0
   

How stupid is Trump?

 
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
revelette3
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2021 09:39 am
This seems a good place to post Trump and related stuff. He is not going away and ignoring him won't make him disappear. In fact right now there seems to be a big rift in the republican party (not really big in terms of being evenly divided) between Trumpism and those now trying to get past him. It will be interesting to see in the end which side wins in next couple of years.

Opinions | Convicting Trump would have required accepting a half-century of Republican guilt

Quote:
On Saturday, the Senate acquitted former president Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial. While seven Republicans voted to convict, making it the most bipartisan vote in favor of conviction in a presidential impeachment in history, 43 voted to acquit Trump. In reality, the outcome was never in question because Republicans could not convict Trump without indicting their entire party. Trump may have been the one who invited the angry mob to Washington on Jan. 6, and then stirred them up with repeated false claims about a stolen election. However, the events on that shameful day — and indeed Trumpism itself — simply represent the culmination of a half-century of Republican strategy to mobilize and empower both white-nationalist sentiment and reactionary Christian fundamentalism.

Whether they were bearing crosses, waving Confederate flags, toting automatic rifles or wearing “Make America Great Again” paraphernalia, those who gathered in Washington on Jan. 6 all spoke a common language of white grievance, convinced that traditional American values are under assault by elite leftist intellectuals, feminists, immigrants, members of the LBGTQ community, African American activists and a mainstream media that promoted their agenda.

For them, “Make America Great Again” was not simply a slogan. It embodied a set of intertwined beliefs that compelled them to seize control of the Capitol, attempt to overturn a free and fair election and return the nation to a time when White, native-born, God-fearing, heterosexual men dominated every aspect of national life.

This identity struggle can be traced to the summer of 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson inked two signature pieces of legislation, one dealing with voting rights and the other with immigration. Together, these laws transformed the nation’s demographic landscape and empowered marginalized groups to challenge the dominant social order.

The Democratic Party would eventually come to embrace these new groups and their calls for change by promoting diversity and advocating for civil rights. But Republicans increasingly aligned themselves with those wishing to preserve the past and protect white privilege. In 1995, when Newt Gingrich became the first Republican speaker of the House in 40 years, he identified 1965 as a key turning point in modern history. “From the arrival of English-speaking colonists in 1607 until 1965, there was one continuous civilization built around a set of commonly accepted legal and cultural principles,” Gingrich wrote with typical hyperbole. “Since 1965, however, there has been a calculated effort by cultural elites to discredit this civilization and replace it with a culture of irresponsibility.”

What so upset Gingrich?

First, in July 1965, Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act, which replaced the “national origins” quota system with a family preference system, bringing a large number of new immigrants to the nation’s shores over the next decades — many of them, unexpectedly, non-White immigrants from outside Europe. By the early 1990s, over 1 million legal immigrants were arriving in the United States every year, accounting for almost half of U.S. population growth. Most new immigrants settled in large, Democratic-controlled cities like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Over time, they pushed Democrats to embrace diversity and cosmopolitan values, while Republicans chose to court largely White suburban and rural voters who viewed such newcomers as a threat to their traditional way of life.

In the month after his immigration overhaul, Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, which abolished century-old laws and practices that had blocked African American suffrage in the South and authorized federal examiners to enforce new standards. For the first time in American history, the Voting Rights Act enshrined the right of all citizens to participate in our democracy — and the impact was immediate. Between 1964 and 1969, the number of Black adults registered to vote increased from 19.3 percent to 61.3 percent in Alabama and 27.4 percent to 60.4 percent in Georgia.

As such numbers testify, the Voting Rights Act produced a seismic shift in American politics. Before 1965, the political parties were as much internally divided as they were pitted against each other: There were liberal and conservative Republicans, as well as liberal and conservative Democrats. In fact, the most conservative members of Congress often hailed from the South, and they were almost all Democrats.

But once the Democratic Party aligned itself so visibly with the cause of civil rights, it opened the door for Republicans to make gains in the South, which had long been defined by one-party Democratic rule. Recognizing an opportunity, Richard Nixon pursued a “Southern strategy” during the 1968 and 1972 campaigns in an effort to bring conservative White Southerners into the GOP.

