Imho, here's the scary thing.

[hollodero]

Sorry in advance - this is lengthy. I do this thread partly because folks ask me what are you doing here, why do you care about Trump and all that, don't you have your own country to worry about? Which I guess I do. I also think that my country's fate is out of our own hands though, so I rather focus on the big ones than care about our own 8-million-people petty topics.

But mostly... your democracy is scary. And what scares me the most is not so much Trump. Trumps exist, they exist here, we just laugh at them and do not elect them really. The scary part is the political surrounding. And since this is not systemic on both sides (believe what you might, but I deem leftist Trumpism impossible), I will say it's specifically the GOP that scares me, short and simple.

As I see the current state, everything seems in place for the rise of an authoritarian from the right. There's not much counterweight, and I see test balloon after test balloon pass. Which starts with "little" things that are forgotten after a few hours now. Like Trump suggesting the Guatemala prosecution model for Adam Schiff. Is that neglectable? I don't know, I just figure what would have happened if Obama had said something like 'Guatemala is terrific, they would handle a treasonous nuisance like Boehner much tougher', and outrage would have been guaranteed. Not just from "the right". Also from folks like me. But now, it just passes. And it's annoying if folks even talk about things like that, which indeed are far from being singular. Don't be so obsessed, ey?

And sure enough, there are more severe test balloons that pass. You can now openly call FBI agents that dared to investigate you on solid grounds "scum". No counter from those GOP guys, but actually affirmation, yeah they are scum! They are dishonest people! They have "secret societys"! You can openly choose Putin's word over your own intelligence, and you can lie to the public about a foreign propaganda matter of highest national security interest, and that's totally ok. Ah, what nuisance are folks that still talk about that. You can call the media the enemy of the people, and how many republicans would dare to disagree? A handful, that's how many, and they are all gone now. Then you can actually extort other countries, Qatar and Ukraine, to sell a scyscraper or to get manufactured dirt on an opponent. You can surpass the security clearance system for your family members, and who cares. You can call a national emergency and use it to funnel money around or increase tariffs or do other measures yet to be testballooned, just plainly outplaying Congress and its power. You can run your business on the side and mix these two things, ah what gives, emoluments schmemoluments. You can turn a formally more or less independent DOJ into a president's defense council that then acquits a president from any wrongdoing. It also launches investigations into some helpful, just totally unfounded allegiations and smears and into the investigators, ah well that's what a DOJ does now, let "justice" be served to the president's enemies. You can call them traitors for being opposed to you, yeah that's punishable by death, you can stand by the term still, no protest from non-traitors there. You can openly admire the most brutal dictators for keeping their people in line, great men, lovable men, if they talk folks actually listen and obey (or get killed in masses, but hey, the result's the important thing), and even there's no relevant objection for folks are too busy to read out Lisa Page's private messages for the 21.000th time instead. You can actually walk around and argue that you can do anything as a president and have your lawyers argue that this very much includes shooting people on the street, and silence. Hey, also I can pardon myself, anyone opposed on my team? Thought so. You can actually break the law (like trying to obstruct justice a dozen times) and not be indicted because DOJ policy. Who can possibly accuse such an important man of wrongdoing, as if he were not above the law? That would be civil war, yeah, tell your supporters that! You can send your "lawyer" around to actually oppose anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine and run dirty campaigns against highly merited ambassadors with some corrupt Ukrainian, ah everyone does that, Rudy's a hero and just swell! You can call an impeachment procedure a hoax and illegitimate and a treasonous coup, hence you're no longer bound by the constitution to accept it as a constitutional process, and can get away with it. Your friends follow the logic that the constitution should only apply at a president's pleasure. You can attack the judiciary and actually believe the SC is now loyal to you, and who minds that. Who knows, maybe they are. If not, scold them at rallies as rogue and unamerican. Maybe folks figure that you actually do not have to obey them at all. Who are their enforcers really? Maybe some folks I can fire? Sweet!

And the whole party stands behind you. Fair process in the senate? There laughs a turtle, and also all the Grahams, pah most certainly not. We don't even bother, we don't even look, we just acquit! Like the Corleone family acquitting the Godfather. And that's good enough, right? Topic's solved, president exonerated, get over it. Just hand us the whistleblower's identity, will you? His evidence might be fully collaborated, but the president wants his wrath, his protections should be gone, hey might be someone who voted for Hillary, right? A never Trumper maybe even! Who would even look at evidence from such a person.

Then you have a real, wide-reaching propaganda tool - not just a "biased news network" (they probably all are to some extent) or biased hosts, but an actual propaganda tool that does your bidding no matter what. Including creating an alternative reality with alternative facts. And a critical mass of uncritical people who swallow the talking points without further review. People that get radicalized. And that is the right term, when Trump and his propaganda aides (whom he obviously calls every other night) tell them how liberals kill newborn babies or rig elections or are, well, human scum, enemies, terrible human beings, should be locked up or whatever, and the mass turns frantic in these or thousand other instances. And this mass of people - who I do not call conservatives - has a grip on every GOP senator it seems. They cannot stand up, they can just go along or resign/be primaried, they are trapped. And as of now, they are committed, for without Trump they are now done as well. Without base support? Well conservatives might still go for you, how could they go liberal instead, but they also go with the new more loyal guy. So in the end, you either back Trump unconditionally or you're gone. That is the simple reality that seems to apply to everyone (but Romney, maybe).

