The big "C" word

[Dill]

(11-10-2020, 11:04 AM)GMDino Wrote: More info on Barr's decision and the fallout so far:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/09/barr-oks-justice-dept-election-probes-despite-lack-fraud-evidence/6229191002/

LOL Remember what Barr said about "winners" getting to write history?

[Dill]

(11-11-2020, 12:39 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: I'm probably gonna catch hell from some quarters for saying this (heck, I'll catch hell from some quarters just for saying anything!), but when I listen to McConnell and Barr speak, I can understand their thought processes and logic. It doesn't mean I agree with them (I rarely do). But they are a stark contrast from Trump-speak, which I firmly believe was contrived purely to appeal to some people's emotions.

How DARE YOU B-zona!!

LOL no, I agree. McConnell and Barr are used to arguing in, through and with the law, recognizing what can or cannot be deducted/justified from general principles. They know how to think systematically and convert thought to professional legal documents.

After their legal training and years of acting in rule-bound institutions, they have some ability to judge where moving boundaries of political/legal tolerance are. And they are internally bound by the rules in a way Trump is not. That's why they never say out loud what you are not supposed to say out loud when you are putting law to unsavory uses.

Trump never got any of that. He does not have the legal sense of real businessmen. So of course he got rid of Comey because he was investigating Trump and rushed through a SCOTUS nomination "in case" the election was contested.  Of course mail in ballots were going to be a problem so appoint someone to slow down the mail. 

But you are right. Clear legal arguments may not clearly say what you are about. But the Wall and the Muslim ban definitely do. Everyone understands what "The Snake" means when recited by Trump.

I have often admired McConnell for his uncanny knowledge of how the Senate works, though I despise his contempt for democracy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-11-2020, 12:53 PM)Dill Wrote: How DARE YOU B-zona!!

LOL no, I agree. McConnell and Barr are used to arguing in, through and with the law, recognizing what can or cannot be deducted/justified from general principles. They know how to think systematically and convert thought to professional legal documents.

After their legal training and years of acting in rule-bound institutions, they have some ability to judge where moving boundaries of political/legal tolerance are. And they are internally bound by the rules in a way Trump is not. That's why they never say out loud what you are not supposed to say out loud when you are putting law to unsavory uses.

Trump never got any of that. He does not have the legal sense of real businessmen. So of course he got rid of Comey because he was investigating Trump and rushed through a SCOTUS nomination "in case" the election was contested.  Of course mail in ballots were going to be a problem so appoint someone to slow down the mail. 

But you are right. Clear legal arguments may not clearly say what you are about. But the Wall and the Muslim ban definitely do. Everyone understands what "The Snake" means when recited by Trump.

I have often admired McConnell for his uncanny knowledge of how the Senate works, though I despise his contempt for democracy.

This, and 'Zona's, post is solid.  Unfortunately you had to sully it with your utterly disprovable "muslim ban" comment.  I know that's a pet issue of yours, but it's patently untrue.

[Dill]

(11-11-2020, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This, and 'Zona's, post is solid.  Unfortunately you had to sully it with your utterly disprovable "muslim ban" comment.  I know that's a pet issue of yours, but it's patently untrue.

Well, not "utterly" disprovable.  Trump called for a "shutdown" of Muslims entering the country.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-35036567
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBA

And that supports B-zona's insight into the emotional, non-logical appeal of Trump's argumentation.

Were you set to prove he said "shutdown" that one time and that's why "the ban" claim is "patently untrue"?  
https://www.cato.org/blog/dozen-times-trump-equated-travel-ban-muslim-ban?

That Trump was mobilizing Islamophobic sentiment in his speeches is the point here. 

The re-writings that eventually removed constitutional objections to the letter of the ban as executive order fool few on either side of the aisle regarding its spirit/intent. This is a "pet issue" of millions of Americans who don't want politics and policies founded on scapegoating of minorities.

https://www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-enforcement/understanding-the-muslim-bans/
https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-muslim-ban
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/8/us-muslim-ban-set-to-end-on-day-one-of-biden-presidency
https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/5-things-to-know-about-muslim-ban

LOL Trevor Noah the week of the utterly disprovable ban. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxhGjDyBT30

[fredtoast]

First of all based on allegations from Trump supporters a large portion of his followers will always believe that this election was stolen even if there is zero tangible evidence to support the claims.

I doubt Trump ill refuse to abdicate office at the appointed time, but he will always claim that the election was rigged.

What interests me is what the sate of affairs is on Jan 5 when they have the runoff elections in Georgia. If the courts have all ruled by then and declared Bien the winner and the majority of Republicans still claim the election was rigged I think it will strongly motivate Democrat voters to turn out in Georgia. I don't think Dems have much of a chance of winning those run-offs, but if the GOP is still trying to undermine the legitimacy of the voting process at that time it could bite them in the ass.

