Continued Trump Administration Fallout

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-05-2021, 09:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: As someone with his share of Nazis in his family history, I have to refrain from holding her father's sins against her. Also, I am more than content with her own sins anyway. She did keep her mouth shut and rose in the ranks of the party she now suddenly deems to be at a moral crossroads and in danger of going down a dark path, as if there were no signs for that in the years before. I have no sorrow for her whatsoever, and I don't really believe she is genuine; if she were, she'd be long gone.

A friend of my sister's grandfather was in the Waffen SS.  Sincerely nice guy, and he was a conscripted member, not a volunteer (I also get that age tends to mellow a person quite a bit).  So I don't, as I said, usually ascribe to the sins of the father.  Liz Cheney is different because I see little difference between her and her father's politics, just their power levels.
 

Quote:I feel she just made a strategic mistake and fell into a trap in these few weeks after the Capitol storming where many for whatever reason seemed to believe Trump is actually tarnished and done now. She saw an opportunity to come out ahead in that situation and jumped the gun with her impeachment vote and her oh so brave stance of being pro law and democracy and not liking Capitol storms. And now, after it became clear that Trump is anything but gone and everyone is back to lining up behind him to kiss His High Moronity's ass, she's stuck on a position no longer feasible within her party any longer.

There's definitely some truth to this.  I don't agree with the degree of Trump's influence going forward, but your position does appear to be the more correct at this point in time.

Quote:To say something nice, at least she's not Lindsey "I am sooo done with this now" Graham. She did not go full 180 and held her probably career-ending course instead, which maybe deserves some respect. I wouldn't go as far as to call it principled, because see above, a principled person would not be there in the first place, and probably also would not have gone down the "these Peter Strzok text messages might amount to treason and coup-planning" road.

I'd probably have more respect for it if she didn't have innumerable fall back positions.  It's easy to tale a stand, even if it's late in the game, when you have the family connections and wealth she has.

Quote:Btw. I wonder who is on that top three pieces of shit list of yours. I mean, Trump has to be on that too... right? Nixon? Just three seems so narrow so soon...

I'd honestly have to give it some thought.  For me Trump was, especially before the "Big Lie" way more bluster than substance.  I've made the point here several times that George W. was a far more destructive and dangerous POTUS than Trump.  I suppose whether he, Trump, appears on the list depends on how much you think his actions have endangered the US system.  Nixon?  Not even close.  He was underhanded, and certainly not adverse to skullduggery, but he was a brilliant man and a superb POTUS from the foreign policy aspect of the position.  Also, consider what a shitshow he inherited from Kennedy/LBJ.  While he certainly deserves much of the criticism he gets, he's not even close to top three IMO.

I'd put George Wallace in the top three.  He was so dedicated to racism and segregation that he basically made it a foundation of his "party platform".  He actually won 46 Electoral College votes.  To put it in German/Austrian terms, it's like a politician went closer to National Socialism than AfD, by a lot, and yet still won Anhalt, Thuringen, Saxony and Brandenburg.  John Tyler would certainly be in the conversation.  Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmond are some modern examples.  I'd honestly have to give it some thought, but I'd definitely put Dick Cheney and George Wallace in there.  But I also sincerely believe that Dick Cheney was the real POTUS for probably the first six years of the W. administration.  He orchestrated the deaths of hundreds of thousand, and destabilized a region to this day, with bullshit lies so he could enrich himself and his friends.  If there is a hell he's being spit roasted for eternity, and not with a stick, if you get what I mean.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-05-2021, 12:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Hollo, do you doubt that "truth and facts" played some role in Dems regaining of the the House, the Senate and the Presidency? 

I'd say the "needle" has moved quite a bit, enough to push a majority of independents and a fraction of Trumpists towards the light. 

The truth is pretty much already out; and more support keeps coming.

Trump's power in the Senate prevented his removal from office, but that's a result of minority control. It's not confirmation that "people don't care."  

It wasn’t minority control no matter how many times liberals repeat it. Talk about echo chamber nonsense.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-05-2021, 10:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It wasn’t minority control no matter how many times liberals repeat it.   Talk about echo chamber nonsense.

For a man who purports to be an intellectual, he sure engages in frequent gaslighting by talking points.  The Senate continues to function as designed, only people who hate our system because it doesn't currently favor them would have an issue with this.

[Dill]

(05-05-2021, 10:09 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It wasn’t minority control no matter how many times liberals repeat it.   Talk about echo chamber nonsense.

Sorry Mike. Upon review what I wrote sounds unclear and misleading. I was not disputing that a majority of Senators voted against impeachment.

