Defiant Oath Keepers founder:18yrs in prison for seditious conspiracy

[Belsnickel]

(05-27-2023, 02:52 AM)guyofthetiger Wrote: History buffs should know it was Lincoln and the Republican Party that ended slavery. So why do the Democrats represent so many blacks?

History buffs should also know about the southern strategy.

[samhain]

(05-27-2023, 09:15 AM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: The next one is ALWAYS worse. How are they going to top “Literally Hitler” though? Literally Thanos? We shall see.

Or are you in the ratings and clicks business?

Or do you prefer Trump because you think his nomination makes whatever democrat is running that much more electable?

No.  I think Trump is massively incompetent and will appoint stooges to serve in his cabinet.  He'll also, (well maybe) only serve one more term.  Even if he managed to make himself president forever, he's still 80, so forever ain't likely to be long.  

Biden is less of a viable candidate for re-election every day, even vs Trump.

Also think Trump is slightly less of a culture warrior and ideologue than Ron. Trump has no real ideology. it changes all the time to suit his most current needs. DeSantis absolutely lives for culture war.

[Dill]

(05-26-2023, 02:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: Lot of words to say the founding fathers were fine with slaves being 3/5 of a person.  Or, as you would prefer, two out of every five didn't count as a person at all.

My apologies for over simplifying on a message board...lol.

How many free blacks were there in 1776?

So congrats on finding the exception to the rule. It only accounted for 95% of Blacks in the US at that time.

Same link: https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/legal/docs2.html

Nice to see people delving more deeply into U.S. history and reading the Constitution closely, 

though I'm not sure what sort of ship has been righted by a reminder that the 3/5s rule did not apply to "free" blacks.

ALL of the FF weren't ok with slavery. Hence the 3/5s compromise. That was one of the bitterest fights of the Constitutional Convention.

As Frederick Douglas reminded Americans in his 1860 essay on "The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?"--that's why words like "slave" or "slave insurrection" or "fugitive slave" don't appear in the Constitution. E.g., Article I sec. 9 refers to the "importation" of "persons" instead of the slave trade. Many or even most of the FF were embarrassed by slavery.

But a number also WEREN'T embarrassed and were always ready to secede or fight for that "right." That's why compromise was necessary, to keep the Union together. I would have accepted that compromise too--as a temporary measure; the Union held forth the best chance of eventually doing away with slavery (or so I imagine myself reasoning at the time.). 

That fundamental desire for and defense of inequality didn't end with the Civil War.  It sought new legal forms in segregation over the next century, and has continued since the Civil Rights Act in more residual forms, including Voter ID laws that "don't mention 'race.'" 

That residue is why, through most of my lifetime, the historical and legal interest in the 3/5s compromise has continued--not because failure to recognize its application only to unfree Blacks would be somehow grossly "unfair" to "free" blacks, who still could not vote in most states* and or otherwise enjoy equal rights.** 

It's a debate which, from the founding, has been part of U.S. "culture wars" between liberals and conservatives, if we understand those terms refer to positions on a political spectrum whose ground has shifted progressively***--not least by war and civil unrest--toward the liberal end. The current ground of primary debate seems to be over whether inequality still exists in institutional form (and even if it does, should anything be done about it), and that leads to debates over the history of law in the U.S., how it has historically been framed and reworked. That creates different emphases for interpretation, and interpretation for different goals. 


A good question for this thread might be the degree to which Rhodes and his "Oathkeepers" are a product of these differing emphases on what the Constitution meant for the Founders and what it should mean now. Oddly his organization is supposed to prevent a takeover of the government by an authoritarian leader, etc. . . . 

*Free Blacks could vote in NY if they met property requirements which did not apply to whites. They could vote in NJ until 1807 and in PA until 1838, when the right was rescinded, apparently as part of a scheme to send Black citizens "back where they came from."   https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/democracy-in-america/black-philadelphians-defend-their-voting-rights-1838/

**In all colonies at one point, free blacks could buy and own slaves, though. They had THAT right at least (exercised in most cases to free or protect family members). However in the North, they gave up this "right" as slavery was gradually outlawed by the beginning of the 19th century. Guess you could say "both sides" did it so "stop just blaming whites." lol  

***That's why MLK, whom "60s conservatives so vehemently opposed, is now often held up as a "conservative" by contemporary rightists, who still haven't actually read him.  

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-27-2023, 11:18 AM)samhain Wrote: No.  I think Trump is massively incompetent and will appoint stooges to serve in his cabinet.  He'll also, (well maybe) only serve one more term.  Even if he managed to make himself president forever, he's still 80, so forever ain't likely to be long.  

Biden is less of a viable candidate for re-election every day, even vs Trump.

Also think Trump is slightly less of a culture warrior and ideologue than Ron. Trump has no real ideology. it changes all the time to suit his most current needs. DeSantis absolutely lives for culture war.

Fair enough. I tend to agree with pretty much everything in this reply. Trump is like a dog chasing cars.

[samhain]

(05-27-2023, 11:53 AM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Fair enough. I tend to agree with pretty much everything in this reply. Trump is like a dog chasing cars.

People said for a long time that Trump being Trump both empowered and limited the GOP.  Many including myself also predicted that at some point, a candidate with his "platform" and fervent base minus his limitations would likely one day have a shot at office .  IE someone who actually understands policy and consolidation of power.  

Trump WANTS power, but is probably the least well-read POTUS in our history.  He wants to force things to bend to his will, and he thinks he can.  Part of that is his desire for power, but the biggest part is just plain lack of understanding of how government works.  Add in an unwillingness to listen to advisors that do, and he's a bit more limited.  He also tends to cannibalize aides and advisors needlessly.  I don't think Ron will be that stupid.

I'm not sure DeSantis is the final step in the evolution of the American far-right demagogue, but he's probably the next.  Frankly, his personality is pretty flat.  He lacks charisma.  He's ubiquitous and wields a ton of power in his state, but most Americans outside of Florida probably have never even heard him speak.  Trump was a household name for decades.  He has the understanding of policy that DJT lacks, but very little of the gravitas.  

I dunno if you've watched Succession on HBO, but they have a far-right president character that's very much in the nationalistic authoritarian mold.  He's obviously not a real person, but he's slick, charismatic, selective of his words, and extremely effective.  This is the guy that we haven't seen from the American right yet, but I suppose someone like him will arrive at some point.  

[Dill]

(05-27-2023, 12:51 PM)samhain Wrote: People said for a long time that Trump being Trump both empowered and limited the GOP.  Many including myself also predicted that at some point, a candidate with his "platform" and fervent base minus his limitations would likely one day have a shot at office .  IE someone who actually understands policy and consolidation of power.  

Trump WANTS power, but is probably the least well-read POTUS in our history.  He wants to force things to bend to his will, and he thinks he can.  Part of that is his desire for power, but the biggest part is just plain lack of understanding of how government works.  Add in an unwillingness to listen to advisors that do, and he's a bit more limited.  He also tends to cannibalize aides and advisors needlessly.  I don't think Ron will be that stupid.

I'm not sure DeSantis is the final step in the evolution of the American far-right demagogue, but he's probably the next.  Frankly, his personality is pretty flat.  He lacks charisma.  He's ubiquitous and wields a ton of power in his state, but most Americans outside of Florida probably have never even heard him speak.  Trump was a household name for decades.  He has the understanding of policy that DJT lacks, but very little of the gravitas.  

I dunno if you've watched Succession on HBO, but they have a far-right president character that's very much in the nationalistic authoritarian mold.  He's obviously not a real person, but he's slick, charismatic, selective of his words, and extremely effective.  This is the guy that we haven't seen from the American right yet, but I suppose someone like him will arrive at some point.  