At some point the GOP will have to cut ties with Trump or his crazy ass will drag them down.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-11-2020, 01:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, not "utterly" disprovable.  Trump called for a "shutdown" of Muslims entering the country.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-35036567
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDffWUjcBA

And that supports B-zona's insight into the emotional, non-logical appeal of Trump's argumentation.

Were you set to prove he said "shutdown" that one time and that's why "the ban" claim is "patently untrue"?  
https://www.cato.org/blog/dozen-times-trump-equated-travel-ban-muslim-ban?

That Trump was mobilizing Islamophobic sentiment in his speeches is the point here. 

The re-writings that eventually removed constitutional objections to the letter of the ban as executive order fool few on either side of the aisle regarding its spirit/intent. This is a "pet issue" of millions of Americans who don't want politics and policies founded on scapegoating of minorities.

https://www.nilc.org/issues/immigration-enforcement/understanding-the-muslim-bans/
https://www.aclu-wa.org/pages/timeline-muslim-ban
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/8/us-muslim-ban-set-to-end-on-day-one-of-biden-presidency
https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/5-things-to-know-about-muslim-ban

LOL Trevor Noah the week of the utterly disprovable ban. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxhGjDyBT30

Seeing as how the travel ban did not include the vast majority of muslim majority countries, including the most populated, Indonesia, continuing to call the travel ban is an obviously partisan and inflammatory statement on your part.  

Also, Trevor Noah?  The guy isn't funny and I certainly don't go to him for insight on any issue.  He can't hold John Stewart's jock.

[hollodero]

(11-11-2020, 03:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seeing as how the travel ban did not include the vast majority of muslim majority countries, including the most populated, Indonesia, continuing to call the travel ban is an obviously partisan and inflammatory statement on your part.  

That might be fair to say policy-wise, but there is no denying that Trump explicitly spoke of a Muslim ban numerous times, and I doubt that the people who were to recieve that message saw much nuance there. The term was created to ignite anti-islamic flames and it was created by Trump world.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-11-2020, 03:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: That might be fair to say policy-wise, but there is no denying that Trump explicitly spoke of a Muslim ban numerous times, and I doubt that the people who were to recieve that message saw much nuance there. The term was created to ignite anti-islamic flames and it was created by Trump world.

That I don't disagree with.  But in this type of situation what you do is a bit more important than what you say.  The travel ban is not, and has never been, a muslim ban, despite what Trump, or anyone else, says.

[hollodero]

(11-11-2020, 04:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That I don't disagree with.  But in this type of situation what you do is a bit more important than what you say.  The travel ban is not, and has never been, a muslim ban, despite what Trump, or anyone else, says.

I'd agree, it was effectively not a full blown Muslim ban, and also for sure deeds can be seen as more important than words. Doesn't mean rhetorics are unimportant. I felt Dill was always talking about the words and how dangerous they can be, even if the actual deeds then did not exactly reflect them.

I feel that even when Trump did not implement a muslim ban, every critizism of him for using the term in the first place is still warranted.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-11-2020, 04:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'd agree, it was effectively not a full blown Muslim ban, and also for sure deeds can be seen as more important than words. Doesn't mean rhetorics are unimportant. I felt Dill was always talking about the words and how dangerous they can be, even if the actual deeds then did not exactly reflect them.

I feel that even when Trump did not implement a muslim ban, every critizism of him for using the term in the first place is still warranted.

I have zero issue with him being criticized for his rhetoric.  That being said, continuing to call the travel ban a "muslim ban" is disingenuous at best and a deliberate lie at worst.  

[fredtoast]

(11-11-2020, 03:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Seeing as how the travel ban did not include the vast majority of muslim majority countries, including the most populated, Indonesia, continuing to call the travel ban is an obviously partisan and inflammatory statement on your part.  

If you would read the links provided you would see that Trump refused to say the travel ban was not a Muslim ban.  He was asked many times and given many chances to deny it was the "Muslim ban" he had originally proposed and he repeatedly said that he was justified in proposing a Muslim ban and the travel ba was an "expansion" on the Muslim ban.

So if anyone is being "inflammatory" it was Trump.

[fredtoast]

(11-11-2020, 04:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  But in this type of situation what you do is a bit more important than what you say.

This discussion is about "Trump speak".  So what he said is more important than what he does.

In the case of the Muslim ban he was told he could not legally do it, but instead of admitting he was wrong he claimed the travel ban was just an expansion of the Muslim ban.

And this proves exactly what type of person he is.  The only reason he did not enact his Muslim ban was because he was told he couldn't legally do it.

[hollodero]

(11-11-2020, 05:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have zero issue with him being criticized for his rhetoric.

I'd make the point that this is all what Dill actually effectively did, critizise him for the term, and the rhetorics and everything around it. Not solely for the actual travel ban as written. The other example he used was the wall, and it might be seen as obvious enough that Trump did not actually build that one either. It's not so much about the deed.