Rather, I was referring to the fact that GOP control of the senate has enabled a party representing a minority of voters to set terms for the majority. That has been the case for decades, but it is more serious now that Trump has captured the party. That's why I said "Trump's power in the Senate"--his power, which flows from his control of GOP Senators' constituencies, negating their incentive to oversee the executive.

Republican Senators in 2020 did not represent the majority of American voters, right? 

As I understand it, the Senators who voted against Trump's first impeachment represented some 153 million Americans.

And the Senators who voted for impeachment represented 168 million Americans--a majority by 15 million.

[Dill]

(05-05-2021, 09:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: As someone with his share of Nazis in his family history, I have to refrain from holding her father's sins against her. Also, I am more than content with her own sins anyway. She did keep her mouth shut and rose in the ranks of the party she now suddenly deems to be at a moral crossroads and in danger of going down a dark path, as if there were no signs for that in the years before. I have no sorrow for her whatsoever, and I don't really believe she is genuine; if she were, she'd be long gone. 
I feel she just made a strategic mistake and fell into a trap in these few weeks after the Capitol storming where many for whatever reason seemed to believe Trump is actually tarnished and done now. She saw an opportunity to come out ahead in that situation and jumped the gun with her impeachment vote and her oh so brave stance of being pro law and democracy and not liking Capitol storms. And now, after it became clear that Trump is anything but gone and everyone is back to lining up behind him to kiss His High Moronity's ass, she's stuck on a position no longer feasible within her party any longer.

To say something nice, at least she's not Lindsey "I am sooo done with this now" Graham. She did not go full 180 and held her probably career-ending course instead, which maybe deserves some respect. I wouldn't go as far as to call it principled, because see above, a principled person would not be there in the first place, and probably also would not have gone down the "these Peter Strzok text messages might amount to treason and coup-planning" road.

Btw. I wonder who is on that top three pieces of shit list of yours. I mean, Trump has to be on that too... right? Nixon? Just three seems so narrow so soon...

Here's the thing, Hollo. McCarthy and others also condemned Trump, but when they saw the wind was still blowing his direction, they hopped back on the Trump train. Despite the same, repeated, chances to get back on the train, Cheney has not.

And Cheney's separation from Trump began much earlier than the insurrection, as a year earlier she condemned the Syrian pull out for the Kurdish lives it cost. Trump named her as one target for the mob he sent to Capitol.  That could also have motivated her to stay the anti-Trump course. 

In any case, now that she has stuck to her course, she is forcing the party to make a very public choice between Trump, the Big Lie, and cult of personality on the one hand, and the rule of law on the other.  That is what interests me about her Op Ed and the GOP internal contract. It is the issue and its consequences, not whether Cheney is a good person deep down inside. 

She apparently supported the birther conspiracy for a time. Add that to your Strzok messages. But susceptibility to conspiracy theories and unstable politics doesn't necessarily cancel decades of teaching that Republicans stand for principle and defend "conscience."  That she had a father I don't like and takes political stances I don't like doesn't mean that her rejection of Trump, especially after the Capitol insurrection, is not sincere, a matter of "conscience."  (We can't really tell because we don't know her up close, but I resist just assuming that people are insincere because their politics/judgment seem bad.) But I repeat, it is the public conflict she is provoking which I am interested in following and assessing, not whether she, personally is good or bad, or whether we should be feeling sorry for her. 

[Dill]

(05-05-2021, 10:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For a man who purports to be an intellectual, he sure engages in frequent gaslighting by talking points.  The Senate continues to function as designed, only people who hate our system because it doesn't currently favor them would have an issue with this.

Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation, or was it designed to require a supermajority? 

A guy who doesn't gaslight by talking points should be able to give me a straight up answer on that one.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-06-2021, 12:01 AM)Dill Wrote: Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation, or was it designed to require a supermajority? 

A guy who doesn't gaslight by talking points should be able to give me a straight up answer on that one.

No problem.  Please elaborate on what you mean by "minority rule" first.  You should be able to give a straightforward, non anecdotal, answer, I'm sure.

[Au165]

Keeping with the overarching theme of the thread. The partisan witch hunt in AZ is going as you'd expect, they are now searching for bamboo fiber in the paper because of an online conspiracy that 40k ballots were shipped in from China. The fallout part though that really matters is that the DOJ Civil Rights Division has sent a letter to AZ expressing concerns with the process and it potentially being illegal. Violations of these federal laws could put all AZ election matters under the oversight of a federal judge for the next decade...all because they are chasing ghosts for Donald Trump.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-05-2021, 11:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Sorry Mike. Upon review what I wrote sounds unclear and misleading. I was not disputing that a majority of Senators voted against impeachment.