At the same time, the African American freedom struggle inspired other marginalized groups to demand new rights and representation in the Democratic Party. During the 1970s, pressure from women’s groups who questioned traditional gender roles produced groundbreaking legislation banning discrimination “on the basis of sex” and significant court decisions, including the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion. The 1969 Stonewall riot ignited a nationwide “liberation” movement among gay men and women. Over the next decade, members of the LGBTQ movement fought successfully against sodomy laws that barred sexual acts between consenting adults, as well as city ordinances prohibiting job, credit and other discrimination on the basis of sexual preferences.

While some Republicans called on their party to adapt to these new social, cultural and demographic realities, in 1980, Ronald Reagan made the fateful decision to align the party with Christian evangelicals, many of them White Southerners, who declared themselves defenders of traditional gender roles and opponents of growing racial liberalism.

Reagan’s move cemented the alliance between the Republican Party and the White South in presidential elections. Yet, old loyalties persisted and many Southern Whites who embraced Reagan continued voting for Democrats in congressional elections — until 1994. That was the year that Gingrich used the “Contract with America” to nationalize local elections, making 435 local races into a referendum on Bill Clinton, who by any standard had suffered a disastrous first two years in office that culminated with a failed effort to pass an ambitious health-care plan.

Gingrich’s strategy succeeded brilliantly. Not a single Republican incumbent for Congress or governor was defeated. Republicans seized control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. In 1995, for the first time since Reconstruction, Republicans controlled a majority of Southern governorships and congressional seats.

While many focus on figures like Reagan and Gingrich in telling the story of Republicans’ decades-long move rightward, perhaps no one foreshadowed the rise of Trump better than former Nixon speechwriter Patrick Buchanan. Like Gingrich, Buchanan tapped into the groundswell of angry White voters who wanted to turn back the clock on social change. During his presidential campaigns in 1992 and 1996, Buchanan launched diatribes against immigration and advocated building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico. At the 1992 Republican Convention, Buchanan summed up the increasingly popular conservative worldview when he warned of a “culture war” taking place for the soul of America, denouncing the Democratic Party as one that supported abortion, radical feminism and what he called the “homosexual rights movement.”

Mainstream Republicans distanced themselves from Buchanan, but his message resonated with the grass roots of the party and foretold its radical future.

Over the past few decades, that message of moral decline and white grievance has become the mainstay of Republican politics, regurgitated by right-wing politicians and magnified by a new conservative media ecosystem. The lurch to the right accelerated with Barack Obama’s election in 2008 and the rise of the tea party, with its call to return the nation to “Judeo-Christian traditions.” Although conservative leaders claim to be addressing the economic ills of a declining White middle class, the reality is that their grievances are largely cultural — they resent the ongoing political and cultural challenges presented by the Voting Rights Act and the demographic changes that resulted from immigration reform.

Trump added his own unique ingredients to this Republican alchemy of resentment, pulling together the worst aspects of modern conservatism and twisting them into a cult of personality. But it is not just Trump who was on trial, it was the party that created him. And as some Republicans like Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) have begun to realize, it is the party that is guilty as much as Trump.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2021 09:41 am
On the question on the title, I am not sure stupid can really be applied. Sure he seems stupid, probably is in a lot of ways, but he is clever in the way of a used car salesman.
Frank Apisa
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2021 09:47 am
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:

On the question on the title, I am not sure stupid can really be applied. Sure he seems stupid, probably is in a lot of ways, but he is clever in the way of a used car salesman.


You are correct, Rev. The word "stupid" is more appropriately applied to the peo0ple who buy the horseshit he has been selling.
engineer
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2021 09:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
You can be brilliant but if you only have access to distorted information you are going to draw distorted conclusions. Trump has done a great job at putting out misinformation.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2021 04:30 pm
Quote:
What is the Ku Klux Klan Act? Lawsuit over Capitol riot says Trump, Giuliani and others violated it

RALEIGH, N.C. —The NAACP filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump and others over their role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol — and it cites a rarely used law passed after the Civil War.

The suit — filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on behalf of U.S. Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat — alleges that Trump, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and the groups the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers violated the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 when they attempted to prevent Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election.

The defendants each intended to prevent, and ultimately delayed, members of Congress from discharging their duty commanded by the United States Constitution to approve the results of the Electoral College in order to elect the next President and Vice President of the United States," the suit says.

It goes on to say Trump and Giuliani "engaged in a concerted campaign to misinform their supporters and the public, encouraging and promoting intimidation and violence in furtherance of their common plan to promote the re-election" of Trump.

A spokesperson for Trump said in a statement to The Hill that Trump did not incite violence, pointing to his recent acquittal of impeachment charges in the U.S. Senate. Giuliani didn't respond to a request for comment from CNN.

At a rally prior to the Jan. 6 siege, Trump told his supporters to march on Capitol Hill and touted false claims that the election was fraudulent and stolen from him. Rioters then did and stormed the building as Congress was certifying the election results — forcing lawmakers to evacuate and resulting in five deaths.

Lawmakers from both parties, at least in part, pinned the attack on Trump's rhetoric surrounding the election, and a week later, the U.S. House of Representatives impeached him on a charge that he incited an insurrection. The U.S. Senate then held a trial on whether to convict him of that charge and eventually acquitted him Saturday.

Now, the lawsuit says Trump and others violated the Ku Klux Klan Act by conspiring to prevent members of Congress from "discharging these official duties."

The act has a long history. When the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868, it granted citizenship to all people born or naturalized in the United States, including formerly enslaved people. It also guaranteed citizens equal protection under the law.

Despite the amendment, there were efforts in some states to deny Black citizens their rights and to undermine Reconstruction, or the reintegration of southern states that had been part of the Confederacy.

"Members of the Ku Klux Klan, for example, terrorized Black citizens for exercising their right to vote, running for public office, and serving on juries," the U.S. Senate archives say.

So, Congress passed multiple "enforcement acts" in 1870 and 1871 in response. Included in the statutes was a provision nicknamed the Ku Klux Klan Act, which was introduced in March 1871 by Rep. Samuel Shellabarger of Ohio. It was later signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant in April.

The Ku Klux Klan Act was designed to eliminate the violence against Black Americans and to protect the rights of those recently freed from slavery.

It allowed the president to "use the armed forces to combat those who conspired to deny equal protection of the laws and to suspend habeas corpus, if necessary, to enforce the act."

And tucked into the law, parts of which were later included in Title 42 of the U.S. Code, is Section 1985. In part, the section allows civil action to be brought against anyone who prevents public officials from carrying out their duties through "force, intimidation or threat."

The lawsuit against Trump cites this section, saying it "was intended to protect against conspiracies, through violence and intimidation, that sought to prevent Members of Congress from discharging their official duties."

Parts of the Ku Klux Klan Act have "served as the basis for many federal court lawsuits against state and local officials," according to the Federal Judicial Center.

Sections of the act, which has been "the subject of voluminous interpretation by the courts," have been used in cases where a "state actor" violates rights granted by the federal government, according to Politico.

Today, the act is most commonly used in cases of unreasonable search and seizure and lawsuits related to false arrests or police brutality.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-is-the-ku-klux-klan-act-lawsuit-over-capitol-riot-says-trump-giuliani-and-others-violated-it/ar-BB1dJUri?ocid=msedgdhp
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2021 10:42 pm
It looks like the deranged thumb monkey is back. I hate to break anybody's bubble, but the Thumbs down votes don't make the comments disappear and the Thumbs up can't force anyone to read or even see the nonsense that is posted.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2021 08:01 am
Quote:
As I noted last week, the Framers predicted the Senate "will always be of the number of those who best understand our national interests ... and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence."

Forty-three senators, all Republicans, failed to meet those standards.

The national interest demanded conviction to prevent Trump from running again, but more important to re-enforce the norms and rebuild the guardrails that protect our democracy. With the strength of those norms and guardrails to channel and constrain presidential behavior badly weakened, our system is threatened.

A future president need only consider whether he has 35 partisan defenders in the Senate to embark on whatever course he or she deems fit, regardless of its democratic propriety.

To excuse their conduct, GOPers sewed their own Constitutional fig leaf out of nothing, concocting a story about the Framers' intent that was demonstrably opposite of what they actually assumed when drafting the document.

Discussion around impeachment at the Constitutional Convention was predicated on the British system. Every impeachment that took place in Britain during the lifetime of the Framers was of a former official. No state constitution in the U.S. limited impeachments to sitting officers, though some allowed impeachment only of former office holders. Thomas Jefferson himself was subjected to an impeachment inquiry by the Virginia legislature after he left office.

From where the drafters sat, impeachment was obvious for former officials but questionable for those still in office. So, they made it clear that the process applied to current office holders as well.

But Trump's protectors not only ignored the constitution's original intent, they simply lied about historical realities. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) was particularly brazen in rewriting the facts of American history. "Both by text and by precedent," he declared, "the Constitution does not allow impeaching private citizens--even those who formerly occupied federal office." (Never mind Trump was impeached while in office and his trial delayed by Senate Republicans.)

The text in no way proscribes impeachment of former officials.

As far as precedent goes, the record is clear. Former Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached after leaving office and the Senate agreed to try him after determining he was "amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached."

That precedent aligned with an earlier finding in the case of Daniel Webster who was investigated for impeachment based on his actions as secretary of State though he'd been out of office for several years.

Just one House member voiced any doubt at the time that ex-officials were impeachable. The son of a Founder and former president, John Quincy Adams retorted "...every officer of the United States impeachable by the laws of the country is as liable twenty years after his office has expired as he is while he continues in office." Jurisdiction was clear, though this case was eventually dropped for lack of evidence.

Republican senators believed they were unable to try a former president on the same basis Donald Trump believed he had won the election: desire rendered facts irrelevant.

The philosophical betrayal runs deeper though. British parliamentarian and GOP hero Edmund Burke, often regarded as the founding father of conservatism, wrote that a legislator should not sacrifice to constituents "his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience... Your representative owes you [constituents], not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Republicans with deep knowledge of the Senate repeatedly claimed that on a secret ballot just ten senators would have voted to acquit, which means 33 sacrificed their own judgment, along with their integrity, to the opinions of their GOP constituents.

A massive betrayal.

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. Mellman served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 20 years, as president of the American Association of Political Consultants, and is president of Democratic Majority for Israel.


The Hill
Frank Apisa
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2021 10:42 am
@revelette3,
revelette3 wrote:

Quote:
As I noted last week, the Framers predicted the Senate "will always be of the number of those who best understand our national interests ... and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence."

Forty-three senators, all Republicans, failed to meet those standards.

The national interest demanded conviction to prevent Trump from running again, but more important to re-enforce the norms and rebuild the guardrails that protect our democracy. With the strength of those norms and guardrails to channel and constrain presidential behavior badly weakened, our system is threatened.

A future president need only consider whether he has 35 partisan defenders in the Senate to embark on whatever course he or she deems fit, regardless of its democratic propriety.

To excuse their conduct, GOPers sewed their own Constitutional fig leaf out of nothing, concocting a story about the Framers' intent that was demonstrably opposite of what they actually assumed when drafting the document.

Discussion around impeachment at the Constitutional Convention was predicated on the British system. Every impeachment that took place in Britain during the lifetime of the Framers was of a former official. No state constitution in the U.S. limited impeachments to sitting officers, though some allowed impeachment only of former office holders. Thomas Jefferson himself was subjected to an impeachment inquiry by the Virginia legislature after he left office.

From where the drafters sat, impeachment was obvious for former officials but questionable for those still in office. So, they made it clear that the process applied to current office holders as well.

But Trump's protectors not only ignored the constitution's original intent, they simply lied about historical realities. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) was particularly brazen in rewriting the facts of American history. "Both by text and by precedent," he declared, "the Constitution does not allow impeaching private citizens--even those who formerly occupied federal office." (Never mind Trump was impeached while in office and his trial delayed by Senate Republicans.)

The text in no way proscribes impeachment of former officials.

As far as precedent goes, the record is clear. Former Secretary of War William Belknap was impeached after leaving office and the Senate agreed to try him after determining he was "amenable to trial by impeachment for acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation of said office before he was impeached."

That precedent aligned with an earlier finding in the case of Daniel Webster who was investigated for impeachment based on his actions as secretary of State though he'd been out of office for several years.

Just one House member voiced any doubt at the time that ex-officials were impeachable. The son of a Founder and former president, John Quincy Adams retorted "...every officer of the United States impeachable by the laws of the country is as liable twenty years after his office has expired as he is while he continues in office." Jurisdiction was clear, though this case was eventually dropped for lack of evidence.

Republican senators believed they were unable to try a former president on the same basis Donald Trump believed he had won the election: desire rendered facts irrelevant.

The philosophical betrayal runs deeper though. British parliamentarian and GOP hero Edmund Burke, often regarded as the founding father of conservatism, wrote that a legislator should not sacrifice to constituents "his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience... Your representative owes you [constituents], not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Republicans with deep knowledge of the Senate repeatedly claimed that on a secret ballot just ten senators would have voted to acquit, which means 33 sacrificed their own judgment, along with their integrity, to the opinions of their GOP constituents.

A massive betrayal.

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has helped elect 30 U.S. senators, 12 governors and dozens of House members. Mellman served as pollster to Senate Democratic leaders for over 20 years, as president of the American Association of Political Consultants, and is president of Democratic Majority for Israel.


The Hill


A massive betrayal, indeed!

History will judge these miscreants the way Paine suggested in his pamphlet, Common Sense:

"They have the heart of a coward and the spirit of a sycophant!"
glitterbag
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2021 12:09 am
@Frank Apisa,
Absolutely devoid of honor, decency, morality, respectability and everything else it means to be a responsible American.
BillW
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2021 12:51 am
@glitterbag,
That's the reason we must continue to stop the insurrection. I consider all in both houses of Congress to be guilty of insurrection and must be watched closely. They regain "honor, decency, morality, respectability and everything else " only if they win in bringing down the government!
hightor
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2021 11:48 am
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdnph.upi.com%2Fsv%2Fph%2Fog%2Fupi%2F1601613564088%2F2021%2F1%2F3620f82c6f6634c134dddc91e147489b%2Fv1.5%2FTrump-Plaza-Hotel-and-Casino-imploded-on-famous-Atlantic-City-Boardwalk.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
0 Replies
 
Region Philbis
 
  -4  
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2021 12:32 pm

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he wouldn't support 2024 Trump run
(politico)
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Builder
 
  9  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2021 02:35 am
@BillW,
Quote:
That's the reason we must continue to stop the insurrection. I consider all in both houses of Congress to be guilty of insurrection and must be watched closely


Yes, William, and I do believe that's why "impeach2" went about as far as the piss trough before being laughed out of "court". All of the talking heads in the dems were guilty of the same kind of incitement, and not just once or twice.

Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Builder
 
  9  
Reply Thu 25 Feb, 2021 06:59 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
It wasn't "laughed" at in any way.


It certainly was, and we're still chuckling.

Quote:
It was the most bi-partisan vote for conviction EVER.


And it still failed completely.

Quote:
But, Trump was a traitor to our nation.


Explain in clear terms, what he did to be considered a "traitor to the nation".

Quote:
No reason his supporters should not also be traitors to our nation.


You either agree that Americans have freedom of speech and thought, or you consider those rights to be an abomination. Your choice.

Quote:
So continue with your sedition.


Advocates of freedom of thought and speech are not seditious.

And for the record, I abhor our Australian conservative government.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Builder
 
  10  
Reply Fri 26 Feb, 2021 02:12 am
@BillRM,
And yet come the crunch, the dems who were equally inciting their followers to do all sorts of rioting and pillaging, and destroying of American property for almost two years, realised that their arses would be in court, should they push their cart any further, William.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 01:39:53