And so it seems everything would be in place. Can Trump take advantage? Maybe not. Maybe he's just too clumsy, lacks intelligence and vision beyond his overboarding narcissism to see what really is wrought here, maybe just stumbled into this situation without much of a master plan. He's no Machiavelli, no Mussolini, he's rather a Nero really. But the next guy might be different. He might be smarter, might have seen what I saw, might understand the possibilities. Because. You are a right-wing populist with the FOX masses behind you, then you can actually overcome all norms now. You then can go to overcoming certain laws even, bit by bit, piece by piece. You got pretty much unwavering support in the senate, right? So why even accept institutions like your own law enforcement if you don't like their facts. Disempower them and call them enemies of the nation! And why not actually rig elections like Turkmenistan does, not just by smears and propaganda (how stupid to try to get Zelensky to do an announcement on CNN, when just letting FOX report on Biden crimes would be just as good?), but also by shutting down some booths that do not quite turn out favorable results, temper around with the machines a bit or at least let Russia do it (they already tried, and all safeguards against that are put at rest), maybe a bit of intimidation, maybe tell folks they should block some liberals from voting... or maybe just not accept the results, hey will Lindsey or anyone really tell him he has to obey "rigged election laws"? If it helps him keep his seat on the table especially? Maybe you then could keep strengthening the executive and gradually shut down checks and balances. Through loyalists or through denying other branches their constitutional rights. You could surpass Congress, rule with emergency laws, I feel you could do all of that now without much resistance. The "left" sure would mind, but you can vilify them beyond relevance. Never forget, they kill babies and want America to be sold out to globabists and overrun by Mexican gangs, they hate the US, they hate you, never forget. Even those more sophisticated will gladly call them obsessed and deranged.
So yeah, you can do it. You can actually turn the US into a de facto dictatorship and the pathway seems wide open. And the patterns are visible. The rhetorics sure are already in place, the perspectives, like claiming an attack on Trump is an attack on the USA and all Americans, and all those really classical authoritarian lines, too many to list them. And the loyalists in power, folks that would have cleared Nixon without hesitance.

So now what I'd want is someone telling me I'm just hysterical, nothing I said is really relevant, Trump's just an asshole and that's that, all will go back to how it used to be and democracy is still strong. Because I can not believe that and I'd deem the 2020 election pretty much the last chance for a reversal. And as of now, I can't be certain at all that 2020 is still a fair election, or that Trump were actually to go away if he lost. And because all of that, I am scared.

And yeah, my country does not provide that kind of chilling popcorn drama. It's actually scary entertaining. That's why I'm here. If you want to get rid of me, vote democrat. (Not that I like them, they are just the one democratic party still.)

[Dill]

(12-23-2019, 01:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: So now what I'd want is someone telling me I'm just hysterical, nothing I said is really relevant, Trump's just an asshole and that's that, all will go back to how it used to be and democracy is still strong. Because I can not believe that and I'd deem the 2020 election pretty much the last chance for a reversal. And as of now, I can't be certain at all that 2020 is still a fair election, or that Trump were actually to go away if he lost. And because all of that, I am scared.

And yeah, my country does not provide that kind of chilling popcorn drama. It's actually scary entertaining. That's why I'm here. If you want to get rid of me, vote democrat. (Not that I like them, they are just the one democratic party still.)

A very thoughtful post, and deserving of serious response. 

I am sorry that I cannot tell you that you are "just hysterical." Much of what you said is actually relevant. I am scared too.  Like you, not so much because of Trump, but of what he symptomizes--the issues which brought him to power will not go away, even if loses the next election or otherwise leaves power.  The alternative facts machine will remain in desperate war against liberal elites and the "unelected bureaucrats" of the deep state. A significant portion of the population will still lack any real means of evaluating US foreign policy beyond its role in prepping for the imminent millennium. The power to cast the most neutral and informed analysis as hate-driven personal attack on Trump's base will remain with Hannity et al.

I can, however, offer what I think a more inclusive assessment of the current conjuncture, marking "test balloons" which have failed.  Start with the fact that Anti-Trumpers have always been the majority of voters, and their numbers are increasing.

Then the 2018 elections, which saw the House return to the Dems, where they have begun extracting some accountability from Trump AND the GOP, limiting their ability to quash or fail to launch investigations from inside the government, while drawing their criminality into the forum of public debate, and impeaching a president even as he is credited with the lowest unemployment rate since WWII.

Also, cracks within Trumpdom--the recent Christianity Today editorial, signalling the displeasure of white male evangelicals (still rooted in the alternative worldview) for whom the vulgarity and immorality of Trump have finally become too compromising. (Evangelicals of color and some Evangelical women rebelled two years ago.) Trump support in the military is decreasing in small increments, as people in harm's way, and their families at home, grasp the uninformed and random character of the C-in-C's judgment, be it in abandoning their battle brothers, the Kurds, calling out and then backing down from Iran, or superceding the military's own judgment of improper conduct to elevate war criminals into heroes. Some who once heard tough talk from a "strong" leader now ponder the consequences of ignorantly and uselessly squandering US credibility abroad.

Finally, and this relates more to the future, the increase of Trump's power increases his accountability and that of his GOP supporters in ways that stress their capacity to construct alternative narratives to the "Fake news" accepted by the rest of the world. GOP leaders do public about-faces to support conspiracy theories and defend erratic, contradictory WH pronouncements. The exhausting, non-stop scandals involving the FISA warrants, the Bidens, and Ukraine are always, Benghazi-like, just days away from the revelation which will finally take down the criminal Dem/Obama/Hillary party and confirm the Trump base's decision to ignore the "Fake news." The constant postponement may foster exhaustion and disinterest in "both sides," but in the long run, it creates a desire for stability, for emotionally steady political leaders whose public statements are filtered through ethical norms and who respect their own intel services--not the bombast of demagogues. 

