So what’s next?

[Benton]

(06-04-2020, 05:31 AM)samhain Wrote: I'm conscious of the possibility, and the concern is warranted, but I don't see it.  The Pentagon brass doesn't seem to be loving the stuff he's threatening to do with the military over the last week.  My gut tells me that if he attempted to maintain power after being beaten in November, it wouldn't be a stretch to think that come January, the military would step in and remove him.  I doubt that the DC police or higher "deep state" law enforcement agencies would balk at the idea, either.  Bill Barr's stumpy little ass won't be enough to protect him at that point.

The military would be an issue, but what's concerning is Congress. The Pentagon may balk, but I don't see them forcibly removing him. They'd expect Congress to intervene. And right now, I'm not sure they would. I could see McConnell saying it might be a good idea to wait until things return to normal so the people have a say (disregarding the previous election where the people already had a say).

But who knows. Trump could win in a landslide and that's a point to worry about in 2024.

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2020, 05:34 AM)samhain Wrote: I'm interested to see how that designation holds up in an actual court of law.  I'm not sure that he or anyone has the authority do make that designation.  How exactly does one prove that a defendant is part of an organization that isn't really organized and has no real hierarchy?  If someone commits a crime, sure, prosecute.  I just think it's dodgy ground for association alone to be deemed enough to charge someone.  

There is actually a case going through the courts that will somewhat shape how that could go. Here is a piece in The Atlantic about it: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/don-willetts-deray-mckesson-free-speech/603772/

Here is the sCOTUS Blog link to the case: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mckesson-v-doe/ (while it looks like this is a dead case, there is going to be a new writ filed in the near future, there were some complications)

Tl;dr: DeRay McKesson is a BLM organizer. During a BLM protest, a cop was injured and is seeking damages against McKesson claiming he incited the violence just by being an organizer of the protest.

[Belsnickel]

I know that I come across as pretty doom and gloom with this stuff. Part of it comes from some research I have done on democracy and how they have risen and fallen. I know, my pleasure reading is so cheerful and bright. In all seriousness, though, the things we have been seeing in this country point to a decline in our democracy. I'm not just talking about Trump, but the years leading up to him. Trump is a tyrant, that is my view on things, but the groundwork was laid for him to act the way he has by many people before him that have held office in our nation's capital.

It's not just me seeing this, either. There are people with much more knowledge and experience on this topic than myself that are seeing this (who wrote the books, after all?) and are trying to get this message out. On Tuesday, there was an article in the Washington Post about CIA analysts with experience in these things commenting about what they were seeing here in the US. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/cia-veterans-who-monitored-crackdowns-abroad-see-troubling-parallels-in-trump-handling-of-protests/2020/06/02/7ab210b8-a4f6-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html

Quote:The scenes have been disturbingly familiar to CIA analysts accustomed to monitoring scenes of societal unraveling abroad — the massing of protesters, the ensuing crackdowns and the awkwardly staged displays of strength by a leader determined to project authority.

In interviews and posts on social media in recent days, current and former U.S. intelligence officials have expressed dismay at the similarity between events at home and the signs of decline or democratic regression they were trained to detect in other nations.

“I’ve seen this kind of violence,” said Gail Helt, a former CIA analyst responsible for tracking developments in China and Southeast Asia. “This is what autocrats do. This is what happens in countries before a collapse. It really does unnerve me.”

Helt, now a professor at King University in Tennessee, said the images of unrest in U.S. cities, combined with President Trump’s incendiary statements, echo clashes she covered over a dozen years at the CIA tracking developments in China, Malaysia and elsewhere.

Other former CIA and national security officials rendered similarly troubled verdicts.

Marc Polymeropoulos, who formerly ran CIA operations in Europe and Asia, was among several former agency officials who recoiled at images of Trump hoisting a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Washington after authorities fired rubber bullets and tear gas to clear the president’s path of protesters.

