pretended to believe the unsubstantiated allegations and falsified documents to obtain FISA warrants to wiretap political enemies. I further blame the overall FBI and its leadership for creating an environment that could allow such abuses.
Don't think the FBI deception is good because they were only using dirty methods to spy on the big, bad Trump, either. I've heard reporting that they've pursued left wing organizations they disagree with using some of the same shady tactics.
Most media is partisan. You have to read/listen to a lot of news to get both sides. That's probably why you haven't heard of the corrupt FBI practices (particularly Crossfire Hurricane and the FBI-planned Gretchen Witmer kidnapping plot).
1. You broke 250 years of precedent by trying to persecute a US president.
2. You are trying to persecute him over 'Le documents' something you literally excused Hillary Clinton for in 2016 despite her obvious guilt because it was an 'election year' Now your deranged lover Jack Smith is desperate to do everything to make sure these hoax trials are before the election so he can help Joe Biden.
3. Joe Biden is guilty of taking and illegally storing classified documents for decades. Joe Biden had no right to declassify anything while he was senator or vice president, and Hillary did as well, but Trump had every right to every classified document because he was president when those documents were taken under the presidential records act. Do you not find it even slightly disturbing how Trump is being persecuted for something that Biden and Hillary are guilty of but were let off Scott free for?
4. Liberals love to say, 'Nobody is above the law'; nobody is supposed to be below the law either; they are supposed to be on even footing, but apparently that doesn't apply to Trump; he must be guilty! ignore facts ignore reason, ignore logic! We must get Trump! or else, god forbid, the voters might get to decide who the president will be!
Worse, Biden was deemed too retarded to stand trial.
That prosecutor was a Bush Republican like the Trump appointee that appointed Mueller…why would anyone care about the opinions of Bush Republicans like Comey and Mueller and McCabe and Rosenstein??
He merely stated what everyone outside of DNC cultists can see that Biden has late-stage dementia
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy people like you now realize how awful Bush/Cheney were and how stupid invading Iraq was…but Trump simply continued the military policy of Obama for the most part. Once again, thank you for realizing you were a dumbass in 2004…just know you might still be a dumbass. ;)
Chow Mein, believe me, I have firmly come to terms with my dumb-assedness of the Bush years. :-) It's actually one of the reasons I'm so skeptical of our institutions today -- they lied for 20 years to everyone and faced no consequences. That realization has caused a real crisis of trust for me, and I suspect I'm not the only one.
Donald Trump isn't the answer. He might arrest the speed of our slide, but he lacks the attention span to change course. But he is apparently the best we can hope for in 2024.
you voted for never ending drone strikes and cementing corporate/government power with Obama. Be careful who you insult.
All I care about is our troops—you believed it made sense to sacrifice 800 of our best and brightest a year to slaughter Muslims on the other side of the world…I thought that was dumb. But Obama also reduced defense spending from Bush/Cheney levels and Trump and Biden have kept it at those levels.
and yet Americans are still getting killed overseas
Under 10 a year down from 800 a year under Bush/Cheney and 15 a year under Trump. And we are still killing terrorists overseas.
There has been much clamoring for us to adopt Rank Choice Voting. Well, in November, we're going to get it: two rank choices.
I'm a conservative and I actually loved ranked-choice voting. I think it's a great way to get more responsive politicians.
Between now and November, neither Joe Biden or Donald Trump will face any real threat. Ranked choice voting would fix that. Imagine being able to vote for Robert Kennedy first, and then for one of those two other guys if Kennedy doesn't make it. It's a great system.
Agreed. I do like Ranked Choice Voting, too. Just making a play on words.
Of course you love it so you can rig the election like in Alaska the most confusing and braindead voting system imaginable
What's confusing about ranking your favorite choices? My dog can do that.
Nate, the actual history of the word "liberal" is really interesting and deeper than the Enlightenment. I just covered this last week with my civics students.
"Liberal" was originally an insult. In Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, a young girl’s undeserving suitor is likened to a “liberal villain” by her family’s chosen fiancée. A liberal was "one opposed to the natural order", an agent of chaos. The natural order of John Locke’s day was feudalism and monarchy, thus he repurposed the term to signify opposition to this hierarchy of nobility. That quintessential liberal idea — that all are free and equal before God — resonates from Locke, through Thomas Jefferson’s “all men are created equal”, to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, asserting universal rights and principles based on in inherent dignity of each individual person. Locke didn't change the definition; he changed the world to make the definition desirable instead of insulting.
All modern political movements in the West derive from this "liberal" ideology. The only competitor was Burke, and there are few Burkeans today. Sohrab Amari and his few dozen strong cadre of Catholic integralists are the only ones I can think of.
Regarding Haley: this is what party realignments look like. The Democrats have gone all in for the educated and wealthy. Most of Haley's "moderate Republicans" are likely college educated and will end up as Democrats within a decade. The Republicans are trying to cobble together a working class party for the first time in 90 years. We're already seeing minorities begin gravitating toward the GOP on the basis of class and culture. They'll figure it out (likely) or die and be replaced with a party that does (unlikely).
Trying to read the tea leaves in the middle of such a realignment is pretty much pointless. I don't envy your job right now.
I blame demographic change. Working class voters of all races and ethnicities are migrating to the Republican Party and country club Republicans like McConnell, Romney, Lynn Cheney, and Haley are increasingly going to be a minority.
The idea of nonwhites migrating to the GOP is still mostly theoretical at this point, the narrative is highly overplayed. Trump underperformed GWB among both blacks and Hispanics, but he did significantly better in 2020 than 2016. And he did better than Romney -- who was admittedly running against a black man. Maybe in 2024 the trend will continue and he'll break new ground, but until then it's reversion to the mean at best.
I'd say the possibility remains very real that demographic change renders the GOP unable to win a national election after the Boomers are gone, if not sooner, even if it remains relevant within many states.
It isn't entirely theoretical at this point, but you're right that there's some wishful thinking.
However... the Democrats are attempting to marry the interests of the uber-educated and wealthy with those of the urban, non-white poor. That seems like a pretty tall order. Maximal individual autonomy and all of it's associated policies (open borders, free love, free trade, no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, transgenderism) works well for the former, but it has largely been a disaster for the latter.
Culturally, the urban, black underclass is conservative and religious. Hispanics even more so on both counts. When the urban minority underclass figures out that they have more in common with the white underclass than they do with the uber-educated... look out! It may be mostly theoretical now, but there's a reason the GOP is optimistic about it long term.
"When the urban minority underclass figures out that they have more in common with the white underclass than they do with the uber-educated"
I think there's a valid point that the Hispanic working class might someday converge politically and culturally towards the white working class. But it doesn't seem there's been much measurable progress since even the days of Reagan. If Hispanic migration to the US collapsed for a generation, maybe things would be different.
As for blacks, the distance is much greater. I live in a small city in the Deep South, near the Black Belt, have gone on numerous police ride-alongs in the city and the rural county, so I've observed a fair bit over the years. Take crime and policing. If a name like "George Floyd" or "Ahmed Arbery" comes up, the reactions of poor whites and poor blacks are going to be diametrically opposed. There's religiosity, sure (these days, much less likely to be reflected in actual church attendance among the poorer classes, white or black), but when the name "Jeremiah Wright" came up in 2008, the reactions were diametrically opposed.
On all these matters, the actual opinions of poor blacks continue to have far more in common with educated white liberals than with poor whites. And that's before we go down the road of affirmative action, DEI, etc.
I guess what matter is whether class or race is the defining cleavage of American society today. I hope it's class. It would be really sad if it was still race.
Well, as a society we certainly like to talk a lot more about race than class.
But I think the educated professional-managerial class is pretty cohesive. It doesn't have big racial divides. And what divides do exist are largely a product of the fact that a lot of nonwhite members of this class are immigrants or the children of immigrants; after another generation, the differences are basically gone unless you're in a social environment that goes out of its way to highlight or preserve them.
The divide between poorer whites and blacks is much deeper. They've been living alongside one another in some cases for 400 years while maintaining very distinct cultures, dialects, attitudes, and politics. Granted, slavery and the lack of legal equality exacerbated it for most of that era, but 60 years after Civil Rights, it's clear to me that the divide there isn't fading at nearly the same pace that the divides within the professional-managerial class are.
Interesting perspective. Maybe the PMC group is forced to work together more? Poor blacks and whites have similar lives and problems, but their lives are often geographically separated even if by only a few blocks. Maybe higher education and intelligence results in more openness? I'm not sure, but I think your point is both valid and unfortunate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/02/us/politics/trumps-support-among-latinos-grows-new-poll-shows.html
Yeah, the NYT/Siena polls are also showing Trump getting 3x the black votes that he did last time. I don’t buy it. That’s not just a big improvement, it’s something busted with their polling.
The magnitude of the shift of minority voters may vary from poll to poll but they're all showing Trump picking up more votes from blacks, Hispanics, asians, etc. Given that I would be very surprised if he doesn't do better with minorities across the board come November.
I can believe that -- but in all likelihood we're still talking about migrating towards the upper end of the historic range of minority support for Republicans. Not breaking out of that range. And all else equal, I'd expect the next GOP candidate to revert to the mean and do worse among minorities again.
If a Republican ever wins 45-50% of the Hispanic vote nationally, we'll have something interesting to talk about.
Numerous polls have shown Trump winning an outright majority of Hispanic voters.
As for the GOP reverting back to the mean: here's an alternative theory. Blue collar workers are migrating to the GOP regardless of color lines. Hispanics, who are disproportionately blue collar, are a very visible example of this phenomenon.
Yes. party realignment is happening. the Dems are all in for the educated and wealthy. the GOP is trying to rediscover the working class.
Still boggles my mind to think about it. Democrats shouting for handouts to upper class phd's for student loan debt relief, and Republicans wanting tariffs to create blue collar domestic jobs. Feels like up is down.
Yeah, I'm still wrapping my brain around that one too. Glad to see it -- I'm happy for the Dems to own the 20% of the country that goes to college and the GOP own everything else. But it's going to take some getting used to, and for people like me who are college-educated and upper-middle-class, my new party-mates are sometimes a cultural challenge. But I'll get over it. Besides, it's kind of fun being a class traitor. It makes me feel like a rebel. :-) Now I just need long hair and a motorcycle... or is 50 too old for that?
There are comments saying Jan 6 wasn’t an “insurrection”. I happen to agree, I think, that that particular word is maybe a stretch. But what’s clear is that Trump wanted the federal government to overturn the results of elections in the states. Imagine if Al Gore in 2000 went through all of the same motions. There’d be no doubt that he tried to steal the election. This is a case where the actual conduct is worse than media’s distortions of it. (And in Nate’s case, a very very slight distortion at worst.)
And the definitive study had Gore winning if a constitutional recount had been allowed to transpire. But what many people don’t realize is that most of the legal rationale Trump employed was developed in 2000/04 under the Bush/Cheney campaign. So I truly believe had Bush won the popular vote by 3 million as he did in 2004 while losing the Electoral College as almost happened he was prepared to blow up the EC and remain in office. Obviously Bush Republicans are very loyal and never talk out of line…but all of the evidence we have points to them taking that route in 2004.
Any data on the proportion of Biden voters on Super Tuesday that believe Trump was legitimately elected in 2016?
That would put the data in this article in perspective.
Now that would be a fascinating poll. Unfortunately, people can't be polled about past events. I think Nate pointed out that if you poll people today, 12% more of them say they voted for Biden than Trump in 2020, but Biden only won by 4%.
It's not a poll about past events: how many of the March 5, 2024 voters for Biden believed yesterday that Trump was legitimately elected in 2016?
McCain won Conservatives in New Hampshire because he won New Hampshire by a wide margin.
The question with Trumpism has always been if a cult of personality can survive its personality.