All things considered, I'd share my thought that you might just be a tad too strict in your verdict about Dill here. I expect no ongoing discussion about that though. Just those cents given.

Also, Trevor Noah is funny. Occasionally.

[Bengalzona]

(11-11-2020, 12:53 PM)Dill Wrote: How DARE YOU B-zona!!

LOL no, I agree. McConnell and Barr are used to arguing in, through and with the law, recognizing what can or cannot be deducted/justified from general principles. They know how to think systematically and convert thought to professional legal documents.

After their legal training and years of acting in rule-bound institutions, they have some ability to judge where moving boundaries of political/legal tolerance are. And they are internally bound by the rules in a way Trump is not. That's why they never say out loud what you are not supposed to say out loud when you are putting law to unsavory uses.

Trump never got any of that. He does not have the legal sense of real businessmen. So of course he got rid of Comey because he was investigating Trump and rushed through a SCOTUS nomination "in case" the election was contested.  Of course mail in ballots were going to be a problem so appoint someone to slow down the mail. 

But you are right. Clear legal arguments may not clearly say what you are about. But the Wall and the Muslim ban definitely do. Everyone understands what "The Snake" means when recited by Trump.

I have often admired McConnell for his uncanny knowledge of how the Senate works, though I despise his contempt for democracy.

(11-11-2020, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This, and 'Zona's, post is solid.  Unfortunately you had to sully it with your utterly disprovable "muslim ban" comment.  I know that's a pet issue of yours, but it's patently untrue.

I feel like this country is involved in a massive Meyers-Briggs experiment right now:

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-09-2020, 11:55 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I must say that I'm disappointed in you.  When I read "C" word, I honestly thought you meant concession, as in concession speech.. 

Trump: What? Concede?

[*bfine32*]

(11-11-2020, 07:15 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I feel like this country is involved in a massive Meyers-Briggs experiment right now:

M-B is just the tip of the iceberg. Today's society is rewriting the rules when studying Emotional Intelligence. 

[GMDino]

On the actual topic:

Let's say Trump finds a "legal" way to stay in office despite losing both the popular vote and EC.

Then what?

Will you guys who thought we'd see people take up arms because of three more Supreme Court Justices feel as strongly about that?

Will you (non) supporters still say how deeply disappointed you are in his actions but just shrug and say there is nothing you can do?

There are perfectly "legal" ways for this to happen if the Republican's don't have a bit of spine and cave to Trump...again.

And don't tell me they won't because they'll be voted out next because such a scenario already shows people can just not go when they are voted out.  (Plus gerrymandering.)

“The anger out there in these red states is so deep and palpable that GOP legislators may have a difficult time seating Biden electors” — Fox News is laying that groundwork for Republicans to invalidate the election results and install Trump in office for another 4 years pic.twitter.com/CrVx2SprRu

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 11, 2020

 


I do NOT think this will happen but the simple fact that it is even being DISCUSSED let alone on a "news" program is disgusting to me.

[BmorePat87]

(11-11-2020, 09:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: On the actual topic:

Let's say Trump finds a "legal" way to stay in office despite losing both the popular vote and EC.

Then what?

Will you guys who thought we'd see people take up arms because of three more Supreme Court Justices feel as strongly about that?

Will you (non) supporters still say how deeply disappointed you are in his actions but just shrug and say there is nothing you can do?

There are perfectly "legal" ways for this to happen if the Republican's don't have a bit of spine and cave to Trump...again.

And don't tell me they won't because they'll be voted out next because such a scenario already shows people can just not go when they are voted out.  (Plus gerrymandering.)

“The anger out there in these red states is so deep and palpable that GOP legislators may have a difficult time seating Biden electors” — Fox News is laying that groundwork for Republicans to invalidate the election results and install Trump in office for another 4 years pic.twitter.com/CrVx2SprRu

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 11, 2020

 


I do NOT think this will happen but the simple fact that it is even being DISCUSSED let alone on a "news" program is disgusting to me.

If that happens, we can listen to Trump

[*Nately120*]

(11-11-2020, 09:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: I do NOT think this will happen but the simple fact that it is even being DISCUSSED let alone on a "news" program is disgusting to me.

I have to admit if Trump were just given a second term (which would probably turn into a third term because if we are circumnavigating democracy for Trump what makes anyone think he's going to leave office alive?) I'd probably have a bitter laugh at people who told me that voting for a third party candidate was a waste of a vote because they "can't win."

I mean sure, you can vote for someone other than Trump but it's just a wasted vote. 




There are enough Trumps to keep this country under rule until I'm a blissful corpse. I will say it's funny Jared Kushner doesn't get a turn to be king, though.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-11-2020, 10:37 PM)Nately120 Wrote: