Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.
"an"?
I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.
I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.
Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!
My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
And I cry b/s on that last line.
I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.
I'm far from convinced she did.
And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.
The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?
I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.
You said: "The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing". Considering that the issues manufacturing had were much older than that, it's a rubbish statement. Take British Steel Corby, closed in 1979. Except February 1979, before Thatcher. Far more coal mines were closed, and coal miners jobs lost, before Thatcher than after. And the same with many other industries.
I'd also argue that Thatcher's government did not 'stand by and do nothing' - far from.
IMV the UK in the 1970s had major structural problems caused by decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s. Our industries (management, finance, unions and workers) were complacent and stubborn, causing them to lose a large advantage they had. Government policy had been to throw money at the problem: only for that money to largely get wasted.
I said nothing about the destruction of manufacturing in 1980-81!!!
Apologies, that was Foxy.
Were you about in the 1980s? For those of us not of the faith it was an alarming time which has developed into a fairytale by the Conservative faithful in subsequent years. For many, 1980s Britain was not the picture postcard world some on here remember.
She may not have been the architect of industrial, and particularly manufacturing decline, but her hatred of unionised workers accelerated the process. She threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I became a teenager in the mid-1980s, so I was around. My dad was trying to run a small business, so I got perhaps a different view from most.
I am most certainly not saying that the UK in the 1980s was a 'picture postcard'. I'm saying it was not the slough of despond others make it out to be (aside from Slough, obvs.) My memories of the 1970s are few, and then not of the social aspects, but I'd argue the country was not exactly in a good state then.
As for 'hatred of unionised workers': I am unsure whether 'hatred' is the correct word. She was not find of them, certainly: then again one union tried to anti-democratically bring down her government, so the dislike was mutual.
We need some balance with regards to the 80s. Yes the country went through a difficult period of scrapping what was left of industry and turning itself into shops and banking. But there was that long run through the middle years where everything was new and shiny.
New clothes. New music. New gadgets. Computer games. I don't like what Thatcherism did to the country but I can at least respect that she had a vision and got on with it. What is the Boris vision? Instead of new gadgets and everything getting cheaper, its the opposite with everything getting more expensive. And instead of "go work and consume" its "if you can't afford fuel its the fault of leftie lawyers and woke trans immigrants".
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
The mainstream Republican party is under the control of Trump and his acolytes. The woke left does not control the Democratic party. That is surely the difference.
Give it time. Things can always get worse in politics.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
Worth repeating the point that people on here are always more sympathetic to the left. They don't see the dangers of the "woke" left. The best stance is to be critical of both extremes. You may still have to vote for one of the two options, but this is the type of "least worst" decision forced on you by democracy. In the UK, it is possible to detest Boris Johnson but still vote Conservative, because you see a greater danger in the 'progressive' alternatives.
Some award due for getting so much wrong in one short post, Congratulations. Most importantly, if you detest someone and see dangers in voting for them, Don’t vote for them.
QED. You don’t see the dangers of the Woke Left because you don’t even recognise there is a problem
This is multiplied a hundred times over in the American Left, which means they will continue goading and provoking the Right, and which means the Right will return fire, and then some
Which leads to the polling we saw yesterday, with Trump - Trump! - leading Biden as the preferred president
Both sides have to lay down their arms; neither will, because both firmly believe their cause is righteous
Extreme woke as perversion of some sentiment long forgotten that as an ideology is close to McCarthyism. Obama called it right. You are correct to say the left overall need to own and solve that problem. It’s tricky.
Meanwhile the right continue to be seduced by strongmen, directly undermine the law, undermine objective truth through media manipulation, attack fair democratic elections and in the US actually raided the Capitol. That’s the right’s stuff to sort out. Just pointing fingers at the left saying ‘they started it’ isn’t going to solve it. It’s a tricky problem. It would be genuinely more interesting to hear you deal with that.
On topic, I'm comfortable with my bet of Con hold in T&H and the Cons getting humiliated in Wakefield.
Con hold? Have you see the hustings?
I HAVE seen the TV clips of the hustings - and, as a LibDem activist myself, have seen a rerun of previous unsuccessful LD by-elections.
A mediocre performance from a hastily-selected Tory totally inexperienced at handling sceptical audiences, loudly condemned by an audience dominated by anti-Tories. And, if history alone is any guide, very likely forgotten about once a fair proportion of Tories turn out on polling day to stop these people from representing them, and the LDs chalk up another brave, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to win an absurdly safe Tory stronghold.
I may be unnecessarily sceptical: one thing that makes T&H different from previous by-elections is that Lab's not campaigning, the Greens' campaign's weaker than as usual - and Hurford's got FOUR candidates competing with her for the "keep the Lefties out" voters. And the LDs have never had such a total tosser as Johnson guaranteed to make the case for voting almost Anything But Tory on the hour, every hour, till 10 pm on polling day.
But it's events (dear boy), campaigning clout and sheer random chance that make for by-election results. Dreadful Tory performances at hustings, and anti-Tory hostility from the hundred or so people physically there, are virtually universal.in the week before. If the hustings were a reliable guide to anything (except the incoherence of the tenth-raters the Tories choose these days), the Tories would have lost every by-election for the past decade./
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
Worth repeating the point that people on here are always more sympathetic to the left. They don't see the dangers of the "woke" left. The best stance is to be critical of both extremes. You may still have to vote for one of the two options, but this is the type of "least worst" decision forced on you by democracy. In the UK, it is possible to detest Boris Johnson but still vote Conservative, because you see a greater danger in the 'progressive' alternatives.
Some award due for getting so much wrong in one short post, Congratulations. Most importantly, if you detest someone and see dangers in voting for them, Don’t vote for them.
I prefer to see democracy as being about hard choices, as with life in general. Sometimes you just have to go for the least worst option. That's how things have been through the ages. Certainly I think politics is a lot better after you have junked the insults and tribal idiocy. This perspective makes you a lot more sympathetic to other peoples choices.
If you vote for someone, they will see it as support and encouragement, whatever thought process led you to that point. An important part about our democracy is that it is never a binary choice.
Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.
"an"?
I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.
I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.
Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!
My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
And I cry b/s on that last line.
I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.
I'm far from convinced she did.
And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.
The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?
I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.
You said: "The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing". Considering that the issues manufacturing had were much older than that, it's a rubbish statement. Take British Steel Corby, closed in 1979. Except February 1979, before Thatcher. Far more coal mines were closed, and coal miners jobs lost, before Thatcher than after. And the same with many other industries.
I'd also argue that Thatcher's government did not 'stand by and do nothing' - far from.
IMV the UK in the 1970s had major structural problems caused by decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s. Our industries (management, finance, unions and workers) were complacent and stubborn, causing them to lose a large advantage they had. Government policy had been to throw money at the problem: only for that money to largely get wasted.
I said nothing about the destruction of manufacturing in 1980-81!!!
Apologies, that was Foxy.
Were you about in the 1980s? For those of us not of the faith it was an alarming time which has developed into a fairytale by the Conservative faithful in subsequent years. For many, 1980s Britain was not the picture postcard world some on here remember.
She may not have been the architect of industrial, and particularly manufacturing decline, but her hatred of unionised workers accelerated the process. She threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I remember seeing the busy industrial Midlands from the trains in and out of Birmingham in the mid and late 1970s. Many, many workshops and factories backing onto the tracks. Now ...
I remember arriving regularly into Coventry station passed the line of unsold and slowly decaying TR7s and Rover SD1s and a sign which declared "Welcome to Coventry, City of Skill and Opportunity".
I don't dispute industrial relations in the UK were already a basket case. Thatcher took sides, the bosses were right and the feckless workers were wrong and had to be punished. If she had been more balanced and seen that both management and unions were inept perhaps the problem could have been resolved without an industrial scorched earth. The single biggest error was allowing the sale of British Companies to foreign owners. In many cases they bought our innovation for a song and moved it abroad. Unforgivable!
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
The mainstream Republican party is under the control of Trump and his acolytes. The woke left does not control the Democratic party. That is surely the difference.
Yes, but irrelevant
The Woke Left controls much of American media, ALL of academe, most of education, all of the arts, social sciences, all of social media (recall the Facebook/Twitter suppression of the Lab Leak theory) etc
That is what stirs up Trumpite anger. Probably the only arena they can win is the political arena. So they intend to, and then they will attack the Woke from within the White House
This is largely true, but not quite all of academia; as there are some bible colleges etc around the place. More like the academic establishment. But yep, there are some legitimate reasons to vote for Trump, as there were in 2020; but the hope has to be that there is a moderate Republican candidate instead. People who get driven mad by the idea that someone could vote for Trump are essentially just consumed by their own prejudices.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
Worth repeating the point that people on here are always more sympathetic to the left. They don't see the dangers of the "woke" left. The best stance is to be critical of both extremes. You may still have to vote for one of the two options, but this is the type of "least worst" decision forced on you by democracy. In the UK, it is possible to detest Boris Johnson but still vote Conservative, because you see a greater danger in the 'progressive' alternatives.