The modern GOP has become the Reddit conspiracy forum. "Every politician who I oppose (and their voters) is a baby-eating pedophile who needs to be destroyed."
It's funny - I did everything that the GOP of the Reagan/Bush era said was "the right way to do things": go to school, get good grades, avoid drugs, get a marketable degree, get a job, buy a house in the suburbs. However the GOP has decided that they don't want my vote and would rather pursue voters who are motivated purely by jealousy and resentment. That's fine.
Reddit is one-sided one-minded with deep infiltration by the feds in any subreddit that matters.
There's a minority of Trump voters - wouldn't even call them GOP - that are calling out the corporate media propaganda arm and those who follow it. The good old days have been washed and the ugly head of the corrupt uniparty is now more evident that ever before
What I - and I would reckon many voters like me - are looking for is the promise of some stability and order. This is not on offer from either party today.
Agreed. That was the promise of the uniparty in the last several decades. I would say that is still the Democratic party's promise, as long as the facade of stability includes foreign wars, printing money leading to inflation, and corrupt special interests writing laws in Congress. That system is so embedded, that the current options are either to accept it or disrupt it
Calling a riot...especially an unarmed riot...an insurrection is ridiculous.
The Whiskey Rebellion was an insurrection. Civil War was an insurrection on steroids
Misusing the term not only demonstrates a level of fantasizing in denial of reality that damages the perpetrator's credibility greatly, it mocks those who died putting down REAL insurrections.
January 6 was the culmination of a series of decisions by the Trump administration which actively and purposefully worked to prevent the lawful results of the 2020 election being enacted. Other acts in service of this include the organization of slates of false electors and the attempt to pressure Mike Pence to throw out the electoral votes of seven US states, the latter of which culminated in a mass of pro-Trump rioters breaking into the Capitol Building while chanting "hang Mike Pence," after being directed to head there by Trump, and only told to stop by him once one of them was shot and killed.
This is simply what happened. Even Trump does not deny these facts, only claims he was totally justified because 2020 was totally stolen, and also the President should be immune to prosecution for anything bad he does. The fact that it sounds "mean" or that you heard the term "TDS" used to describe it, does not mean it did not happen.
Sure it was.
No exculpatory evidence in all the hearings were allowed to be aired.
And that still wasn't 'coup'..
And claiming an election isn't a couple or insurrection, either.
Or if so, why are these ppl still walking free?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zHraZecxDkc
> No exculpatory evidence in all the hearings were allowed to be aired.
Such as? I'd be amazed to hear about this exculpatory evidence that wasn't allowed to be aired, since it seems like there's just a bunch of emails bouncing around between involved parties where they discuss the plan and then try to carry out the plan. Please, do share. I would love to be proven wrong!
> And that still wasn't 'coup'..
Well, yes. It failed. If it had succeeded it would be a coup.
> And claiming an election isn't a couple or insurrection, either.
No, but attempting to prevent the lawful transfer of power by extralegal and violent means is, which is what Trump did.
> Or if so, why are these ppl still walking free?
The indictment for the Jan 6 charges makes it quite clear Trump was fully within his rights to say that the election was rigged. What he was not within his rights to do was attempt to prevent the certification of the lawful results through a mixture of legalistic and violent means. If Stacey Abrams had tried to prevent her loss by a mixture of paper-thin legal theories and violent force, I would also support her being locked up.
A bloodless coup is still a coup. There was a fairly well thought out plan to undermine the transfer of power to the duly elected candidate.
Bullshit.
A made up non-coup is still a made up non-coup.
Changing the subject because I trashed your insurrection narrative is also simply changing the subject because I trashed your insurrection narrative. That's called a red herrings. Look it up.
fairly well thought out plan, you mean the dude with a hat or the Federal assets sho were salted about the place. IN that case things do appear thought out.
January 6, where the only death was a protestor shot by Biden's fascist cops, was the end of the republic, according to liberals.
But the BLM riots, where dozens of people were killed, billions of dollars of property damage was caused, and entire streets were burned down, were the'summer of love!'
She deserved what she got. And BLM has literally nothing to do with this kid.