Rather, I was referring to the fact that GOP control of the senate has enabled a party representing a minority of voters to set terms for the majority. That has been the case for decades, but it is more serious now that Trump has captured the party. That's why I said "Trump's power in the Senate"--his power, which flows from his control of GOP Senators' constituencies, negating their incentive to oversee the executive.  

Republican Senators in 2020 did not represent the majority of American voters, right? 

As I understand it, the Senators who voted against Trump's first impeachment represented some 153 million Americans.

And the Senators who voted for impeachment represented 168 million Americans--a majority by 15 million.

No I understood you, and it's incorrect.  They are not a representative body.

[hollodero]

(05-05-2021, 09:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A friend of my sister's grandfather was in the Waffen SS.  Sincerely nice guy, and he was a conscripted member, not a volunteer (I also get that age tends to mellow a person quite a bit).

The Austrian experience. Nice old former Nazi guys that don't seem all that evil. My world was full of them, it was quite confusing.

(05-05-2021, 09:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's definitely some truth to this.  I don't agree with the degree of Trump's influence going forward, but your position does appear to be the more correct at this point in time.

We'll see, maybe his influence diminshes still, with him being somewhat less present in the media and banned from social media. I think his heritage remains, and I am fairly convinced the Capitol storm was not his predicted downfall, but hey I so hope you end up being right.

(05-05-2021, 09:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd probably have more respect for it if she didn't have innumerable fall back positions.  It's easy to tale a stand, even if it's late in the game, when you have the family connections and wealth she has.

Sure, it also is easy for Romney after being so rich and beloved in his state for some reason. I wouldn't hold that against her as much as the fact that she did not stand up before and imho only stood up now out of expediency rather than genuine conviction.

(05-05-2021, 09:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd honestly have to give it some thought.  For me Trump was, especially before the "Big Lie" way more bluster than substance.  I've made the point here several times that George W. was a far more destructive and dangerous POTUS than Trump.  I suppose whether he, Trump, appears on the list depends on how much you think his actions have endangered the US system.

That seems to be the issue, yeah. I do think he was quite dangerous, in what he created, groomed and left behind (sure more through rhetorics than deed), which is a fanatic, hateful, anti-democratic base that stepped out of the fringe and now dictates the republican party. He laid the groundwork for dangers to come. I get your dislike for inept comparisons, but that is not comparing Trump to the more vile characters of history, it's comparing him to the people that prepared the climate for said creatures; that created an atmosphere, defined an electorate etc. Democracies don't fall in a day, and maybe not in a generation.
Or the spook just ends and Trump turns into a bizarre footnote in history. Sure hope it does.

I sure felt like writing a 10.000 page essay on how awful Donald Trump is, but I can see your point. Trump did not start a war, he did not cause mass casualties (one could argue his lieing about Corona can be tied to additional death, but that's a matter of interpretation) and that is indeed the one genuinely good thing I have to say about him. It's a big one, keeping your take on Cheney in mind. Which I agree with, of course, the Halliburton war can clearly be seen as a whole other level of evil and dangerous.

(05-05-2021, 09:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nixon?  Not even close.  He was underhanded, and certainly not adverse to skullduggery, but he was a brilliant man and a superb POTUS from the foreign policy aspect of the position.  Also, consider what a shitshow he inherited from Kennedy/LBJ.  While he certainly deserves much of the criticism he gets, he's not even close to top three IMO.

Well he was a crook, abused his power and from what I seem to remember, his tapes revealed he was quite the racist. I also seem to remember he played a vital part in porolonging the Vietnam war because he thought it would help him politically, but I could misremember the specifics. In my youth he always was the poster boy for the vile US president, but sure we're oversimplifying it. I can see what you mean.

(05-05-2021, 09:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd put George Wallace in the top three.  He was so dedicated to racism and segregation that he basically made it a foundation of his "party platform".

Fair, he held high office. In my mind I somehow restricted it to POTUS or VP.
Also fair, he was an awful human just until the end. Not that it redeems him, but the one thing I found out through the internet was that he seemed genuinely remorseful in his later days and had his share of apologies to the black community. And that he had an extraordinary amount of black people in his last Alabama government. Again, not that this means redemption.

Evilness is hard to compare it seems. Andrew Jackson ended so many native lives. Truman dropped two atomic bombs that by all indications didn't need dropping. Kissinger imho is an honorable mention, and then some. A list of three just is too narrow.

[hollodero]

(05-06-2021, 12:00 AM)Dill Wrote: Here's the thing, Hollo. McCarthy and others also condemned Trump, but when they saw the wind was still blowing his direction, they hopped back on the Trump train. Despite the same, repeated, chances to get back on the train, Cheney has not.

I did acknowledge that. It is a fair point, but I'd also mention that being better than some of the most spineless, dishonorable and sycophantic creatures I ever had the distinct displeasure to witness is a really low bar.

(05-06-2021, 12:00 AM)Dill Wrote: And Cheney's separation from Trump began much earlier than the insurrection, as a year earlier she condemned the Syrian pull out for the Kurdish lives it cost.

Yeah, sure. Color me underwhelmed.

(05-06-2021, 12:00 AM)Dill Wrote: In any case, now that she has stuck to her course, she is forcing the party to make a very public choice between Trump, the Big Lie, and cult of personality on the one hand, and the rule of law on the other.  That is what interests me about her Op Ed and the GOP internal contract. It is the issue and its consequences, not whether Cheney is a good person deep down inside. 

I get that. As for that though, I fail to grasp why that matters. They (exceptions barred) made that choice already multiple times, also in public, they do not shy away from making it again and I don't think it effectively means anything. I'd wager not a single mind will change through that.

I understand you didn't exactly attribute heroism to her, but I still feel it's worth mentioning that as of now, she isn't a hero and there's a tendency to idolize anyone who speaks out against Trump. I remember past instances there. Mr. Kelly was perceived an awful person as long as he was Trump's chief of staff; as soon as he got ousted and said negative things about his former boss, he suddenly was the honorable general that did as best as he could under the circumstances. John Bolton was a warmongering FOX person and the super hack with the super PAC, then he was in Trump's admin, but as soon as he was out and wrote his book, suddenly what he had to say was all valuable and interesting and he was the upright, principled guy that might undo Trump. Additional examples exist.

And I feel something similar will happen with Cheney. She stays course, will get lauded and disappear after a while, or she betrays your hopes and comes back on the Trump train. And either way, it will end up meaning nothing. Which, imho, is what this public choice or public conflict you mentioned will amount to. To meaning nothing, only to the Trump side winning this conflict once again.
But hey I hope you're right and I'm not, for sure.

(05-06-2021, 12:00 AM)Dill Wrote: She apparently supported the birther conspiracy for a time.

From my impression (I sure was looking for dirt to make my point) she rather failed to speak out against it as actively endorsing it, but that is kind of the point. I don't trust the transformative powers of a person that stood in silence through so many instances before.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-06-2021, 11:15 AM)hollodero Wrote: I understand you didn't exactly attribute heroism to her, but I still feel it's worth mentioning that as of now, she isn't a hero and there's a tendency to idolize anyone who speaks out against Trump. I remember past instances there. Mr. Kelly was perceived an awful person as long as he was Trump's chief of staff; as soon as he got ousted and said negative things about his former boss, he suddenly was the honorable general that did as best as he could under the circumstances. John Bolton was a warmongering FOX host and the super hack with the super PAC, then he was in Trump's admin, but as soon as he was out and wrote his book, suddenly what he had to say was all valuable and interesting and he was the upright, principled guy that might undo Trump. Additional examples exist.

You could throw Cohen and Anthony Scaramucci as well.  For many people in this country, the person you're conversing with included, it's not what you do or say, it's who you're speaking or acting against.  They're quite happy to engage in double standards as long as the "correct" target is being attacked.  The interesting thing is they are utterly blind to this hypocrisy, even when it's pointed out in real time.

[hollodero]

(05-06-2021, 11:23 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You could throw Cohen and Anthony Scaramucci as well.  For many people in this country, the person you're conversing with included, it's not what you do or say, it's who you're speaking or acting against.  They're quite happy to engage in double standards as long as the "correct" target is being attacked.  The interesting thing is they are utterly blind to this hypocrisy, even when it's pointed out in real time.

Oh yeah I could throw them in, and maybe some other names as well. I see the pattern and the hypocrisy you described, little surprise since I described it myself.

I however feel like adding that in this particular instance, that was not exactly what Dill was doing. He doesn't care as much about that/her/her motives as about the possible consequences her actions might have. Which is a fair point, imho. I sure don't have the same hope and beliefs as he does regarding those consequences, but I don't feel he was engaging in said hypocrisy in that instance.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-06-2021, 12:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh yeah I could throw them in, and maybe some other names as well. I see the pattern and the hypocrisy you described, little surprise since I decribed it myself.

I however feel like adding that in this particular instance, that was not exactly what Dill was doing. He doesn't care as much about that/her/her motives as about the possible consequences her actions might have. Which is a fair point, imho. I sure don't have the same hope and beliefs as he does regarding those consequences, but I don't feel he was engaging in said hypocrisy in that instance.

I'd agree, in this instance, in other's not at all.

[Dill]

(05-06-2021, 02:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No problem.  Please elaborate on what you mean by "minority rule" first.  You should be able to give a straightforward, non anecdotal, answer, I'm sure.

Sure, I mean what I told Michael in post # 24:  the fact that GOP control of the senate has enabled a party representing a minority of voters to set terms for the majority. That has been the case for decades, but it is more serious now that Trump has captured the party. That's why I said "Trump's power in the Senate"--his power, which flows from his control of GOP Senators' constituencies, negating their incentive to oversee the executive.

But you already knew this, having heard this argument before, and in greater historical detail, on the thread about Puerto Rican statehood. 

So the dodge is over.  

Now--Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation, 

or was it designed to require a supermajority?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-06-2021, 01:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, I mean what I told Michael in post # 24:  the fact that GOP control of the senate has enabled a party representing a minority of voters to set terms for the majority. That has been the case for decades, but it is more serious now that Trump has captured the party. That's why I said "Trump's power in the Senate"--his power, which flows from his control of GOP Senators' constituencies, negating their incentive to oversee the executive.

So, you don't like the US Senate functioning as designed.  Got it.

Quote:But you already knew this, having heard this argument before, and in greater historical detail, on the thread about Puerto Rican statehood. 

Quote:So the dodge is over.  

Now--Was the Senate designed so that a simple majority can pass needed legislation, 

or was it designed to require a supermajority?

Thank you for answering.  Now kindly direct me to your posts that complained about this "minority rule" during the four years of the Trump administration.  After all, the GOP held a majority of the Senate seats, how dare the Democratic minority stymie the GOP legislation.

[Belsnickel]

(05-06-2021, 01:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Thank you for answering.  Now kindly direct me to your posts that complained about this "minority rule" during the four years of the Trump administration.  After all, the GOP held a majority of the Senate seats, how dare the Democratic minority stymie the GOP legislation.

If I recall correctly, based on their complaints with the functioning of the Senate, it has been well over a decade since the GOP had a majority backing them in the Senate. Even when the GOP has held more seats, the Democrats were elected with more votes. That's what is being discussed as being problematic (though I don't agree with that being so).

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-06-2021, 02:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If I recall correctly, based on their complaints with the functioning of the Senate, it has been well over a decade since the GOP had a majority backing them in the Senate. Even when the GOP has held more seats, the Democrats were elected with more votes. That's what is being discussed as being problematic (though I don't agree with that being so).

Since total number of votes nationwide is utterly irrelevant in regards to the Senate one has to wonder what anyone arguing this is trying to achieve.  Unless they just want to tear down the foundations of our system of government.

[Belsnickel]

(05-06-2021, 02:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Since total number of votes nationwide is utterly irrelevant in regards to the Senate one has to wonder what anyone arguing this is trying to achieve.  Unless they just want to tear down the foundations of our system of government.

I can understand the frustration. When it is coupled together with the effectiveness of the GOP over the past couple of decades at their efforts to take statehouses and gerrymander the ever-loving-shit out of electoral maps, it has a demoralizing effect on the Democrats. I know it aggravates me to no end. However, the senate isn't supposed to be tied to population. We need to turn out efforts to the House and reforming that. We need more Representatives and make the number tied to population so that as our population grows we maintain a good level of representation instead of having the same number of Representatives we had when our population was one-third of what it is, today. But the Senate is fine as it is (though I do want to eliminate the filibuster).

[Dill]

(05-06-2021, 09:28 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No I understood you, and it's incorrect.  They are not a representative body.

Not sure what you mean here. Senators represent states as opposed to population. 

But equal representation of states is still representation, even if Senators are supposed to be "independent" of judicial or executive control and more "deliberative" than the House. 

But all states do include voters, and those voters elect the Senators, right? 

If Senators don't do what their voters want, they are generally not re-elected, right? 

And given that they represent states with very disparate populations, this means in principle that
on some votes, Senators whose states include a minority of American citizens could win Senate votes,
even if the losing sides states included a majority of the population. 

That would all be as the Framers designed, were it not for 1) the filibuster, which allows an even smaller minority to control
the process, thus preventing the passage of legislation by simple majority vote, and 2) the current situation in which a party places loyalty to person over Constitutional principles, such as the responsibility to oversee the executive.

Can you indicate where this transits from historical-political fact to "echo chamber nonsense."