“It reminded me of what I reported on for years in the third world,” Polymeropoulos said on Twitter. Referring to the despotic leaders of Iraq, Syria and Libya, he said: “Saddam. Bashar. Qaddafi. They all did this.”

The impression Trump created was only reinforced by others in the administration. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper urged governors to “dominate the battlespace” surrounding protesters, as if describing U.S. cities as a foreign war zone. Later, as military helicopters hovered menacingly over protesters, Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, toured the streets of the nation’s capital in his battle fatigue uniform.

There is more at the link. Open it in private/incognito mode if you want to read it. This writing has been on the walls for a while. I probably come off as paranoid or hyperbolic when I talk about the decline of our democracy, and I get that, I do. But when you have done the research I have on democracies around the world, read accounts of analysts describing the events leading up to autocratic takeovers and seeing distinct parallels, and read analyses from academics that have spent their entire careers studying the way democracies form and decay, it's hard not to be worried about the state of our nation.

Truthfully, in this time of upheaval right now, I am probably the most calm about everything that I have been in a long time. What's going on now is not unexpected when you look at what has been happening.

[GMDino]

(06-04-2020, 08:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know that I come across as pretty doom and gloom with this stuff. Part of it comes from some research I have done on democracy and how they have risen and fallen. I know, my pleasure reading is so cheerful and bright. In all seriousness, though, the things we have been seeing in this country point to a decline in our democracy. I'm not just talking about Trump, but the years leading up to him. Trump is a tyrant, that is my view on things, but the groundwork was laid for him to act the way he has by many people before him that have held office in our nation's capital.

It's not just me seeing this, either. There are people with much more knowledge and experience on this topic than myself that are seeing this (who wrote the books, after all?) and are trying to get this message out. On Tuesday, there was an article in the Washington Post about CIA analysts with experience in these things commenting about what they were seeing here in the US. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/cia-veterans-who-monitored-crackdowns-abroad-see-troubling-parallels-in-trump-handling-of-protests/2020/06/02/7ab210b8-a4f6-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html


There is more at the link. Open it in private/incognito mode if you want to read it. This writing has been on the walls for a while. I probably come off as paranoid or hyperbolic when I talk about the decline of our democracy, and I get that, I do. But when you have done the research I have on democracies around the world, read accounts of analysts describing the events leading up to autocratic takeovers and seeing distinct parallels, and read analyses from academics that have spent their entire careers studying the way democracies form and decay, it's hard not to be worried about the state of our nation.

Truthfully, in this time of upheaval right now, I am probably the most calm about everything that I have been in a long time. What's going on now is not unexpected when you look at what has been happening.

This post gave a couple thoughts:

1) I am not as well read on the subject as you or others but I've felt this way for 30 years.  We are young as a country but old as a united country.

2) In the past such upheaval would eventually run into "norms" whether they be good or bad.  And the government could get us back on a even keel.  That is sorely lacking right now which is my cause for concern.  The lack of spine from the right (in this case) to question anything and the judiciary pretty much just saying they don't want to decide political matters.

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2020, 09:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: This post gave a couple thoughts:

1) I am not as well read on the subject as you or others but I've felt this way for 30 years.  We are young as a country but old as a united country.

Absolutely. While we are part of the "new world," at least to western sensibilities, the actual nation state of the US is old relatively speaking. When you think back and realize that so many countries that we know are less than a century old. If you look at sovereign nation states, just with regard to achieving sovereignty, we are the 8th oldest in the world. If you look at when the current form of government was established, there are 19 nations with a government older than 100 years, and this includes Ireland which just squeaks in. Of those, only 4 have a current government that predates our own: Morocco, Iceland, San Marino, and the Holy See/Vatican.

(06-04-2020, 09:02 AM)GMDino Wrote: 2) In the past such upheaval would eventually run into "norms" whether they be good or bad.  And the government could get us back on a even keel.  That is sorely lacking right now which is my cause for concern.  The lack of spine from the right (in this case) to question anything and the judiciary pretty much just saying they don't want to decide political matters.