Not sure Gravitas could apply to either Trump or Desantis, especially Trump.

The bolded is partly why. 

DeSantis might be scarier because he is more a "normal" politician whose Exec might not be a churning chaos of competent staff who are
dismissed or resign for ethical reasons, and replaced by incompetents competing for Trump's favor via willingness to suggest and
carry out illegal actions.

Ron, I think, would know better than to cite the Presidential Records Act to defend treatment of presidential records as private property. 

Problem is that Trump has been able to concentrate so many into his movement who cannot really tell whether he is breaking 
the law or not, or don't care. What "charisma" he has is their projection, and "normal" looks RINO to them.

[Dill]

(05-26-2023, 12:14 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That's what is wacky about it.  I'm not the most educated on this board when it comes to history or the government, but it seems to me like this whole electoral college and "you can get fewer votes and still win" thing is defended as being a means for the minority to still have a say and maintain a democracy.  Well, that minority wants us to NOT have a democracy now, so....help?

Or is this just the way it goes?  I can't imagine the founding fathers wanted a system where 3 out of 10 Americans wanting authoritarianism would have to be so frighteningly enforceable.

Last Tuesday night I found myself at a potluck dinner debating the Electoral College with a PolySci professor from our local college. She's a good friend but we go round and round about this whenever it comes up. 

She is AGAINST the EC and I am FOR it. The difference is I want to preserve more of state sovereignty, to keep that check on our federal system. She thinks we don't need to do that anymore because we are not "attached" to states the way early Americans were.  Having grown up in rural Western states, I'd not be happy to see them rolled over by CA and NY. She's fine with that, apparently, if they have less people. But I share her concern. Why should 20% of the population or potentially less get to force its beliefs on the country?

She thinks ending the EC will solve the problem of Trump and like politicians winning elections, but I don't think it will. Clearly Republicans would lose, but the battle to take away state power would get very bloody, I think. And I think it dangerous to our democracy to regard states as we do county/municipal governments in a single state. They need more power than that to balance/defend their interests at the national level.

Also, I reminded her of the convention debates which put forth the various plans regarding Congressional representation, which resulted in our current bi-cameral legislature. They were a solution which fixed a serious problem, and I don't see the gain in unfixing it.

Far more concerning to me is the anti-democratic and delegitimizing force of RWM. It's thanks to them that politics is now more about identity than policy.  That's why MAGA supporters are unlikely to vote for any Democrat because s/he offers better (workable) policies (e.g., regarding immigration or health care, including abortion, or trade with China); the power to "see" the policy separate from party is gone, as is the desire to hold politicians of both sides to the same standards. Impossible to do if the RWM can convince masses of people that crimes committed by their guy are not really crimes, that the other side is really committing the crimes their guy is accused of, and that they should self-censor by ignoring "fake news" which includes legal backstory and a more complete factual record.

[samhain]

(05-27-2023, 04:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Not sure Gravitas could apply to either Trump or Desantis, especially Trump.

The bolded is partly why. 

DeSantis might be scarier because he is more a "normal" politician whose Exec might not be a churning chaos of competent staff who are
dismissed or resign for ethical reasons, and replaced by incompetents competing for Trump's favor via willingness to suggest and
carry out illegal actions.

Ron, I think, would know better than to cite the Presidential Records Act to defend treatment of presidential records as private property. 

Problem is that Trump has been able to concentrate so many into his movement who cannot really tell whether he is breaking 
the law or not, or don't care. What "charisma" he has is their projection, and "normal" looks RINO to them.

No doubt on gravitas.  Don't know why I typed that.  Meant to say gravity.  

[GMDino]

Since this relates to January 6th:

Back the Blue!

Trump calls the cop who shot Ashli Babbitt (who happens to be Black) a "thug" pic.twitter.com/hP4IIdcmMS

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 1, 2023

 

Er...wait...