Some award due for getting so much wrong in one short post, Congratulations. Most importantly, if you detest someone and see dangers in voting for them, Don’t vote for them.
QED. You don’t see the dangers of the Woke Left because you don’t even recognise there is a problem
This is multiplied a hundred times over in the American Left, which means they will continue goading and provoking the Right, and which means the Right will return fire, and then some
Which leads to the polling we saw yesterday, with Trump - Trump! - leading Biden as the preferred president
Both sides have to lay down their arms; neither will, because both firmly believe their cause is righteous
Extreme woke as perversion of some sentiment long forgotten that as an ideology is close to McCarthyism. Obama called it right. You are correct to say the left overall need to own and solve that problem. It’s tricky.
Meanwhile the right continue to be seduced by strongmen, directly undermine the law, undermine objective truth through media manipulation, attack fair democratic elections and in the US actually raided the Capitol. That’s the right’s stuff to sort out. Just pointing fingers at the left saying ‘they started it’ isn’t going to solve it. It’s a tricky problem. It would be genuinely more interesting to hear you deal with that.
I said you ask a fair question, and I have given my best answer below. I am not an American, let alone an assiduous scholar of American politics, so my proposed solution is probably naive, but it is the best I can do
I agree that asking Who started it, is pointless. For every outrage by the Right you can find some preceding provocation by the Left - and vice versa. For every shock jock on rightwing radio stirring up trouble, there are blue tick lefty influencers on Twitter who are given way more leeway than the right. And so on
The situation is now so critical it seems near impossible for America to step back
An absolutely inspiring Democrat candidate would be good. One willing to turn on the Woke - and also able to appeal to more moderate Republicans, the way Obama did, but this time with results at the end
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
The mainstream Republican party is under the control of Trump and his acolytes. The woke left does not control the Democratic party. That is surely the difference.
Yes, but irrelevant
The Woke Left controls much of American media, ALL of academe, most of education, all of the arts, social sciences, all of social media (recall the Facebook/Twitter suppression of the Lab Leak theory) etc
That is what stirs up Trumpite anger. Probably the only arena they can win is the political arena. So they intend to, and then they will attack the Woke from within the White House
This is largely true, but not quite all of academia; as there are some bible colleges etc around the place. More like the academic establishment. But yep, there are some legitimate reasons to vote for Trump, as there were in 2020; but the hope has to be that there is a moderate Republican candidate instead. People who get driven mad by the idea that someone could vote for Trump are essentially just consumed by their own prejudices.
Like how the woke left controls Fox News now. Those damn meddling wokies.
No surprise there, if true (where did she say this?).
It isn't just the rule of law that Johnson and co play fast and loose with, also ideas of effective government through cabinet collective responsibility. The opposition could turn this in to an issue of a tyrannical government with no respect for the law trying to strip people of their rights - in the established tradition of trying to outlaw protest etc. Maybe this will all contribute to the undoing of this government.
My own personal theory is that even well intentioned governments can be in power too long, as they will become increasingly frustrated at anything, legal, political or institutional, delaying or defeating their plans. That they will become increasingly intolerant of such and more intemperate, willing to contemplate radical and irreversible actions against anything blocking them in disproportionate reaction, lashing out with half cocked retaliation without a thought as to any longer term consequences. Norms and conventions disappear as having been in power so long they come to think anyone and anything not wielding power is just being bad by resisting them.
But in the case of some like Priti it could just be she was always like that.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
The mainstream Republican party is under the control of Trump and his acolytes. The woke left does not control the Democratic party. That is surely the difference.
Yes, but irrelevant
The Woke Left controls much of American media, ALL of academe, most of education, all of the arts, social sciences, all of social media (recall the Facebook/Twitter suppression of the Lab Leak theory) etc
That is what stirs up Trumpite anger. Probably the only arena they can win is the political arena. So they intend to, and then they will attack the Woke from within the White House
I love a good SeanT hyperbole as much as the next man, but that really is a steaming pile of shite. I suspect your definition of woke is basically people you do not like very much. It blinds you.
We’ve just had a Jubilee celebration, organised in large part by the BBC and celebrated widely across social media. Not very woke.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
Worth repeating the point that people on here are always more sympathetic to the left. They don't see the dangers of the "woke" left. The best stance is to be critical of both extremes. You may still have to vote for one of the two options, but this is the type of "least worst" decision forced on you by democracy. In the UK, it is possible to detest Boris Johnson but still vote Conservative, because you see a greater danger in the 'progressive' alternatives.
Some award due for getting so much wrong in one short post, Congratulations. Most importantly, if you detest someone and see dangers in voting for them, Don’t vote for them.
QED. You don’t see the dangers of the Woke Left because you don’t even recognise there is a problem
This is multiplied a hundred times over in the American Left, which means they will continue goading and provoking the Right, and which means the Right will return fire, and then some
Which leads to the polling we saw yesterday, with Trump - Trump! - leading Biden as the preferred president
Both sides have to lay down their arms; neither will, because both firmly believe their cause is righteous
Extreme woke as perversion of some sentiment long forgotten that as an ideology is close to McCarthyism. Obama called it right. You are correct to say the left overall need to own and solve that problem. It’s tricky.
Meanwhile the right continue to be seduced by strongmen, directly undermine the law, undermine objective truth through media manipulation, attack fair democratic elections and in the US actually raided the Capitol. That’s the right’s stuff to sort out. Just pointing fingers at the left saying ‘they started it’ isn’t going to solve it. It’s a tricky problem. It would be genuinely more interesting to hear you deal with that.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
The mainstream Republican party is under the control of Trump and his acolytes. The woke left does not control the Democratic party. That is surely the difference.
Yes, but irrelevant
The Woke Left controls much of American media, ALL of academe, most of education, all of the arts, social sciences, all of social media (recall the Facebook/Twitter suppression of the Lab Leak theory) etc
That is what stirs up Trumpite anger. Probably the only arena they can win is the political arena. So they intend to, and then they will attack the Woke from within the White House
I love a good SeanT hyperbole as much as the next man, but that really is a steaming pile of shite. I suspect your definition of woke is basically people you do not like very much. It blinds you.
We’ve just had a Jubilee celebration, organised in large part by the BBC and celebrated widely across social media. Not very woke.
tbf I think Sean just uses woke as = not blatantly racist.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
The mainstream Republican party is under the control of Trump and his acolytes. The woke left does not control the Democratic party. That is surely the difference.
Yes, but irrelevant
The Woke Left controls much of American media, ALL of academe, most of education, all of the arts, social sciences, all of social media (recall the Facebook/Twitter suppression of the Lab Leak theory) etc
That is what stirs up Trumpite anger. Probably the only arena they can win is the political arena. So they intend to, and then they will attack the Woke from within the White House
This is largely true, but not quite all of academia; as there are some bible colleges etc around the place. More like the academic establishment. But yep, there are some legitimate reasons to vote for Trump, as there were in 2020; but the hope has to be that there is a moderate Republican candidate instead. People who get driven mad by the idea that someone could vote for Trump are essentially just consumed by their own prejudices.
it is very similar to our poisonous Brexit debate - people going mad on both sides - except this is America, so it is on a more important scale, and Americans have billions of guns, and America is in its heart a revolutionary society. The UK is not (and that is generally a good thing, though it can lead to stagnation)
It’s been said before multiple times, but it is worth saying again, if you look at all the boxes you need to tick to say: Civil War is coming, then America right now ticks all of them, possibly more than any other country on earth
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
The mainstream Republican party is under the control of Trump and his acolytes. The woke left does not control the Democratic party. That is surely the difference.
Yes, but irrelevant
The Woke Left controls much of American media, ALL of academe, most of education, all of the arts, social sciences, all of social media (recall the Facebook/Twitter suppression of the Lab Leak theory) etc
That is what stirs up Trumpite anger. Probably the only arena they can win is the political arena. So they intend to, and then they will attack the Woke from within the White House
I love a good SeanT hyperbole as much as the next man, but that really is a steaming pile of shite. I suspect your definition of woke is basically people you do not like very much. It blinds you.
We’ve just had a Jubilee celebration, organised in large part by the BBC and celebrated widely across social media. Not very woke.
WTF are you on about? I specifically say AMERICA
What fucking relevance is the Jubilee and the BBC??
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
Given Trumps record on NATO and general closeness to Putin, his re-election would be a catastrophe for the West.
I genuinely wish it were pearl clutching and handwringing. But it’s isn’t.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
He entirely rebalanced the Supreme Court in a way that no other president has ever done. He also explicitly refused to accept the result of a democratic election and tried to stage a literal coup to overturn it.
Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.
"an"?
I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.
I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.
Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!
My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
And I cry b/s on that last line.
I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.
I'm far from convinced she did.
And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.
The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?
I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.
You said: "The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing". Considering that the issues manufacturing had were much older than that, it's a rubbish statement. Take British Steel Corby, closed in 1979. Except February 1979, before Thatcher. Far more coal mines were closed, and coal miners jobs lost, before Thatcher than after. And the same with many other industries.
I'd also argue that Thatcher's government did not 'stand by and do nothing' - far from.
IMV the UK in the 1970s had major structural problems caused by decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s. Our industries (management, finance, unions and workers) were complacent and stubborn, causing them to lose a large advantage they had. Government policy had been to throw money at the problem: only for that money to largely get wasted.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Bingo. It's been said here too, yesterday someone was appalled by the idea of Trump being re-elected because 'it would lead to civil war'. If Trump were to be elected fairly, that event wouldn't be a civil war, it would be an attempted armed overthrow of an elected leader. Hatred for Trump is driving 'liberal' elites insane. And that distorted morality is affecting posters here too.
Trump being re-elected wont lead to civil war initially, although there may be some very ugly scenes of protest and some violence.
The issue is more that either a) Trump does not win, but contests the result (as last time) by demanding his supporters take control via a coup of some kind, or b) when he attempts to stop there being an election in 2028 i.e. he wants to president for life.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
Try to overthrow an election result? Withhold arms to Ukraine to try to get them to aid his election campaign?
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
He entirely rebalanced the Supreme Court in a way that no other president has ever done. He also explicitly refused to accept the result of a democratic election and tried to stage a literal coup to overturn it.
Yep. What has Trump that is so bad, other than literally stage a coup to overthrow the elected government?
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
Given Trumps record on NATO and general closeness to Putin, his re-election would be a catastrophe for the West.
I genuinely wish it were pearl clutching and handwringing. But it’s isn’t.
Putin must be partly gambling he can hold on to what he has in Ukraine until Trump arrives and abandons europe to its own defence. Then he can make his next major move.
And what do you think will happen? Nazi death squads in the streets the next day? We have a well established legal system in this country.
Johnson has managed to ride roughshod over our "established legal system" from the proroguing of Parliament to the abandonment of international treaties and the Ministerial Code. How the farce that was a police investigation into Partygate exonerated Johnson. Durham Detectives will likely as not convict Starmer and Rayner, but thought there was nothing to see with Cummings suggests the impartiality of the police is far from perfect. I also give you Attorney General Braverman.
Johnsonian death squads would of course at present be illegal, certainly until laws are changed, and in Priti Patel, that is not beyond the realms of reason.
The prorogue game of parliament which was stopped by... our law courts. Hyperbole to suggest Patel would introduce death squads. I know you hate the current government, and there are lots reasons to, but it’s possible to lose a sense of perspective. I want this shit show of a government out too. ASAP.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
The mainstream Republican party is under the control of Trump and his acolytes. The woke left does not control the Democratic party. That is surely the difference.
Yes, but irrelevant
The Woke Left controls much of American media, ALL of academe, most of education, all of the arts, social sciences, all of social media (recall the Facebook/Twitter suppression of the Lab Leak theory) etc
That is what stirs up Trumpite anger. Probably the only arena they can win is the political arena. So they intend to, and then they will attack the Woke from within the White House
Yes, of course, the Woke Left has hegemony in the USA. That's why they have been so successful in bringing about gun control against the wishes of the weak and pathetic NRA and their Republican acolytes. Oh, hang on a minute.......
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
So invading a democratic Parliament to stop them certifying a fair election result isn’t a coup. Interesting hypothesis.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Let us remember that Liz Cheney was the only member of the GOP who agreed to commemorate the death of Brian Sicknick.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
The idea probably was to terrorise the political elite in DC, lynch a few senators, so that Trump could credibly position himself as the strongman restoring order, saying “now is not the moment to transfer power”
You can say it was a crazy plan but I get the sense that was the objective, at lesser for some around Trump if not Trump himself
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
Indeed, but there has been no aim reported, even the most unlikely one, of how the idiots in question wanted to take power and what they wanted to do once they'd overcome (somehow) all of America's security apparatus and actually achieved it. It was a protest and act of vandalism where the perpetrators were heavily armed. Extremely horrid and scary, but not a coup. It is better covered by the word 'terrorism', and those opposing Trump would have found that a more credible accusation imo.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
The mainstream Republican party is under the control of Trump and his acolytes. The woke left does not control the Democratic party. That is surely the difference.
Yes, but irrelevant
The Woke Left controls much of American media, ALL of academe, most of education, all of the arts, social sciences, all of social media (recall the Facebook/Twitter suppression of the Lab Leak theory) etc
That is what stirs up Trumpite anger. Probably the only arena they can win is the political arena. So they intend to, and then they will attack the Woke from within the White House
Yes, of course, the Woke Left has hegemony in the USA. That's why they have been so successful in bringing about gun control against the wishes of the weak and pathetic NRA and their Republican acolytes. Oh, hang on a minute.......
Sometimes you're quite unhinged.
I mean you could actually fucking READ what I write instead of jumping to lefty conclusions as to what you wish I’d write
I specifically said that politics is the one main arena where the American Right has a real advantage. Hence the inability to reform gun law, the stuffing of SCOTUS (American justice is an extension of politics). &c
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
The only fortunate part was that he is such an idiot. Somebody vaguely competent might have actually pulled it off.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
The mainstream Republican party is under the control of Trump and his acolytes. The woke left does not control the Democratic party. That is surely the difference.
Yes, but irrelevant
The Woke Left controls much of American media, ALL of academe, most of education, all of the arts, social sciences, all of social media (recall the Facebook/Twitter suppression of the Lab Leak theory) etc
That is what stirs up Trumpite anger. Probably the only arena they can win is the political arena. So they intend to, and then they will attack the Woke from within the White House
Yes, of course, the Woke Left has hegemony in the USA. That's why they have been so successful in bringing about gun control against the wishes of the weak and pathetic NRA and their Republican acolytes. Oh, hang on a minute.......
Sometimes you're quite unhinged.
I mean you could actually fucking READ what I write instead of jumping to lefty conclusions as to what you wish I’d write
I specifically said that politics is the one main arena where the American Right has a real advantage. Hence the inability to reform gun law, the stuffing of SCOTUS (American justice is an extension of politics). &c
Sorry, I was using hegemony in the Gramscian sense in response to your post that claimed the Woke Left had such hegemony. It would be a strange old world if such hegemony didn't also seep into the political sphere. But maybe you think that the Woke Left's control of the media etc. is uniquely separate from ideological domination. I know you like exaggeration, but you need some perspective. The Woke Left is nowhere near hegemony in the cultural sphere. What's really going on is that the right absolutely hates the liberal (not really the left) threatening their hegemony.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
It was whatever the word is for an attempt by the loser to overturn an election outcome using intimidation and violence.
It was a protest and act of vandalism where the perpetrators were heavily armed.
They weren't armed. Civilian carry is unfortunately banned in DC and the J6 Deplorables almost all complied. I think there was one Qtard with an IED in his Silverado.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
He moved supporters into key positions in the Pentagon. He tried to have state’s election results overturned. There was way more than the Capitol attack.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
The mainstream Republican party is under the control of Trump and his acolytes. The woke left does not control the Democratic party. That is surely the difference.
Yes, but irrelevant
The Woke Left controls much of American media, ALL of academe, most of education, all of the arts, social sciences, all of social media (recall the Facebook/Twitter suppression of the Lab Leak theory) etc
That is what stirs up Trumpite anger. Probably the only arena they can win is the political arena. So they intend to, and then they will attack the Woke from within the White House
Yes, of course, the Woke Left has hegemony in the USA. That's why they have been so successful in bringing about gun control against the wishes of the weak and pathetic NRA and their Republican acolytes. Oh, hang on a minute.......
Sometimes you're quite unhinged.
I mean you could actually fucking READ what I write instead of jumping to lefty conclusions as to what you wish I’d write
I specifically said that politics is the one main arena where the American Right has a real advantage. Hence the inability to reform gun law, the stuffing of SCOTUS (American justice is an extension of politics). &c
Sorry, I was using hegemony in the Gramscian sense in response to your post that claimed the Woke Left had such hegemony. It would be a strange old world if such hegemony didn't also seep into the political sphere. But maybe you think that the Woke Left's control of the media etc. is uniquely separate from ideological domination. I know you like exaggeration, but you need some perspective. The Woke Left is nowhere near hegemony in the cultural sphere. What's really going on is that the right absolutely hates the liberal (not really the left) threatening their hegemony.
no what's happening is the right is using fear of the left to maintain power
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
The only fortunate part was that he is such an idiot. Somebody vaguely competent might have actually pulled it off.
I doubt it. American power is too diffuse and the tradition of legal and constitutional government is much too strong. Even Trump-appointed judges almost invariably threw his election lawsuits out when when his lawyers/liars could produce no evidence.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
The only fortunate part was that he is such an idiot. Somebody vaguely competent might have actually pulled it off.
History is littered with idiots failing to mount coups. However idiotic the plan to take power, there is at least a plan to take power. It is also littered with violent protests, riots, lootings, and acts of terror. Which is the category that this falls into. Trying to spin it into something it isn't undermines the argument.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
The only fortunate part was that he is such an idiot. Somebody vaguely competent might have actually pulled it off.
History is littered with idiots failing to mount coups. However idiotic the plan to take power, there is at least a plan to take power. It is also littered with violent protests, riots, lootings, and acts of terror. Which is the category that this falls into. Trying to spin it into something it isn't undermines the argument.
Er - do you mean 'idiots mounting failed coups?'
Otherwise I can't make sense of your post.
And are you suggesting Trump, who was threatening his Veep with unspecified consequences if he didn't declare Trump the winner, had no plan to take power? If so, I must conclude that you have not been following recent evidence hearings from the Jan 6th Select Committee.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
He entirely rebalanced the Supreme Court in a way that no other president has ever done. He also explicitly refused to accept the result of a democratic election and tried to stage a literal coup to overturn it.
It's like the Hitler quote from 'The Producers' 'Hitler? Now there was a painter! He could paint an entire apartment in one afternoon. Two coats!!
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
The only fortunate part was that he is such an idiot. Somebody vaguely competent might have actually pulled it off.
History is littered with idiots failing to mount coups. However idiotic the plan to take power, there is at least a plan to take power. It is also littered with violent protests, riots, lootings, and acts of terror. Which is the category that this falls into. Trying to spin it into something it isn't undermines the argument.
Nope, this was an attempted coup. Pure and simple. May have been shitely organized, but the evidence from the hearings is clear.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
The only fortunate part was that he is such an idiot. Somebody vaguely competent might have actually pulled it off.
And he and his inner cult now known what to do next time.
It was a protest and act of vandalism where the perpetrators were heavily armed.
They weren't armed. Civilian carry is unfortunately banned in DC and the J6 Deplorables almost all complied. I think there was one Qtard with an IED in his Silverado.
They were armed with bonehead malice and stupidity. The right to bear these is not protected in the Constitution but as far as Trumpites go it might as well be.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
The only fortunate part was that he is such an idiot. Somebody vaguely competent might have actually pulled it off.
I doubt it. American power is too diffuse and the tradition of legal and constitutional government is much too strong. Even Trump-appointed judges almost invariably threw his election lawsuits out when when his lawyers/liars could produce no evidence.
I fear your theory of diffuse power is about to be extremely tested in the years 2024-8.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Mussolini was never anything other than a joke either.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
The only fortunate part was that he is such an idiot. Somebody vaguely competent might have actually pulled it off.
And he and his inner cult now known what to do next time.
Typo in your post there. You somehow put 'l' instead of 'n'.
If Pence had been a weaker man he would have declared Trump elected. What would have happened then is, thankfully, something we will never know but Jan6 was an attack on the democratic institutions of the US. Trump should be in jail for the rest of his life for it. The fact that he is still a serious candidate for the next time shows how weak and vulnerable democracy is in the US.
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
The route to power was quite clear as has been documented in multiple accounts. Delay the count until the imagined fraud could be investigated and recitified in key states resulting in different sets of electors from those states re-electing Trump.
Trump was saying as early as September that there would be no peaceful transfer of power. He told us all he was going to do it then he tried to do it.
I know you've never seen a caudillo that didn't get you wet but ya boi did try to do a coup.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
So invading a democratic Parliament to stop them certifying a fair election result isn’t a coup. Interesting hypothesis.
Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group. It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.
Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).
One for you
“The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.
“The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated. “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””
An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved. Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
He's a surgical oncologist who has been opining a lot on immunology and virology and often has opinions published that are at odds with leading immunologists and virologists.
He informed us all that only 20% of Americans needed to be vaccinated for covid to vanish, and it would all be gone by April 2021. He's one of the go to scientists for the antivaxxers as well.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
So invading a democratic Parliament to stop them certifying a fair election result isn’t a coup. Interesting hypothesis.
Just a bit of over zealous tourism.
They were trying to get to Washington National Cathedral for a celebration of animal husbandry and got bit lost.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
The only fortunate part was that he is such an idiot. Somebody vaguely competent might have actually pulled it off.
History is littered with idiots failing to mount coups. However idiotic the plan to take power, there is at least a plan to take power. It is also littered with violent protests, riots, lootings, and acts of terror. Which is the category that this falls into. Trying to spin it into something it isn't undermines the argument.
Er - do you mean 'idiots mounting failed coups?'
Otherwise I can't make sense of your post.
And are you suggesting Trump, who was threatening his Veep with unspecified consequences if he didn't declare Trump the winner, had no plan to take power? If so, I must conclude that you have not been following recent evidence hearings from the Jan 6th Select Committee.
Your argument must be really strong if you're going with sentence structure.
Of course I am not saying that Trump didn't want to hold on to power; it is clear that he pulled every lever at his disposal to do so.
What I am saying is that the takeover on the Capitol wasn't a coup. You can widen the attack or try to muddy the waters as much as you like, it still wasn't a coup. I think as a history teacher you are probably well aware of this fact, but because you hate Trump and think there's a 'right' and 'wrong' side to this argument that goes beyond 'strict definitions'; that's why you're arguing. That's the pernicious nature of this debate.
And what do you think will happen? Nazi death squads in the streets the next day? We have a well established legal system in this country.
Johnson has managed to ride roughshod over our "established legal system" from the proroguing of Parliament to the abandonment of international treaties and the Ministerial Code. How the farce that was a police investigation into Partygate exonerated Johnson. Durham Detectives will likely as not convict Starmer and Rayner, but thought there was nothing to see with Cummings suggests the impartiality of the police is far from perfect. I also give you Attorney General Braverman.
Johnsonian death squads would of course at present be illegal, certainly until laws are changed, and in Priti Patel, that is not beyond the realms of reason.
The prorogue game of parliament which was stopped by... our law courts. Hyperbole to suggest Patel would introduce death squads. I know you hate the current government, and there are lots reasons to, but it’s possible to lose a sense of perspective. I want this shit show of a government out too. ASAP.
I do believe with Johnson's instinct for self preservation, he has it within him to do unimaginable damage to our unwritten constitution.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
Have other Presidents delighted at the raging protests by their peeps?
If Pence had been a weaker man he would have declared Trump elected. What would have happened then is, thankfully, something we will never know but Jan6 was an attack on the democratic institutions of the US. Trump should be in jail for the rest of his life for it. The fact that he is still a serious candidate for the next time shows how weak and vulnerable democracy is in the US.
Pence wavered. Unbelievably it was Dan "You spell potato, I spell potatoe"" Quayle who saved the day.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
He moved supporters into key positions in the Pentagon. He tried to have state’s election results overturned. There was way more than the Capitol attack.
And months before the election he ran a smear campaign on postal votes - rolling the pitch for claiming a false win.
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
The route to power was quite clear as has been documented in multiple accounts. Delay the count until the imagined fraud could be investigated and recitified in key states resulting in different sets of electors from those states re-electing Trump.
Trump was saying as early as September that there would be no peaceful transfer of power. He told us all he was going to do it then he tried to do it.
I know you've never seen a caudillo that didn't get you wet but ya boi did try to do a coup.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
With your apologist attitude towards Trump and Putin you appear to be happy to sleepwalk into a disaster far worse than the rise of fascism in the 1930s.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
Have other Presidents delighted at the raging protests by their peeps?
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
See you responded to something I didn't say and completely ignored what I did say. Tends to be the way with someone who doesn't have a response to the actual arguments.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
See you responded to something I didn't say and completely ignored what I did say. Tends to be the way with someone who doesn't have a response to the actual arguments.
If I have misunderstood your argument, please clarify. I read this as the rioters etiher declaring him as President or forcing someone else to. If there's another way, please elaborate.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
At best it was a "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" situation. But I think that is giving Trump too much leeway. He wanted to remain president, and encouraged his supporters to believe that the election was stolen. I'd argue everything was heading up to the riots as if there was a central plan, I think from stuff that was said even before the election.
What makes you think he was 'horrified' at what happened? To me, his reaction was: "Nothing to do with me, guv."
Trump makes both Johnson and Corbyn appear like saintly figures. He really is orders of magnitude worse than out worst.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
Have other Presidents delighted at the raging protests by their peeps?
The first ones presumably.
That’s a joke answer.
You asked what Trump had done that was dramatically out of kilter with other Presidents. Your have in your own words described something that was dramatically out of kilter with other Presidents. QED.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
See you responded to something I didn't say and completely ignored what I did say. Tends to be the way with someone who doesn't have a response to the actual arguments.
If I have misunderstood your argument, please clarify. I read this as the rioters etiher declaring him as President or forcing someone else to. If there's another way, please elaborate.
So you genuinely believe he wasn't trying to get Pence declare him as president? As I said deluded.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
The only fortunate part was that he is such an idiot. Somebody vaguely competent might have actually pulled it off.
History is littered with idiots failing to mount coups. However idiotic the plan to take power, there is at least a plan to take power. It is also littered with violent protests, riots, lootings, and acts of terror. Which is the category that this falls into. Trying to spin it into something it isn't undermines the argument.
Er - do you mean 'idiots mounting failed coups?'
Otherwise I can't make sense of your post.
And are you suggesting Trump, who was threatening his Veep with unspecified consequences if he didn't declare Trump the winner, had no plan to take power? If so, I must conclude that you have not been following recent evidence hearings from the Jan 6th Select Committee.
Your argument must be really strong if you're going with sentence structure.
Of course I am not saying that Trump didn't want to hold on to power; it is clear that he pulled every lever at his disposal to do so.
What I am saying is that the takeover on the Capitol wasn't a coup. You can widen the attack or try to muddy the waters as much as you like, it still wasn't a coup. I think as a history teacher you are probably well aware of this fact, but because you hate Trump and think there's a 'right' and 'wrong' side to this argument that goes beyond 'strict definitions'; that's why you're arguing. That's the pernicious nature of this debate.
No, you haven't been listening to the evidence, and now you're trying to attack me on personal grounds to hide this, ironically while accusing me of doing the same thing.
At one time, I was in doubt as to whether it was deliberate or whether Trump is just a twat who doesn't realise what he was doing. However, it is quite clear from the evidence presented to Congress that Trump deliberately provoked the crowd, demanded they march on the Capitol, and then urged them to assault those including his own vice-president whom he claimed were stealing the presidency from him. Many of his supporters are still wantonly flouting the law and the constitution (look at the disgraceful performance of Jon Eastman effectively admitting Congress were right by pleading the fifth and saying they had no jurisdiction over him anyway).
Only when it failed did Trump grudgingly back down and hand over power.
That's a coup. Or, to put it another way, he was a hell of a lot more active in the attempted overthrow of his government than either de Gaulle in 1958 or Mnangagwa in 2017, and they are both called coups. Albeit successful ones.
The irony is you are so blinded by your admiration for Trump you cannot see it, while accusing those who see perfectly clearly what he did of being blinded by hatred for him.
I thought he would be a bad president, but I was doubtful he'd be worse than Clinton and was willing to give him a chance. His actions are what have turned me against him. But you're willing to excuse him despite admitting that it was an act of terrorism.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
With your apologist attitude towards Trump and Putin you appear to be happy to sleepwalk into a disaster far worse than the rise of fascism in the 1930s.
Actually, I would just like everyone to settle the f down. Any potential future disaster is likely to stem from people losing all sense of perspective when assailed by catastrophe here and coup there. We're not living through unprecedented disasters, people are just telling us we are. The best way forward is keep common sense, stay clear-eyed, and keep buggering on.
Wakefield will surely be a solid Labour gain on current polls. It is only 38th on the Labour target list and if Starmer fails to win it he has no chance of even getting a hung parliament let alone becoming PM or winning a Labour majority.
Tiverton and Honiton however I think could see the Tories scrape home even if they see a bigger swing to the LDs there than to Labour in Wakefield. They got over 60% of the vote there in 2019, it was 57% Leave and the local Tory candidate, Helen Hurford is miles better than the non local candidate in Shropshire North.
She seemed to have a more confident hustings performance last week than the slightly nervous LD candidate. The Tory campaign is also shrewdly all about her. The latest Tory literature is a brochure about Helen Hurford as a local champion and ex local head teacher with the word Conservative not even mentioned until pages in and Johnson nowhere to be seen
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
The route to power was quite clear as has been documented in multiple accounts. Delay the count until the imagined fraud could be investigated and recitified in key states resulting in different sets of electors from those states re-electing Trump.
Trump was saying as early as September that there would be no peaceful transfer of power. He told us all he was going to do it then he tried to do it.
I know you've never seen a caudillo that didn't get you wet but ya boi did try to do a coup.
What you've described isn't a coup.
What is described is an attempt to seize power illegally using violence if necessary. Which is the exact definition of a coup.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
The only fortunate part was that he is such an idiot. Somebody vaguely competent might have actually pulled it off.
And he and his inner cult now known what to do next time.
Given the latest 2024 poll is Trump 41% Biden 38% and Trump 43% Harris 37%, Trump won't even need an attempted coup.
However a long way to go, Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama all trailed potential opponents Mondale, Dole and Romney in polls midterm but still went on to beat them. Plus the Democrats could pick a younger, more charismatic candidate like O'Rourke or Buttigieg
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
At best it was a "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" situation. But I think that is giving Trump too much leeway. He wanted to remain president, and encouraged his supporters to believe that the election was stolen. I'd argue everything was heading up to the riots as if there was a central plan, I think from stuff that was said even before the election.
What makes you think he was 'horrified' at what happened? To me, his reaction was: "Nothing to do with me, guv."
Trump makes both Johnson and Corbyn appear like saintly figures. He really is orders of magnitude worse than out worst.
Yes, he is, JJ, but I still think it's important we don't allow 'our worst' too much slack.
Mrs Thatcher was a deeply unpopular figure who nonetheless could win an election.
"an"?
I reckon she won at least three General Elections, and maybe a couple of others along the way.
Yes but she was not deeply unpopular for the first couple.
I think in 78-79 Callaghan polled much better in his personal ratings. At that time Thatcher was seen as an unpolished lightweight. She had poor ratings for the first couple of years too.
And also undoubtedly because she was a woman.
I know plenty of men 60+ who preferred Heath for that reason.
Of course, Thatcher showed that the right woman could be a better leader than all the men in parliament.
No question at all. My uncle later became a fan but said he would emigrate if she became PM in 1978, not being willing to live in a country led by a woman. That sort of sexism wasn't rare in those days!
My objection to her was political, not gender based. The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing in order to fight inflation was unnecessarily brutal, and she really didn't care at all about the human cost, indeed positively seemed to enjoy it.
And I cry b/s on that last line.
I don't think Thatcher actively enjoyed the misery that so many people went through during the 1980s. But I do know that she divided the UK into "our people" and the rest, and that she didn't seem to mind that much what happened to the latter group.
I'm far from convinced she did.
And if you stretch the point to say she did, then I'd also argue that the Labour Party at the time was in exactly the same position: just that 'our people' were a different segment of society.
The idea that the decline of Britain and British manufacturing (and many other things) magically started in 1979 is absolute rubbish. Was Thatcher actually a symptom of the malaise (in trying to fix it), rather than the cause of the malaise?
I did not claim that the decline of British manufacturing happened in 1979. No sensible person would. As you say, though, Thatcher had to deal with its consequences. There are many parts of the deindustrialised north of England, south Wales and central belt of Scotland that, even 40 years later, have not fully recovered from her government's decision to stand by and do nothing as communities ceased to function.
You said: "The 1980-81 destruction of manufacturing". Considering that the issues manufacturing had were much older than that, it's a rubbish statement. Take British Steel Corby, closed in 1979. Except February 1979, before Thatcher. Far more coal mines were closed, and coal miners jobs lost, before Thatcher than after. And the same with many other industries.
I'd also argue that Thatcher's government did not 'stand by and do nothing' - far from.
IMV the UK in the 1970s had major structural problems caused by decisions made in the 1950s and 1960s. Our industries (management, finance, unions and workers) were complacent and stubborn, causing them to lose a large advantage they had. Government policy had been to throw money at the problem: only for that money to largely get wasted.
I said nothing about the destruction of manufacturing in 1980-81!!!
Apologies, that was Foxy.
Were you about in the 1980s? For those of us not of the faith it was an alarming time which has developed into a fairytale by the Conservative faithful in subsequent years. For many, 1980s Britain was not the picture postcard world some on here remember.
She may not have been the architect of industrial, and particularly manufacturing decline, but her hatred of unionised workers accelerated the process. She threw the baby out with the bathwater.
I became a teenager in the mid-1980s, so I was around. My dad was trying to run a small business, so I got perhaps a different view from most.
I am most certainly not saying that the UK in the 1980s was a 'picture postcard'. I'm saying it was not the slough of despond others make it out to be (aside from Slough, obvs.) My memories of the 1970s are few, and then not of the social aspects, but I'd argue the country was not exactly in a good state then.
As for 'hatred of unionised workers': I am unsure whether 'hatred' is the correct word. She was not find of them, certainly: then again one union tried to anti-democratically bring down her government, so the dislike was mutual.
We need some balance with regards to the 80s. Yes the country went through a difficult period of scrapping what was left of industry and turning itself into shops and banking. But there was that long run through the middle years where everything was new and shiny.
New clothes. New music. New gadgets. Computer games. I don't like what Thatcherism did to the country but I can at least respect that she had a vision and got on with it. What is the Boris vision? Instead of new gadgets and everything getting cheaper, its the opposite with everything getting more expensive. And instead of "go work and consume" its "if you can't afford fuel its the fault of leftie lawyers and woke trans immigrants".
I agree about Boris' lack of vision - oddly, as his Brexit support was based on an opportunistic vision (and people on here will disagree about that vision).
But Starmer also lacks vision. All we have seen from him is a WORN thesis and "I'm a big-brained lawyer, but I don't know if I broke the law." I don't get his vision.
The Lib Dems don't seem to have much of one, either.
I think it's slightly unfair to blame all the cost increases on Boris's PMship; much (though not all) of it is due to events outside his control. The question is how prices in other equivalent countries are increasing.
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
At best it was a "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" situation. But I think that is giving Trump too much leeway. He wanted to remain president, and encouraged his supporters to believe that the election was stolen. I'd argue everything was heading up to the riots as if there was a central plan, I think from stuff that was said even before the election.
What makes you think he was 'horrified' at what happened? To me, his reaction was: "Nothing to do with me, guv."
Trump makes both Johnson and Corbyn appear like saintly figures. He really is orders of magnitude worse than out worst.
Yes, he is, JJ, but I still think it's important we don't allow 'our worst' too much slack.
I'm pleased to say I never voted for Corbyn's Labour, or Johnson's Conservatives. My conscience is clear.
(I've also voiced my feelings of the unsuitability of both leaders for the top job long before it became popular on here. For me, the Garden Bridge debacle, and Johnson's reaction to it, were crystal-clear indicators he should not become PM. Though I'm unsure if the negative traits he showed then are the same that have caused his failures as PM.)
Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group. It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.
Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).
One for you
“The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.
“The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated. “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””
An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved. Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
He's a surgical oncologist who has been opining a lot on immunology and virology and often has opinions published that are at odds with leading immunologists and virologists.
He informed us all that only 20% of Americans needed to be vaccinated for covid to vanish, and it would all be gone by April 2021. He's one of the go to scientists for the antivaxxers as well.
It was, of course, a bunch of “leading virologists” who told us the Lab Leak Hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory”, and forbade us from even talking about it
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
An idiot attempting a coup is still attempting a coup.
The only fortunate part was that he is such an idiot. Somebody vaguely competent might have actually pulled it off.
History is littered with idiots failing to mount coups. However idiotic the plan to take power, there is at least a plan to take power. It is also littered with violent protests, riots, lootings, and acts of terror. Which is the category that this falls into. Trying to spin it into something it isn't undermines the argument.
Er - do you mean 'idiots mounting failed coups?'
Otherwise I can't make sense of your post.
And are you suggesting Trump, who was threatening his Veep with unspecified consequences if he didn't declare Trump the winner, had no plan to take power? If so, I must conclude that you have not been following recent evidence hearings from the Jan 6th Select Committee.
Your argument must be really strong if you're going with sentence structure.
Of course I am not saying that Trump didn't want to hold on to power; it is clear that he pulled every lever at his disposal to do so.
What I am saying is that the takeover on the Capitol wasn't a coup. You can widen the attack or try to muddy the waters as much as you like, it still wasn't a coup. I think as a history teacher you are probably well aware of this fact, but because you hate Trump and think there's a 'right' and 'wrong' side to this argument that goes beyond 'strict definitions'; that's why you're arguing. That's the pernicious nature of this debate.
No, you haven't been listening to the evidence, and now you're trying to attack me on personal grounds to hide this, ironically while accusing me of doing the same thing.
At one time, I was in doubt as to whether it was deliberate or whether Trump is just a twat who doesn't realise what he was doing. However, it is quite clear from the evidence presented to Congress that Trump deliberately provoked the crowd, demanded they march on the Capitol, and then urged them to assault those including his own vice-president whom he claimed were stealing the presidency from him. Many of his supporters are still wantonly flouting the law and the constitution (look at the disgraceful performance of Jon Eastman effectively admitting Congress were right by pleading the fifth and saying they had no jurisdiction over him anyway).
Only when it failed did Trump grudgingly back down and hand over power.
That's a coup. Or, to put it another way, he was a hell of a lot more active in the attempted overthrow of his government than either de Gaulle in 1958 or Mnangagwa in 2017, and they are both called coups. Albeit successful ones.
The irony is you are so blinded by your admiration for Trump you cannot see it, while accusing those who see perfectly clearly what he did of being blinded by hatred for him.
I thought he would be a bad president, but I was doubtful he'd be worse than Clinton and was willing to give him a chance. His actions are what have turned me against him. But you're willing to excuse him despite admitting that it was an act of terrorism.
This passage is the substance of your argument that this was a coup:
'Trump deliberately provoked the crowd, demanded they march on the Capitol, and then urged them to assault those including his own vice-president whom he claimed were stealing the presidency from him.'
But it doesn't demonstrate a coup, because surely not even the stupidest person marching on the Capitol would claim to be taking over the USA. There was no mechanism, however fantastical, by which they could have done so. The closest is Leon's still tenuous suggestion that Trump 'took over' the 'chaos' and declared martial law. But there's no indication he tried that or had a plan in place to attempt to. He'd have had to order the shooting of his own supporters for one thing, potentially tearing apart his electoral base.
Trump's legal (and possibly more dubious) machinations to overturn the election result are a different issue. They are not wholly unprecedented in US elections, but I am sure he pursued them to a more extreme degree than others have done. If he broke the law, he should be tried and convicted.
Trump should be tried for his encouragement of a coup attempt in January 2021 but regardless, the more worrying thing is that a large minority in the US are prepared to support him, many zealously.
It's not the first time a tyrant has been enabled by a mass of the population (see Germany 1932) and presumably won't be the last.
It's almost as if democracy has an inherent self-destruct mechanism - eventually somebody with a determination to rule unchecked is going to get elected.
I wonder why some on the right are leavening their discomfort at the separate though not dissimilar moral cesspits of Trump and Johnson by fixating on the extreme woke left and the ‘utter embarrassment’ of Scholz, Macron and Draghi? Perhaps if they concentrated more on taking care of their own business they might be taken more seriously.
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
The route to power was quite clear as has been documented in multiple accounts. Delay the count until the imagined fraud could be investigated and recitified in key states resulting in different sets of electors from those states re-electing Trump.
Trump was saying as early as September that there would be no peaceful transfer of power. He told us all he was going to do it then he tried to do it.
I know you've never seen a caudillo that didn't get you wet but ya boi did try to do a coup.
What you've described isn't a coup.
What is described is an attempt to seize power illegally using violence if necessary. Which is the exact definition of a coup.
Honestly, you're as bad as Hyufd.
There's a very good (IMO) US Lawyer on YouTube who has a series of videos on the US riots and goes into what they might be charged with. From memory, treason would be difficult to prove, but sedition might be easier.
IANAL, and I am not American, so I have little idea if he is just b/s'ing. But his views happily both go against my own, and in agreement with them, which makes me think he is not *too* politically biased ...
Relatedly, I just read the interesting lunch-with-the-FT interview with Hillary Clinton
She says, and I paraphrase: “All that matters is beating Trump, the election is the only issue, he has to lose” - and one can empathise with her urgency
But she comes close to saying ANYTHING is justified as long as it helps to defeat Trump. Anything? Like, lying about the probable origins of a global catastrophe for a year? Or getting the FBI to smear Trump? Or worse?
This is the TGV to Civil War. Once you believe your opponent is so evil you can justify doing anything to stop him, then he and his supporters will feel the same about stopping you. That cannot end well
Trump and his supporters are responsible for Trump, not Clinton, not scientists, the left or anyone else. He crossed the line. He undermined democracy. His supporters attacked the Capitol.
It is not unreasonable to want to defeat him.
it is extremely desirable to beat Trump. He is a menace to the world, especially the West
The trickier question is: how much his horribleness justifies illegal or immoral behaviour in his opponents
You should be more worried about what he and his supporters will do.
I am worried about both. As Hillary herself says in that FT interview, both sides have gone mad at the extremes: the Woke Left and the Trumpite right. They are only 10-20% of each side but they are highly vocal, super motivated and they are driving America to civil conflict
As a self proclaimed right winger it would be far more interesting if you spared some of your brain power on how the US right might save itself from its current madness and escape Trump. Arguably this the most likely answer that will save us all from catastrophe. He left can only hold the line for so long.
Can't Presidents only serve two terms?
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
I despise the Left as much as any intelligent man, but when it comes to Trump it is not “pearl clutching” to fear and loathe The Donald. January 6 was an attempted coup
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
Of course it was. He was trying to get himself declared president.. At that point in time (declaration of the presidency) it was the number 1 strategic target.
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
You think if the guy dressed as a Davy Crockett had taken to the podium and 'declared' that Trump was President, that would have carried some sort of legal, moral, or any other weight that would actually make it happen? Even if a poor member of the Capitol team said it at gunpoint, it would have been under duress and have no bearing on anything.
They were trying to KILL politicians. Amidst the chaos Trump would have “enforced order” and demanded continued power
You think the taking back of a single building from an assorted bunch of fancy dress wearing rioters would have been sufficient justification for Trump to suspend the constitution and give himself emergency powers? Don't be ridiculous. Calling it a coup is just another piece of the hyperbole that Trump is so good at inspiring in his opponents. As I said, calling it a terrorist attack would have been truer and in some ways more damaging. But everyone goes for the bear trap with Trump.
Am I right in saying that you are both arguing that Trump did nothing dramatically different from other Presidents and that he was involved in a terrorist attack against his own country’s government?
No, I think he was initially delighted at the raging protest by his peeps, then horrified as he realised the reputational damage they were actually causing him. I don't think he was involved in the 'planning' of it at all. He's an angry and petulant and not a terribly nice man. I wouldn't want him as Prime Minister of the UK. On the other hand, I find his rule in America quite benign from a UK perspective, far more so than Biden, and the Americans have the right to elect him of they so wish.
With your apologist attitude towards Trump and Putin you appear to be happy to sleepwalk into a disaster far worse than the rise of fascism in the 1930s.
Actually, I would just like everyone to settle the f down. Any potential future disaster is likely to stem from people losing all sense of perspective when assailed by catastrophe here and coup there. We're not living through unprecedented disasters, people are just telling us we are. The best way forward is keep common sense, stay clear-eyed, and keep buggering on.
I suspect that's what the people of Germany thought in the 30s, until they realised what the camps were really for in 45. Frog boiling is a really subtle but effective tactic.
Spike protein was detected up to twelve months after infection in individuals showing long Covid symptoms, but in none of the (previously infected, but fully recovered) control group. It’s a relatively small study, but the results look quite robust.
Also interesting is that it seems the majority of those reporting long Covid symptoms are women (there are significant differences in immune response between the sexes).
One for you
“The chances that COVID leaked from China’s secretive virology lab in Wuhan are “99.9%,” but the World Health Organization (WHO) will probably never be able to prove it, Johns Hopkins Professor Marty Makary told “Morning Wire,” in an exclusive interview Friday.
“The WHO probe is taking place even as China goes on the offensive, claiming the virus that has killed over 6 million people worldwide started in the U.S. But Makary, a best-selling author and surgeon, said it has always been obvious where it originated. “For a lot of scientists, it’s 99.9% likely,” Makary said. “And it’s the default hypothesis until proven otherwise.””
An interesting number to attach to something you also state can’t be proved. Doesn’t sound much of a scientist.
He's a surgical oncologist who has been opining a lot on immunology and virology and often has opinions published that are at odds with leading immunologists and virologists.
He informed us all that only 20% of Americans needed to be vaccinated for covid to vanish, and it would all be gone by April 2021. He's one of the go to scientists for the antivaxxers as well.
It was, of course, a bunch of “leading virologists” who told us the Lab Leak Hypothesis was a “racist conspiracy theory”, and forbade us from even talking about it
Wakefield will surely be a solid Labour gain on current polls. It is only 38th on the Labour target list and if Starmer fails to win it he has no chance of even getting a hung parliament let alone becoming PM or winning a Labour majority.
Tiverton and Honiton however I think could see the Tories scrape home even if they see a bigger swing to the LDs there than to Labour in Wakefield. They got over 60% of the vote there in 2019, it was 57% Leave and the local Tory candidate, Helen Hurford is miles better than the non local candidate in Shropshire North.
She seemed to have a more confident hustings performance last week than the slightly nervous LD candidate. The Tory campaign is also shrewdly all about her. The latest Tory literature is a brochure about Helen Hurford as a local champion and ex local head teacher with the word Conservative not even mentioned until pages in and Johnson nowhere to be seen
The Capitol building is not a strategical target for taking over America. There was no taking over the army, or a security service, where's the actual coup? Where's even the most preposterous route to taking the levers of power? There isn't one. You could argue more convincingly that it was an act of terrorism, but the coup stuff is palpable nonsense.
The route to power was quite clear as has been documented in multiple accounts. Delay the count until the imagined fraud could be investigated and recitified in key states resulting in different sets of electors from those states re-electing Trump.
Trump was saying as early as September that there would be no peaceful transfer of power. He told us all he was going to do it then he tried to do it.
I know you've never seen a caudillo that didn't get you wet but ya boi did try to do a coup.
What you've described isn't a coup.
What is described is an attempt to seize power illegally using violence if necessary. Which is the exact definition of a coup.
Honestly, you're as bad as Hyufd.
I'm sorry, it's not. The attempt to conflate Trump's legal and political machinations to stay in office with the Capitol attack and hope the resulting cocktail looks something like a coup, is specious.
If Trump broke the law, he should be tried and convicted.
HYUFD is a valuable poster and I don't agree he is 'bad', but he does enjoy being outrageous. I don't, I just stick to the truth. If someone schools me on a fact or concept that I have misunderstood, I apologise and thank them, and I have done so many times. This isn't one of those times.
Comments
New clothes. New music. New gadgets. Computer games. I don't like what Thatcherism did to the country but I can at least respect that she had a vision and got on with it. What is the Boris vision? Instead of new gadgets and everything getting cheaper, its the opposite with everything getting more expensive. And instead of "go work and consume" its "if you can't afford fuel its the fault of leftie lawyers and woke trans immigrants".
Big moves.
Meanwhile the right continue to be seduced by strongmen, directly undermine the law, undermine objective truth through media manipulation, attack fair democratic elections and in the US actually raided the Capitol. That’s the right’s stuff to sort out. Just pointing fingers at the left saying ‘they started it’ isn’t going to solve it. It’s a tricky problem. It would be genuinely more interesting to hear you deal with that.
A mediocre performance from a hastily-selected Tory totally inexperienced at handling sceptical audiences, loudly condemned by an audience dominated by anti-Tories. And, if history alone is any guide, very likely forgotten about once a fair proportion of Tories turn out on polling day to stop these people from representing them, and the LDs chalk up another brave, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to win an absurdly safe Tory stronghold.
I may be unnecessarily sceptical: one thing that makes T&H different from previous by-elections is that Lab's not campaigning, the Greens' campaign's weaker than as usual - and Hurford's got FOUR candidates competing with her for the "keep the Lefties out" voters. And the LDs have never had such a total tosser as Johnson guaranteed to make the case for voting almost Anything But Tory on the hour, every hour, till 10 pm on polling day.
But it's events (dear boy), campaigning clout and sheer random chance that make for by-election results. Dreadful Tory performances at hustings, and anti-Tory hostility from the hundred or so people physically there, are virtually universal.in the week before. If the hustings were a reliable guide to anything (except the incoherence of the tenth-raters the Tories choose these days), the Tories would have lost every by-election for the past decade./
I don't dispute industrial relations in the UK were already a basket case. Thatcher took sides, the bosses were right and the feckless workers were wrong and had to be punished. If she had been more balanced and seen that both management and unions were inept perhaps the problem could have been resolved without an industrial scorched earth. The single biggest error was allowing the sale of British Companies to foreign owners. In many cases they bought our innovation for a song and moved it abroad. Unforgivable!
I agree that asking Who started it, is pointless. For every outrage by the Right you can find some preceding provocation by the Left - and vice versa. For every shock jock on rightwing radio stirring up trouble, there are blue tick lefty influencers on Twitter who are given way more leeway than the right. And so on
The situation is now so critical it seems near impossible for America to step back
An absolutely inspiring Democrat candidate would be good. One willing to turn on the Woke - and also able to appeal to more moderate Republicans, the way Obama did, but this time with results at the end
Well, one can dream
But in the case of some like Priti it could just be she was always like that.
We’ve just had a Jubilee celebration, organised in large part by the BBC and celebrated widely across social media. Not very woke.
'Save us all from catastrophe' - really dear? The handwringing and pearl clutching over Trump is ludicrously overdone. He was a boorish and often embarrassing President (for America), and apart from that, what? What did he actually do that was dramatically out of kilter with any other President?
It’s been said before multiple times, but it is worth saying again, if you look at all the boxes you need to tick to say: Civil War is coming, then America right now ticks all of them, possibly more than any other country on earth
What fucking relevance is the Jubilee and the BBC??
I genuinely wish it were pearl clutching and handwringing. But it’s isn’t.
The issue is more that either a) Trump does not win, but contests the result (as last time) by demanding his supporters take control via a coup of some kind, or b) when he attempts to stop there being an election in 2028 i.e. he wants to president for life.
I mean, that's just a FPN right?
Europe must rearm.
Hyperbole to suggest Patel would introduce death squads. I know you hate the current government, and there are lots reasons to, but it’s possible to lose a sense of perspective. I want this shit show of a government out too. ASAP.
Sometimes you're quite unhinged.
You can say it was a crazy plan but I get the sense that was the objective, at lesser for some around Trump if not Trump himself
But maybe Trump himself, also
The security services, police and armed forces would then have been in the position of either accepting the coup or carrying out a counter coup to restore democracy and there lies civil war.
How you can say what you just said is beyond me.
I specifically said that politics is the one main arena where the American Right has a real advantage. Hence the inability to reform gun law, the stuffing of SCOTUS (American justice is an extension of politics). &c
What's really going on is that the right absolutely hates the liberal (not really the left) threatening their hegemony.
Otherwise I can't make sense of your post.
And are you suggesting Trump, who was threatening his Veep with unspecified consequences if he didn't declare Trump the winner, had no plan to take power? If so, I must conclude that you have not been following recent evidence hearings from the Jan 6th Select Committee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6llaZefJDc
Trump should be in jail for the rest of his life for it. The fact that he is still a serious candidate for the next time shows how weak and vulnerable democracy is in the US.
Trump was saying as early as September that there would be no peaceful transfer of power. He told us all he was going to do it then he tried to do it.
I know you've never seen a caudillo that didn't get you wet but ya boi did try to do a coup.
He informed us all that only 20% of Americans needed to be vaccinated for covid to vanish, and it would all be gone by April 2021. He's one of the go to scientists for the antivaxxers as well.
Of course I am not saying that Trump didn't want to hold on to power; it is clear that he pulled every lever at his disposal to do so.
What I am saying is that the takeover on the Capitol wasn't a coup. You can widen the attack or try to muddy the waters as much as you like, it still wasn't a coup. I think as a history teacher you are probably well aware of this fact, but because you hate Trump and think there's a 'right' and 'wrong' side to this argument that goes beyond 'strict definitions'; that's why you're arguing. That's the pernicious nature of this debate.
There was without question a plan.
What makes you think he was 'horrified' at what happened? To me, his reaction was: "Nothing to do with me, guv."
Trump makes both Johnson and Corbyn appear like saintly figures. He really is orders of magnitude worse than out worst.
You asked what Trump had done that was dramatically out of kilter with other Presidents. Your have in your own words described something that was dramatically out of kilter with other Presidents. QED.
At one time, I was in doubt as to whether it was deliberate or whether Trump is just a twat who doesn't realise what he was doing. However, it is quite clear from the evidence presented to Congress that Trump deliberately provoked the crowd, demanded they march on the Capitol, and then urged them to assault those including his own vice-president whom he claimed were stealing the presidency from him. Many of his supporters are still wantonly flouting the law and the constitution (look at the disgraceful performance of Jon Eastman effectively admitting Congress were right by pleading the fifth and saying they had no jurisdiction over him anyway).
Only when it failed did Trump grudgingly back down and hand over power.
That's a coup. Or, to put it another way, he was a hell of a lot more active in the attempted overthrow of his government than either de Gaulle in 1958 or Mnangagwa in 2017, and they are both called coups. Albeit successful ones.
The irony is you are so blinded by your admiration for Trump you cannot see it, while accusing those who see perfectly clearly what he did of being blinded by hatred for him.
I thought he would be a bad president, but I was doubtful he'd be worse than Clinton and was willing to give him a chance. His actions are what have turned me against him. But you're willing to excuse him despite admitting that it was an act of terrorism.
Tiverton and Honiton however I think could see the Tories scrape home even if they see a bigger swing to the LDs there than to Labour in Wakefield. They got over 60% of the vote there in 2019, it was 57% Leave and the local Tory candidate, Helen Hurford is miles better than the non local candidate in Shropshire North.
She seemed to have a more confident hustings performance last week than the slightly nervous LD candidate. The Tory campaign is also shrewdly all about her. The latest Tory literature is a brochure about Helen Hurford as a local champion and ex local head teacher with the word Conservative not even mentioned until pages in and Johnson nowhere to be seen
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/tiverton-by-election-jeers-tory-helen-hurford-devon-poll-conservative-1693957
https://twitter.com/neil_merrick/status/1537698465677037574?s=20&t=sbhMUzcQzGDKLkBoQ9_4kw
Honestly, you're as bad as Hyufd.
"...And Johnson nowhere to be seen."
Very wise of the campaign organisers but what an indictment of the Leadership!
He will not only win the EC unlike 2020 but the popular vote too unlike 2016.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1537908872198770690?s=20&t=sbhMUzcQzGDKLkBoQ9_4kw
However a long way to go, Reagan, Bill Clinton and Obama all trailed potential opponents Mondale, Dole and Romney in polls midterm but still went on to beat them. Plus the Democrats could pick a younger, more charismatic candidate like O'Rourke or Buttigieg
But Starmer also lacks vision. All we have seen from him is a WORN thesis and "I'm a big-brained lawyer, but I don't know if I broke the law." I don't get his vision.
The Lib Dems don't seem to have much of one, either.
I think it's slightly unfair to blame all the cost increases on Boris's PMship; much (though not all) of it is due to events outside his control. The question is how prices in other equivalent countries are increasing.
(I've also voiced my feelings of the unsuitability of both leaders for the top job long before it became popular on here. For me, the Garden Bridge debacle, and Johnson's reaction to it, were crystal-clear indicators he should not become PM. Though I'm unsure if the negative traits he showed then are the same that have caused his failures as PM.)
The good:
Starmer polling ‘disastrous’ compared to other opposition leaders; worse than Miliband & Kinnock
Voters giving PM benefit of doubt
The bad:
Cost of living crisis - govt not getting credit for major fiscal interventions
Labour needs to tread carefully on Rwanda
'Trump deliberately provoked the crowd, demanded they march on the Capitol, and then urged them to assault those including his own vice-president whom he claimed were stealing the presidency from him.'
But it doesn't demonstrate a coup, because surely not even the stupidest person marching on the Capitol would claim to be taking over the USA. There was no mechanism, however fantastical, by which they could have done so. The closest is Leon's still tenuous suggestion that Trump 'took over' the 'chaos' and declared martial law. But there's no indication he tried that or had a plan in place to attempt to. He'd have had to order the shooting of his own supporters for one thing, potentially tearing apart his electoral base.
Trump's legal (and possibly more dubious) machinations to overturn the election result are a different issue. They are not wholly unprecedented in US elections, but I am sure he pursued them to a more extreme degree than others have done. If he broke the law, he should be tried and convicted.
It's not the first time a tyrant has been enabled by a mass of the population (see Germany 1932) and presumably won't be the last.
It's almost as if democracy has an inherent self-destruct mechanism - eventually somebody with a determination to rule unchecked is going to get elected.
This guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLeMKM4ArlA
IANAL, and I am not American, so I have little idea if he is just b/s'ing. But his views happily both go against my own, and in agreement with them, which makes me think he is not *too* politically biased ...
How effective was that?
Pleased to see your switch to "Johnson" is holding btw.
If Trump broke the law, he should be tried and convicted.
HYUFD is a valuable poster and I don't agree he is 'bad', but he does enjoy being outrageous. I don't, I just stick to the truth. If someone schools me on a fact or concept that I have misunderstood, I apologise and thank them, and I have done so many times. This isn't one of those times.