Honestly, you know as much as anyone how much I hard on these norms. Norms are the guardrails of democracy. The erosion of these norms is absolutely a sign of a failing government. This erosion of norms has been going on for decades, as you mention 30 years. This has just been turned into overdrive in these past few years. And this isn't to say it is all the fault of the GOP, though they are currently the ones swinging the pickax, the Democrats have done their fair share of it as well. The problem right now is how we can fix it if it isn't irreparable. Or do we need to just let it burn and start from the ashes.

[samhain]

(06-04-2020, 06:13 AM)Benton Wrote: The military would be an issue, but what's concerning is Congress. The Pentagon may balk, but I don't see them forcibly removing him. They'd expect Congress to intervene. And right now, I'm not sure they would. I could see McConnell saying it might be a good idea to wait until things return to normal so the people have a say (disregarding the previous election where the people already had a say).

But who knows. Trump could win in a landslide and that's a point to worry about in 2024.

Well, after watching the country rage for more than a week, I feel fairly comfortable postulating that his refusal to leave combined with a partisan legislature refusing to remove him and install a democratically elected candidate would result in unrest like we've never seen.  The majority of people in this country didn't want him as president anyway, and even fewer want him now.  Throw in an economy that's reeling with no help in sight for the poor and middle class, and you're going to have plenty of really pissed off people by November.

If he held on to power in such a way, this country is finished in one way or the other.  The experiment is over.  Going back to normal wouldn't be a thing, and violence would become a way of life here like it's never been, which is saying something for this country.

I honestly (and I feel bad about it) agree with what Ann Coulter said a week or two ago.  His actions will cause the Republican Party harm on a level that no major party has experienced here.  Any member of Congress or the Senate that is complicit with him will suffer major electoral consequences in any part of the nation that isn't the Southeast.  If he continues on his current path, he will usher in an era of liberal control (outside of SCOTUS) that will stand for a decade.  Liberals did not make this scenario so.  Trump and his supporters did.  

[Dill]

(06-03-2020, 12:50 AM)Stonyhands Wrote: Regardless of what side you are on what’s next?  

If you could decide what comes of what we are seeing currently what would it be?  

Lastly, do you think anything will change?  If yes, for the better or for the worse?

Things will change for the better if Biden is elected. Likely for the better. But reform will also face sabotage and whitelash.

Here is a response to Hollo that I posted on the "Bad Boys" thread, but it fits here too.
.............................................................................................................................................................................
This is a process.  No one should be thinking there is some one thing to fix a nationwide problem and someone should be out there hawking it now.

"Tangible demands" come, as Obama pointed out, from the local level. 

But there have to be municipal, state and federal administrations in place which can receive and implement, not block them.

Some priorities for now:

1. Vote Trump out; then clear the foxes out of the hen houses--especially in the DOJ. (Otherwise we don't have the fore-mentioned receptive municipal administrations etc.)

2. Protect the chickens by reinstating Consent Decrees in places where already existing, and prepare one for Minneapolis.

3. Start the process of local review with community participation in places like Minneapolis, Atlanta, DC etc. Local leaders are already doing this.

4. Eventually, disseminate a national plan with goals that various localities con use to define common goals and coordinate. Biden should be talking about that in a month or so.

[Dill]

(06-04-2020, 03:48 PM)samhain Wrote: If he held on to power in such a way, this country is finished in one way or the other.  The experiment is over.  Going back to normal wouldn't be a thing, and violence would become a way of life here like it's never been, which is saying something for this country.

I honestly (and I feel bad about it) agree with what Ann Coulter said a week or two ago.  His actions will cause the Republican Party harm on a level that no major party has experienced here.  Any member of Congress or the Senate that is complicit with him will suffer major electoral consequences in any part of the nation that isn't the Southeast.  If he continues on his current path, he will usher in an era of liberal control (outside of SCOTUS) that will stand for a decade.  Liberals did not make this scenario so.  Trump and his supporters did.  

I don't think Trump will finish the country.  He won't be able to hold on to power. The U.S. military won't back him. Violence won't become a way of life.

I rather agree with your summary of Coulter, though never Trumpers were already warning of this in 2016.

Trump will usher in an era of liberal control.  He is worse for the party than Nixon, whose party retained its health for a decade or so after him.

[Benton]

(06-04-2020, 03:48 PM)samhain Wrote: Well, after watching the country rage for more than a week, I feel fairly comfortable postulating that his refusal to leave combined with a partisan legislature refusing to remove him and install a democratically elected candidate would result in unrest like we've never seen.  The majority of people in this country didn't want him as president anyway, and even fewer want him now.  Throw in an economy that's reeling with no help in site for the poor and middle class, and you're going to have plenty of really pissed off people by November.

If he held on to power in such a way, this country is finished in one way or the other.  The experiment is over.  Going back to normal wouldn't be a thing, and violence would become a way of life here like it's never been, which is saying something for this country.

I honestly (and I feel bad about it) agree with what Ann Coulter said a week or two ago.  His actions will cause the Republican Party harm on a level that no major party has experienced here.  Any member of Congress or the Senate that is complicit with him will suffer major electoral consequences in any part of the nation that isn't the Southeast.  If he continues on his current path, he will usher in an era of liberal control (outside of SCOTUS) that will stand for a decade.  Liberals did not make this scenario so.  Trump and his supporters did.  

To the last graf, I think that will be what ultimately happens. How soon depends on the election and how it plays out. But end of the day, I think there will be a schism in good voters. It won't really be a surprise as there's always been one in the marriage of (mostly lower income) conservatives and capitalists. It was strange bedfellows to begin with, but the capitalists held on by promising conservatives their utopia. Oddly, the most pro capitalist candidate in decades has more support from the conservative aspect, which I think will either split or just not show up in elections for a long time after trump is either defeated or abandoned them.

[*bfine32*]

What needs to happen is for folks to stop politicizing the issue. I see in this thread folks saying the issue is the POTUS. These folks are just like the looters: They give 2 shits about the issue, they just want to profit from it.Who was POTUS during:

Eric Gardner

Michael Brown

Freddie Gray

Ask yourself: What got more coverage:

Folks actually burning St John's church or Trump walking to it.

Protesters at the gates of the White House or Trump going to the bunker

We look to divide as a society regardless who's in charge.

The way ahead should be unification, not division.

It's no more Trump's fault than it was Obama's.

In short What needs to happen:

We need to blame the person responsible for the action

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I take back my words from earlier. BLM is no longer about Black Lives, its about BS.

Look, they rioted because they wanted the cop arrested. He was arrested and then they rioted because they wanted tougher charges and all four cops arrested. Tougher charges came and all four arrested. Nothing stopped.

Oh, the SCOTUS ruled that states can close churches to protect the populous. I guess that means peaceful protestors can be arrested too.

I was going to write in the Constitutionalist candidate this November but now I'm voting for Trump...This is BS.

You can't move the goalpost and expect to constantly be catered to.

[Benton]

(06-04-2020, 10:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What needs to happen is for folks to stop politicizing the issue. I see in this thread folks saying the issue is the POTUS. These folks are just like the looters: They give 2 shits about the issue, they just want to profit from it.Who was POTUS during:

Eric Gardner

Michael Brown

Freddie Gray

Ask yourself: What got more coverage:

Folks actually burning St John's church or Trump walking to it.

Protesters at the gates of the White House or Trump going to the bunker

We look to divide as a society regardless who's in charge.

The way ahead should be unification, not division.

It's no more Trump's fault than it was Obama's.

In short What needs to happen:

We need to blame the person responsible for the action

No more trump's? Wtf man? I get not liking him, I wasn't fond of the majority of things he did, but Obama didn't actively try to paint the problem as all 'the other guy,' didn't daily ridicule opponents or groups of people, didn't daily lie to constituents about issues.

And that's why there won't be any meeting in the middle. Obama and some other Dems have tried, but guys like McConnell and trump don't want to unify, they want to occupy. They aren't going to meet in the middle, they'll just wait till they get what they want.

[Dill]

(06-04-2020, 10:30 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I take back my words from earlier. BLM is no longer about Black Lives, its about BS.

Look, they rioted because they wanted the cop arrested. He was arrested and then they rioted because they wanted tougher charges and all four cops arrested. Tougher charges came and all four arrested. Nothing stopped.

Oh, the SCOTUS ruled that states can close churches to protect the populous. I guess that means peaceful protestors can be arrested too.

I was going to write in the Constitutionalist candidate this November but now I'm voting for Trump...This is BS.

You can't move the goalpost and expect to constantly be catered to.

Where did you learn that BLM "rioted because they wanted the cop arrested" and then "rioted because they wanted tougher charges"?

Have you been listening to people describe/explain/discuss how various groups have acted separately from protestors?  People are protesting because they want to see police/carceral reform nationwide.

You are ok with Trump's misuse of the military, his order to "dominate" the streets, his loosening of police oversight?

[samhain]

(06-04-2020, 10:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What needs to happen is for folks to stop politicizing the issue. I see in this thread folks saying the issue is the POTUS. These folks are just like the looters: They give 2 shits about the issue, they just want to profit from it.Who was POTUS during:

Eric Gardner

Michael Brown

Freddie Gray

Ask yourself: What got more coverage:

Folks actually burning St John's church or Trump walking to it.

Protesters at the gates of the White House or Trump going to the bunker

We look to divide as a society regardless who's in charge.

The way ahead should be unification, not division.

It's no more Trump's fault than it was Obama's.

In short What needs to happen:

We need to blame the person responsible for the action

But he is responsible for his own actions.  He's the president.  His role as an executive is to do what is best for the union.  What do you think serves the nation better in a time like this: Calling protesters terrorists and gassing them for a needless gesture, then doubling down on the "dominating the streets" rhetoric, or striking a conciliatory tone and doing whatever he can with his platform to restore some kind of stability?  Party shouldn't mean anything.  Other conservatives did it just fine because they possess some modicum of, as you call it, "emotional intelligence".  

Did Trump loot and burn cities  or kill an unarmed black man?  Obviously not.  I don't think that's the issue at hand.  The issue is what he does or does not do as chief executive to attempt to bring calm and stability to the nation.  He failed at that, and badly, and also needlessly.  Any politician with a speechwriter and a moral compass could have gotten the job done.  

No.  We didn't get that.  We got more, even crazier rhetoric that served no purpose other than to intimidate his opposition and pander to his base.  It's dumb, and it's serving him as a candidate for re-election and the country he's asking to re-elect him poorly.  It's exacerbating tensions.  

Trump is beholden to no one politically.  He turned the Republican Party into the party of Trump.  What he says is what they are right now.  it would have done him zero harm and a world of good to take a different tone when this situation unfolded.  I guarantee he had people he pays to advise him telling him that and probably still does.

[*Nately120*]

(06-05-2020, 02:40 AM)Dill Wrote: You are ok with Trump's misuse of the military, his order to "dominate" the streets, his loosening of police oversight?

Some folks get pissed and riot, some folks get pissed and elect a dictator. 

[hollodero]

(06-04-2020, 10:30 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I take back my words from earlier. BLM is no longer about Black Lives, its about BS.

Look, they rioted because they wanted the cop arrested. He was arrested and then they rioted because they wanted tougher charges and all four cops arrested. Tougher charges came and all four arrested. Nothing stopped.

Oh, the SCOTUS ruled that states can close churches to protect the populous. I guess that means peaceful protestors can be arrested too.

I was going to write in the Constitutionalist candidate this November but now I'm voting for Trump...This is BS.

Don't do that, that would be most unfortunate. You'd vote for a destructive option in face of destruction.

I am pretty critical about some forms of the protest too, but I don't think you can safely assume it was just about what these specific cops should be charged with. There's quite obviously a more systemic issue, that makes this one killing a sad deja vu.

[hollodero]

(06-04-2020, 10:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What needs to happen is for folks to stop politicizing the issue. I see in this thread folks saying the issue is the POTUS. These folks are just like the looters: They give 2 shits about the issue, they just want to profit from it.

I think hardly anyone blames Trump for police violence against blacks or for the rioting. Both are not his fault. The problem with Trump though is that he does nothing to calm the situation, and this is a failing in leadership that is not "just like Obama" really.

Obama or any reasonable POTUS really would not have teargassed protesters to clear the path to a photo opportunity. He would not have mused about sending the military to the states against those states' will. He would not have used a Wallace saying of when the looting starts the shooting starts. And then some. Trump is responsible for the escalatory (or at least distinctly not deescalatory) words and actions he chooses to handle this situation. And these deserve some critizism, or at least those that critisize them do not deserve to be compared to looters.

[GMDino]

(06-05-2020, 09:18 AM)hollodero Wrote: I think hardly anyone blames Trump for police violence against blacks or for the rioting. Both are not his fault. The problem with Trump though is that he does nothing to calm the situation, and this is a failing in leadership that is not "just like Obama" really.

Obama or any reasonable POTUS really would not have teargassed protesters to clear the path to a photo opportunity. He would not have mused about sending the military to the states against those states' will. He would not have used a Wallace saying of when the looting starts the shooting starts. And then some. Trump is responsible for the escalatory (or at least distinctly not deescalatory) words and actions he chooses to handle this situation. And these deserve some critizism, or at least those that critisize them do not deserve to be compared to looters.

Trump has told police to be "tougher" with criminals.

Here are some of the things Trump has said as president about policing. pic.twitter.com/17S8Xl2R8b

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) June 4, 2020

AND he has done absolutely zero to try and calm the current situation.  In face he has doubled down on being "tougher" with protesters.


He is absolutely to blame for at least some of this.  He is, after all, President of the US.  A job he actively went after because he wanted it.  And several people, bfine at the head around here, kept saying he'd "learn on the job".  Well DJT must have a learning disability OR he was never going to be capable to handle even showing empathy and talking to the nation.


And the CONTINUED pleas to stop "politicizing" falls on deaf ears when the rest is filled with trying ONLY to shift blame from Trump, his words and his policies and actions to literally ANYONE else.

[fredtoast]

(06-04-2020, 10:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The way ahead should be unification, not division.

It's no more Trump's fault than it was Obama's.

I can't believe you can say something like this with a straight face.

Pretty much all Trump does is pick fights and insult people on twitter all day, yet you think he has nothingh to do with the "division" in today's politics.  he is not just a big part of it.  It was his number one goal.  His entire campaign was based on anger and vitriol.  Seriously, how long had it been since we saw confederate flags flown at major party polkitical rallies in the US before Trump was a candidate?  When was the last time the leader of the KKK publically supported and campaigned for a major party candidate?

You elect an asshole like that and then try to claim he has nothing to do with "divisive" politics?

[*Nately120*]

(06-05-2020, 10:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I can't believe you can say something like this with a straight face.

Pretty much all Trump does is pick fights and insult people on twitter all day, yet you think he has nothingh to do with the "division" in today's politics.  he is not just a big part of it.  It was his number one goal.  His entire campaign was based on anger and vitriol.  Seriously, how long had it been since we saw confederate flags flown at major party polkitical rallies in the US before Trump was a candidate?  When was the last time the leader of the KKK publically supported and campaigned for a major party candidate?

You elect an asshole like that and then try to claim he has nothing to do with "divisive" politics?

The one thing I'll hand to Trump is that hes a total wolf in wolf's clothing.  The guy told us exactly who he is and what he was going to do and it sounded like solid gold to enough people.