I'm of a mind that if Trump is not impeached or "25th-ed" over the next year, he will not be re-elected. Even if he is, I still don't see us heading for the kind of Preussenschlag that could set up true dictatorship.  My one caveat is that, should the US be plunged into a serious war, one with the capacity to, say, threaten the US with real, perhaps nuclear, damage, then all bets are off. (Pretty sure Trump sees this too.) I do not know how that would play out with a frightened population, a segment of which has proved unusually susceptible to right-wing disinformation.  

[hollodero]

(12-23-2019, 04:29 PM)Dill Wrote: I can, however, offer what I think a more inclusive assessment of the current conjuncture, marking "test balloons" which have failed.

Thanks, you got me.
At this point, let me apologize for not addressing and quoting everything you said. Doesn't mean I do not appreciate the parts I do not quote. Just, length.

(12-23-2019, 04:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Start with the fact that Anti-Trumpers have always been the majority of voters, and their numbers are increasing.

Are they though? I mean, yes, they are the majority. And if you would actually not use the travesty of a fair election that is the elector... but ok, I do not want to open that barrel again. Just, a majority means little. And are their numbers really increasing? Because every time I catch an approval poll, Trump is around 40. He was in the beginning, he is now, and after the 9th breaking news that he is now at 38% and everything falls apart now I kind of lost faith in that. He seems steady to me, from start to now, and that was enough the last time around.

I mean, maybe there is an increase. But what exactly proves that?

- And then I see (as do you) some kind of a bigger issue, and it seems like another one that just fell into Trump's lap without much genius of his own. It's voter disenfranchisement.
And sure that starts with voting on a workday and yet having these long lines everywhere, that simple visual test alone is kind of absurd to European eyes. That is obviously, willfully or not (but probably not not) designed to keep the working poor away. And then there is some more sophisticated stuff to suppress certain votes, you sure know more about it than me.

(12-23-2019, 04:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Then the 2018 elections, which saw the House return to the Dems.

Sure. But the senate is the chamber that is more relevant. To put it bluntly, the House and all their investigations can be screwed over, and McConnell does just that. Having a senate without a GOP majority seems way tougher to come by. Because you have two senators per state and there is that damn barrel again. But it seems somewhat likely the GOP majority is there to stay.

And to conclude, I might sound like a lunatic and would have called myself that four years ago, but I do not see fair elections as a guarantee. Manipulations happen in other countries, they can be pulled off, and your system is, honestly, an awful mess as it is and likely quite susceptible. And it was already attacked by Russians. Most likely in all 50 states. You are all astonishingly chill about that one.

(12-23-2019, 04:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Also, cracks within Trumpdom--the recent Christianity Today editorial

Yeah, there's that. Also, 200 evangelical leaders already pushed back. Now I do not know what 200 evangelical leaders' voices are worth, but I do get that Christianity Today reaches around 260.000 readers, and that is not that awfully much. Sure, it might be a crack, but as of now it might just be a detail that just gets major attention through false hope.

(12-23-2019, 04:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Trump support in the military is decreasing in small increments

Good. I get the reasons, and these seem like considerations that might occur. I wonder though if a lifelong republican military vet really could ever not be a lifelong republican. That seems a step that is just too steep for many.
I don't know. I don't want to be just negative, but I can see some staying home, but that's that. Sure, my assertion stems from very little observation from very far away and means nothing. But then again, Trump's approval is stuck at 40 and there's a reason for that.
And military leadership? They can be fired. I don't see any meaningful resistance coming from that corner (and at least in some sense, thankfully so).

(12-23-2019, 04:29 PM)Dill Wrote: Finally, and this relates more to the future, the increase of Trump's power increases his accountability and that of his GOP supporters in ways that stress their capacity to construct alternative narratives to the "Fake news" accepted by the rest of the world. GOP leaders do public about-faces to support conspiracy theories and defend erratic, contradictory WH pronouncements. The exhausting, non-stop Benghazi-like scandals involving the FISA warrants, the Bidens, and Ukraine are always just days away from the revelation which will finally take down the criminal Dem/Obama/Hillary party and confirm the Trump base's decision to ignore the "Fake news." The constant postponement may foster exhaustion and disinterest in "both sides," but in the long run, it creates a desire for stability, for emotionally steady political leaders whose public statements are filtered through ethical norms and who respect their own intel services--not the bombast of demagogues. 

I get what you're saying. And I totally disagree. Meaning, I really do not see it like an increasing challenge at all. On the contrary, it seems to get easier by the day. Some years earlier, one could see folks actually stumbling to get facts and Trump together. Right now, they (meaning the GOP politicians and pundits) just don't do that any more. They just say whatever and don't care about a bewildered interviewer or a bewildered half of the public. As if they had noticed they don't have to.

I don't see it getting harder at all. They could do that all day. McConnell as a stimulating intellectual challenge probably, the others possibly with the increasing sense that those who know better might just not matter. The sky is red! Doubters are biased! Message delivered. Next!

Why GOP supporters can go along with all their heart, that one is still one of the bigger conundrums for me. American tribalism is beyond anything I ever experienced here.

[Dill]

(12-23-2019, 05:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: Dill Wrote: ... the increase of Trump's power increases his accountability and that of his GOP supporters in ways that stress their capacity to construct alternative narratives to the "Fake news" accepted by the rest of the world.

I get what you're saying. And I totally disagree. Meaning, I really do not see it like an increasing challenge at all. On the contrary, it seems to get easier by the day. Some years earlier, one could see folks actually stumbling to get facts and Trump together. Right now, they (meaning the GOP politicians and pundits) just don't do that any more. They just say whatever and don't care about a bewildered interviewer or a bewildered half of the public. As if they had noticed they don't have to.

I don't see it getting harder at all. They could do that all day. McConnell as a stimulating intellectual challenge probably, the others possibly with the increasing sense that those who know better might just not matter. The sky is red! Doubters are biased! Message delivered. Next!

Why GOP supporters can go along with all their heart, that one is still one of the bigger conundrums for me. American tribalism is beyond anything I ever experienced here.

Well I think you cannot say it's getting easier by the day if "saying whatever" before a bewildered public has finally lost the GOP the House and enabled a vote to impeach. Had Trump never tweeted and listened to his better advisors, his approval might be over 50% per cent now and the election locked.  And yet he has learned nothing from that. He is not done alienating voters and stressing his own party--not by a long shot.

To rephrase what I said above, to CENTER the GOP's power in Trump's unethical and incompetent person of Trump--which is what we see happening now--increases both his accountability and his party's by reducing the number of people who can be blamed for errors, and increasing the number who can be blamed for kow towing to bad judgment.

E.g., suppose it is Trump's judgment, not McConnell's, that finally determines whether the Senate trial will call witnesses and introduce primary documents, and that while Rudy and the DOJ are working disable Trump opponents. That makes it pretty clear to real independents how 1) power formerly distributed across the party has now become wholly concentrated in one man with the power to punish, and 2) how that concentration undoes the autonomy of institutions like the Senate and the DOJ, eliminating their independent power to check.

You are quite right to see in the tendency to craven submission an enabling of authoritarian power, and to see that it is increasing within the party. But I think it wrong to suppose all this has no counter effect, does not create a number of resistance points both within and without both party and government.  All GOP voters are not going along with this--including those members of the "deep state" who understand why it is important that their judgment remain independent of party.

Darn . . . more to say but I'm being called to dinner.  More later . . . .

[hollodero]

(12-23-2019, 07:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Well I think you cannot say it's getting easier by the day if "saying whatever" before a bewildered public has finally lost the GOP the House and enabled a vote to impeach.

Sure, that is true. It wasn't necessarily successful, all in all, doesn't mean it got more difficult. I just meant that in former times, one could watch someone like Sean Spicer hanging himself on a daily basis trying to be somewhat factual still. A Kellyanne never cared about that. And her style has won the day now, no one cares any longer. Just attack CNN if you find no rebuttal, that's good enough for your side and the other side is bewildered anyways. And yeah it seems to get easier by the day to use that tactic. Albeit there might be some losses applied to it (which can be seen that way, though I rather don't).
As for midterm wins, I'd caution a bit because the way I see it, a) the opposition always wins and b) these wins, as I'm told, had more to do with issues like health care and not so much with fear of authoritarianism or disgust about all the presidential lies, smears and radicalizations finally boiling over.

Turning the senate around, that would have been a real win. Everything less is too little, imho.

(12-23-2019, 07:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Had Trump never tweeted and listened to his better advisors, his approval might be over 50% per cent now and the election locked.

Yeah that's probably true. If he were a bit smarter, a bit more tactical, a bit more restrained, he could be way more successful. It's why I'd say, yeah maybe Trump is not the one to rise to a de facto-dictatorship, bluntly he's too stupid for that. I'm also worried about the next guy though, the one that watched and learned.
For the way I see it, just by being so blunt and resistant to advice, Trump stumbled over the possibilities he actually has. Others thought there's things you just cannot possibly say or do or you'd lose all political support. Turns out you can say and do quite a lot of formerly unthinkable things and don't lose any political support, as long as propaganda tool + uncritical mass is behind you no matter what. That is probably new information, and be it just because others listened to advisors and hence no one dared to go there before.

(12-23-2019, 07:16 PM)Dill Wrote: To rephrase what I said above, to CENTER the GOP's power in Trump's unethical and incompetent person of Trump--which is what we see happening now--increases both his accountability and his party's by reducing the number of people who can be blamed for errors, and increasing the number who can be blamed for kow towing to bad judgment.

Yeah, but accountable to whom? Blamed by whom?

To use a slightly exaggerated and unreal example, Trump shoots Comey (I let Comey survive, I'm not that sick). Now the hardcore supporters would probably cheer more than anything, and they would just claim how Hillary shot Seth Rich and killed americans in Benghazi and dozens of other people and how liberals did not have a problem with that. As for the somewhat less extreme microcosm here, I'm pretty sure Dino or anyone would make a thread about it, saying "Trump is now shooting people on the streets and the rubes have no issue with that". Then someone would accuse him of being hyperbolic, after all he just shot only one person, so why say "people", also Comey was not an angel and we all should stop pretending that he was. And by saying "rubes" Dino is a typical example of the left shooting itself in the foot, also he's a bit deranged. Doesn't sound too far off, does it. And maybe in the end, there might be some annoyed admission that OF COURSE Trump should not shoot people, just as OF COURSE liberals should not act as if he just started WW3, and both sides are to blame for the increased extremism, so what gives. And one still wants a conservative SC justice.

That's the dynamic, isn't it? It always was, through some quite unspeakable presidential misdeeds. And still there was no major breaking away of support.

And sure in the bigger picture, the house is democratic now and he got impeached. But as of now, I am not sure if that matters.

(12-23-2019, 07:16 PM)Dill Wrote: E.g., suppose it is Trump's judgment, not McConnell's, that finally determines whether the Senate trial will call witnesses and introduce primary documents, and that while Rudy and the DOJ are working disable Trump opponents. That makes it pretty clear to real independents how 1) power formerly distributed across the party has now become wholly concentrated in one man with the power to punish, and 2) how that concentration undoes the autonomy of institutions like the Senate and the DOJ, eliminating their independent power to check.

Yeah, one would think that. I just want to counter that by questioning the power of true independents. They did not really turn the last presidential election around. And though the data points regarding Trump were different ones, it's not like it wasn't totally clear what kind of person he is and what kind of leadership idea he brings with him.
The electorate, as a whole, went with someone known for being narcissistic, dishonest, indecent, racially insensitive (to put it way too mildly), running fraudulent universities and charities, extort tax payers, etc. etc. Now they know some additional things, but why will these change the outcome if the former things could not.

(12-23-2019, 07:16 PM)Dill Wrote: You are quite right to see in the tendency to craven submission an enabling of authoritarian power, and to see that it is increasing within the party. But I think it wrong to suppose all this has no counter effect, does not create a number of resistance points both within and without both party and government.  All GOP voters are not going along with this

Yeah that's my problem, I do not see those resistance points really. Sure, on the fringe there are. And there were lots of cheers for every conservative breaking away, be it Amash or known conservatives --- Scarborough or I don't know all the names, Michael Steele, Steve Schmidt? --- or quite some others. These then go to the networks and slam Trump and the GOP to the cheers of the liberals (and mine, they have quite the strong points), but I don't really see a moving needle attached to that.
I do see little movement (or chance) to turn over the senate, because in the end the GOP voters seem to go along, they almost voted for a Roy Moore even - and the senate is the crucial chamber the way I see it. Controlling 50+ senators (controlling them through the means and mechanisms I described and believe to be true) would be the clear pathway to authoritarianism. Never mind the house, they can not really block anything or hold someone accountable if the senate is firm. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but it seems that's the key. And this key remains in Trump's hands.

[*michaelsean*]

I don't think i can tackle that whole thing, but let me just say that most of what you are afraid of is irrelevant. Trump's or a future President's opinion on impeachment and its legitimacy is meaningless. Fox News gets about two million viewers a day. Trump liking the way some strong arm country does things means nothing. He can't do that. And yes you can call FBI agents whatever you want. I would be more scared if you couldn't.

John Kennedy made his brother AG.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(12-23-2019, 01:53 PM)hollodero Wrote: So now what I'd want is someone telling me I'm just hysterical, nothing I said is really relevant, Trump's just an asshole and that's that, all will go back to how it used to be and democracy is still strong. Because I can not believe that and I'd deem the 2020 election pretty much the last chance for a reversal. And as of now, I can't be certain at all that 2020 is still a fair election, or that Trump were actually to go away if he lost. And because all of that, I am scared.

And yeah, my country does not provide that kind of chilling popcorn drama. It's actually scary entertaining. That's why I'm here. If you want to get rid of me, vote democrat. (Not that I like them, they are just the one democratic party still.)

You're just hysterical.

It happened to the Romney voters around 2014, when they were sure that Obama was going to run for a third term.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-obama-announces-plans-for-a-third-term-presidential-run/

If you're spending your time scared about theoreticals and hypotheticals that won't happen on the other side of the planet, then that just goes to show how peaceful of a 1st World life you have.



- - - - - - - -

Once Trump is out of office (be it from the 2020 election, after his 2nd term is over, or of he gets removed from impeachment) you're going to look back on this thread and feel mighty silly.

[hollodero]

(12-24-2019, 10:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't think i can tackle that whole thing, but let me just say that most of what you are afraid of is irrelevant.  Trump's or a future President's opinion on impeachment and its  legitimacy is meaningless.  Fox News gets about two million viewers a day.  Trump liking the way some strong arm country does things means nothing.  He can't do that. And yes you can call FBI agents whatever you want.  I would be more scared if you couldn't.

John Kennedy made his brother AG.

Yeah. A couple things. Kennedy's brother, as far as I know, actually had some real competence. Ivanka and Jared have no competence at all (if they had, I'd be ok with them holding positions, family should also not exclude competent people). Also, I guess Kennedy did not surpass the security clearance process for his brother. And the brother did not sell a skyscraper to Qataris so they can be 'forgiven' for whatever again. I don't think that's two comparable situations.

Also, I did not question at all, at all that Trump can say the things about the FBI he says. That's not about it being illegal and has nothing to do with first amendment rights. It's about how this kind of language really should cause an universal counterreaction, meaning folks distancing themselves from this slander. But on the contrary, GOP politicians follow the lead and call law enforcement agencies all kinds of nasty names. How this can be considered normal and harmless and irrelevant - I don't really know. I have to say, I find that a bit naive.

But I'd really like to comment on FOX. Not just how eerily astonishing this whole thing is for European eyes. But mostly that this is not just about ratings. FOX, as of now, has the president's ear, he recruits his people from there, and allegedly talks to Hannity and others multiple times a week. And he watches all day every day, takes over their positions, repeats their talking points. 
Also, FOX also has an online presence and most of all, they are the ones creating the talking points. That get repeated way beyond initial viewership, but also on social networks etc - and on Trump's twitter feed. They actually create policy. In all these senses, FOX has a considerable amount of real, effective power. As a news station. One that does not care about being factual or accurate, but to rally up one side against the other.
And don't misread that, if Obama had called Maddow or O'Donnell (or whomever) every other day, made them advisors and had repeated their talking points etc. etc., I'd be quite bewildered too. That just did not happen. And also, though these are probably at least at times biased news as well, facts still do matter on those and they are not jsut engaging in some kind of over-political culture war like all those FOX hosts do.
Nah, FOX still is a propaganda channel and propaganda is bad news for democracy. I stand by that oversimmplified assertion.

(12-24-2019, 03:53 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You're just hysterical.

It happened to the Romney voters around 2014, when they were sure that Obama was going to run for a third term.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-obama-announces-plans-for-a-third-term-presidential-run/

If you're spending your time scared about theoreticals and hypotheticals that won't happen on the other side of the planet, then that just goes to show how peaceful of a 1st World life you have.



- - - - - - - -

Once Trump is out of office (be it from the 2020 election, after his 2nd term is over, or of he gets removed from impeachment) you're going to look back on this thread and feel mighty silly.

 I (honestly) like that kind of answer. And I really hope you're right. I'd be happy to feel silly. If I'd be worried about that, oh boy.

Just one thing though. What I said is, imho, not really comparable to that Obama third term panic. That was just based on fully and completely made up 'fake news'. The reasons i listed did actually really take place. What it could lead to, that sure is speculation, but at least I assert they are not born out of completely thin air.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-26-2019, 09:41 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah. A couple things. Kennedy's brother, as far as I know, actually had some real competence. Ivanka and Jared have no competence at all (if they had, I'd be ok with them holding positions, family should also not exclude competent people). Also, I guess Kennedy did not surpass the security clearance process for his brother. And the brother did not sell a skyscraper to Qataris so they can be 'forgiven' for whatever again. I don't think that's two comparable situations.

Also, I did not question at all, at all that Trump can say the things about the FBI he says. That's not about it being illegal and has nothing to do with first amendment rights. It's about how this kind of language really should cause an universal counterreaction, meaning folks distancing themselves from this slander. But on the contrary, GOP politicians follow the lead and call law enforcement agencies all kinds of nasty names. How this can be considered normal and harmless and irrelevant - I don't really know. I have to say, I find that a bit naive.

But I'd really like to comment on FOX. Not just how eerily astonishing this whole thing is for European eyes. But mostly that this is not just about ratings. FOX, as of now, has the president's ear, he recruits his people from there, and allegedly talks to Hannity and others multiple times a week. And he watches all day every day, takes over their positions, repeats their talking points. 
Also, FOX also has an online presence and most of all, they are the ones creating the talking points. That get repeated way beyond initial viewership, but also on social networks etc - and on Trump's twitter feed. They actually create policy. In all these senses, FOX has a considerable amount of real, effective power. As a news station. One that does not care about being factual or accurate, but to rally up one side against the other.
And don't misread that, if Obama had called Maddow or O'Donnell (or whomever) every other day, made them advisors and had repeated their talking points etc. etc., I'd be quite bewildered too. That just did not happen. And also, though these are probably at least at times biased news as well, facts still do matter on those and they are not jsut engaging in some kind of over-political culture war like all those FOX hosts do.
Nah, FOX still is a propaganda channel and propaganda is bad news for democracy. I stand by that oversimmplified assertion.



 I (honestly) like that kind of answer. And I really hope you're right. I'd be happy to feel silly. If I'd be worried about that, oh boy.

Just one thing though. What I said is, imho, not really comparable to that Obama third term panic. That was just based on fully and completely made up 'fake news'. The reasons i listed did actually really take place. What it could lead to, that sure is speculation, but at least I assert they are not born out of completely thin air.

I didn’t mention Bobby Kennedy because of Eric and Ivanka. But you mentioned the DOJ as being a previously fairly independent body.

Liberals have been calling the FBI and CIA all kinds of awful things for decades. Not just individuals. Many say just awful things about the police, and again not just individuals. What about ICE?

[hollodero]

(12-26-2019, 10:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I didn’t mention Bobby Kennedy because of Eric and Ivanka. But you mentioned the DOJ as being a previously fairly independent body.

Ah, I see.
I'd say to this, a DOJ should be "more or less" independent, but it is always also political and hence probably never perfectly independent. But there are boundaries, and even Sessions got them, behaved "by the book" in the Russia case and got scolded for that.

As for appointing a president's brother, that sure is far from an ideal scenario and I'd understand every protest about that. But still. I don't know anything about that Kennedy tenure, but I'd just figure that in a scenario where the president or his surroundings or his campaigns or anything touching him really was a target of an investigation, the brother would have been wise or decent enough to fully recuse himself. Having the brother there is not quite similar to what Barr does.

An analogy would be if Hillary as president had called the investigation into her emails a witch hunt led by terrible people that hate the American people. And an AG coming out and exonerating her all by himself, explaining how any of her possible misconduct can be explained by her being "understandably frustrated" and whatnot. Also how her exoneration has nothing to do with DOJ policy of not indicting presidents, though a report into her misconduct clearly stated that she's not indictable because of said DOJ policy. Then said AG would have launched an investigation into the investigators instead and travell... ah, you catch my drift, no need to fully list those things. It seems like quite the different set of circumstances to anything related to the Kennedy's.

[Also, Ivanka and Eric actually being an issue, that one would kill Donald. 'So she's actually into incest... and then chose him over me??' But that aside, she chose Jared and that's only slightly better anyways.]

(12-26-2019, 10:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Liberals have been calling the FBI and CIA all kinds of awful things for decades. Not just individuals. Many say just awful things about the police, and again not just individuals.  What about ICE?

Now hold on. I did never argue that law enforcement agencies should be barred from any critizism or scrutiny. I believe the contrary. But I feel it's quite different to allege some systemic racism, or police brutality, or inhumane treatment of migrants or refugees [...] taking place to acting like Trump does on these rallies. I'm not claiming all allegations made by "liberals" are true, but that it's just different.
And the CIA once told the world they have evidence of Iraq participation in 9/11 when there was none. That sure drew some harsh reaction, but a deserved one based on facts and truth. What Trump does is not based on any of these things, but on personal wrath. Also, his language contains words like traitors and scum and hating America. Has any liberal of note (not someone no one knows anyway) ever used expressions like that based on fact-free allegations against law enforcement? If so, I'd like to see some examples you believe are akin to Trump's rhetorics in a similar case.

[Dill]

(12-26-2019, 10:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I didn’t mention Bobby Kennedy because of Eric and Ivanka. But you mentioned the DOJ as being a previously fairly independent body.

Liberals have been calling the FBI and CIA all kinds of awful things for decades. Not just individuals. Many say just awful things about the police, and again not just individuals.  What about ICE?

Liberals have criticized the FBI for wiretapping MLK as a "communist threat," yes. And they have criticized the CIA for Iran, Chile, and similar national embarrassments.  These criticisms have led to more accountability for these institutions and their leaders.

Trump has criticized the FBI for legitimately investigating his campaign and NOT desisting when so ordered. He has criticized the CIA for disagreeing with Putin. It is possible this sort of criticism diminishes the effectiveness of these agencies, damages national security, and makes them more reluctant to hold Trump accountable.

So at the level of rhetoric, yes, "both sides" criticize; but when facts, law and motivation are taken into account, both sides aren't on the same side of the Constitution.

The Bobby reference does not establish the historical precedent of a DOJ compromised to the degree it has been under Barr, Whitaker and Sessions. JFK and Trump had different ethical visions of government service and appointed people who reflected that difference.

[Dill]

(12-24-2019, 03:53 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You're just hysterical.

It happened to the Romney voters around 2014, when they were sure that Obama was going to run for a third term.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-obama-announces-plans-for-a-third-term-presidential-run/

If you're spending your time scared about theoreticals and hypotheticals that won't happen on the other side of the planet, then that just goes to show how peaceful of a 1st World life you have.

I was frequently told that Trump would never win in 2016. Remember what he said about keeping the oil--and nukes on the table?
And then he promised to bust the Iran Deal. He called Mexican immigrants mostly "rapists" and promised to ban Muslims from immigrating.

Americans would never put someone so uncouth and incompetent in their highest office.

It was a "hypothetical" that could never happen.



 

[*michaelsean*]

(12-27-2019, 04:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Liberals have criticized the FBI for wiretapping MLK as a "communist threat," yes. And they have criticized the CIA for Iran, Chile, and similar national embarrassments.  These criticisms have led to more accountability for these institutions and their leaders.

Trump has criticized the FBI for legitimately investigating his campaign and NOT desisting when so ordered. He has criticized the CIA for disagreeing with Putin. It is possible this sort of criticism diminishes the effectiveness of these agencies, damages national security, and makes them more reluctant to hold Trump accountable.

So at the level of rhetoric, yes, "both sides" criticize; but when facts, law and motivation are taken into account, both sides aren't on the same side of the Constitution.

The Bobby reference does not establish the historical precedent of a DOJ compromised to the degree it has been under Barr, Whitaker and Sessions. JFK and Trump had different ethical visions of government service and appointed people who reflected that difference.

Ok so it would s ok to criticize these organizations. That’s all I was suggesting.

Nice quote from Bobby. Who was the AG when they wiretapped MLK?

[Dill]

(12-24-2019, 10:25 AM)holloder0 Wrote:

(12-23-2019, 10:16 AM)Dill Wrote: Wrote:E.g., suppose it is Trump's judgment, not McConnell's, that finally determines whether the Senate trial will call witnesses and introduce primary documents, and that while Rudy and the DOJ are working disable Trump opponents. That makes it pretty clear to real independents how 1) power formerly distributed across the party has now become wholly concentrated in one man with the power to punish, and 2) how that concentration undoes the autonomy of institutions like the Senate and the DOJ, eliminating their independent power to check.

Yeah, one would think that. I just want to counter that by questioning the power of true independents. They did not really turn the last presidential election around. And though the data points regarding Trump were different ones, it's not like it wasn't totally clear what kind of person he is and what kind of leadership idea he brings with him.
The electorate, as a whole, went with someone known for being narcissistic, dishonest, indecent, racially insensitive (to put it way too mildly), running fraudulent universities and charities, extort tax payers, etc. etc. Now they know some additional things, but why will these change the outcome if the former things could not.

Let me reassure you that you are right to be worried. The path to authoritarian government that you see is really there.  And it is enabled by the bolded above. I am just offering a ray (or more) of hope here. A reminder that things are not going as smoothly as you think for the Grand Old Party of Trump.

Starting with a qualification to the bolded--not all those who voted for Trump believe he is narcissistic (in the clinical sense), and dishonest. A large number are fooled. That is very bad. Worse, the indecency and racial insensitivity are part of his appeal to a large fraction of the base. Some Trumpers, perhaps many, recognize and dislike all this; however, they still believe it is counterbalanced by his opposition to abortion and protection of Israel.  My "hopeful" analysis does not rest on persuading these voters to turn against Trump. I am not expecting them to "wise up" at some point and see "what he really is." To the degree that his dishonesty could be convincingly demonstrated to many, it would still only mean he was as bad as Hillary, but unlike her appointing the right judges. To others, what he really is, is still what they really wanted.

"True independents" have not moved the needle as much as you'd like--yet--because (and add this as part of my hypothesis) many still do not see the damage being done to government or to US credibility abroad.  In fact, the US government has worked pretty well over their life time. The level of material comfort and safety in this country is high, and has come to seem "natural" rather than the consequence of generations of people making good decisions, especially since 1945.  We have had "bad" presidents before, like Nixon, and managed to muddle through. (Remember how, after Trump was elected, there were people in this forum who assumed he would not do much damage, would even "grow into his office" and become responsible. One even predicted that US foreign policy would continue on as usual, largely unaffected by the election of a narcissist with little knowledge of history--but easily pushed to rash deed by approval from his base.) "Socialism" is still for many, somehow, a more imminent danger than any posed by vacuums of power emerging in the Near or Far East.

What Americans have not seen in my lifetime, however, is a party, president, and prominent media outlet moving in lockstep the way these are. You lament that the needle seems not to have moved much after 2018 and impeachment--still minimizing that sizeable Dem win and the reasons for it.  What I am saying is the depth and actual contours of the GOPT are only gradually becoming obvious to independents, and to people normally not interested in politics.  It is increasingly organized like parties in Weimar Germany were, with chaotic, often contradictory programs and proposals from advisors working against one another, but with a well-defined constituency and party-elite submission to charismatic, authoritarian leadership, convinced that winning battles for its fraction of the electorate is more important than sound governing and compromise in the national interest.

The impeachment process is hastening recognition that this submission to authority on the part of those BETWEEN the base and the leader is precisely what compromises the autonomy of the Senate and the DOJ in unprecedented manner, undoes checks and balances, accountability.  Add in Fox's proximity/complicity with the GOPT, and you have a media base which functions the way party newspapers did in Weimar.

But the US in 2020 will not be like Depression-era Weimar, with a majority of citizens unfamiliar with liberal democracy and nostalgic for strong leadership.  What I am counting on is that as the nexus of Exec-Senate-Fox is forced more into the open, its power to muddle, deny, accuse and equivocate will diminish. Impeachment will not be the only driver, as more and more of Trump's policies come home to roost, more civil servants resign rather than break the law, and the people defending Trump become more erratic and continue to be replaced--increasing the level of chaos which has to be covered.  

So--a little patience. The concentration of authoritarian power in the GOP will produce a counter-reaction, will outrun the ability of Fox to paper-over cracks and the ability of independents to dismiss the potential for long-term damage on the assumption "this too will pass."  Consider the first quarter of the coming year as the test of my hypothesis.  We'll see fewer independents complaining that people who constantly complain about Trump "go too far," more "'Mooch"-style turncoats, and not only a loss of Trump's recent impeachment bounce in the polls, but the lowest support by independents registered so far.  

[Dill]

(12-27-2019, 05:26 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Ok so it would s ok to criticize these organizations. That’s all I was suggesting.

Nice quote from Bobby. Who was the AG when they wiretapped MLK?

LOL Was it Brownell? I know the surveillance began in 1955.

Bobby, the AG who did the most to expand Civil Rights enforcement, signed off on limited phone surveillance in '64 I believe, following a presentation of "evidence" King was a national security threat. Hoover had already been breaking the bounds of legality for years, though. We may get the whole story in 2027, when the COINTELPRO docs from the Church Commission are unsealed.

As far as criticizing organizations--the nature and quality thereof still counts. The problem I have with Trump's criticisms of the FBI and CIA is that they are 1) mostly false, and 2) designed to de-legitimate them as institutions, thereby enhancing Trump's demagogic power. 

And it is working. We have a president of the United States effectively spreading conspiracy theories about agencies which cannot effectively defend themselves at a time when only a bare majority of voters see the propaganda and its consequences for what they are.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-27-2019, 06:46 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, now this is actually whataboutism. The question of who wiretapped Dr. King doesn't diminish anything going on right now.

Whataboutism to what? He mentioned the FBI wiretapping MLK then posted an inspiring quote from Bobby. I have no idea why that wouldn’t be fair to comment on?

My whole point to you is that things you are worried about have happened before. In this instance, a not so independent AG.

[Dill]

(12-27-2019, 07:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He mentioned the FBI wiretapping MLK then posted an inspiring quote from Bobby. I have no idea why that wouldn’t be fair to comment on

I accepted your question as legitimate.  You were raising a question about the independence and integrity of the DOJ via a historical precedent.

A YOUNG president appointed his YOUNGER BROTHER to be DOJ, which raised many eyebrows at the time.  It is certainly worth discussing whether this compromised the independence of the DOJ.

My Bobby quote was to illustrate the ethical guidelines he was publicly subscribing to.  In retrospect, his signing an order to tap MLK's phones could seem a violation of these guidelines. I don't think it is, given Bobby's whole-hearted efforts to support the Brown ruling, protect civil rights organizations and the lack of knowledge about what the FBI had actually been doing. Not clear that tapping King's line compromised the DOJ's independence from the Exec (perhaps you know something here I don't? JFK weighed in on the issue?) Did Bobby's appointment protect JFK from any investigation?

The word "actual" is important here.  Liberals were calling the FBI/CIA awful things because they were doing awful things (e.g., the King "suicide" letter and Operation Mockingbird, Chile). Trump is calling them awful things for legitimate investigation, for protecting our national security. Appointing pliant AG's amidst all that does not constitute a repeat of history.

[hollodero]

(12-27-2019, 07:14 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Whataboutism to what? He mentioned the FBI wiretapping MLK then posted an inspiring quote from Bobby. I have no idea why that wouldn’t be fair to comment on?

My whole point to you is that things you are worried about have happened before. In this instance, a not so independent AG.

Fair enough. I myself had in the meantime reconsidered my point and actually had already removed my post. I'd had hoped it had slipped by :) Apologies.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-27-2019, 07:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: Fair enough. I myself had in the meantime reconsidered my point and actually had already removed my post. I'd had hoped it had slipped by :) Apologies.

Don’t you hate that? Happy to delete my stuff.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-27-2019, 04:26 PM)Dill Wrote: I was frequently told that Trump would never win in 2016. Remember what he said about keeping the oil--and nukes on the table?
And then he promised to bust the Iran Deal. He called Mexican immigrants mostly "rapists" and promised to ban Muslims from immigrating.

Americans would never put someone so uncouth and incompetent in their highest office.

It was a "hypothetical" that could never happen.



 

And we didn't.
Option B was much worse.