Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

If you still support the republican party, what do you support?

"What My Party Meant Was..."

A lot of the Republicans I know have abandoned the Party of Trump for exactly these reasons. Not all, but many. None apologized for Trump -- they abandoned the GOP so they wouldn't have to.

Some relevant links:

1) Laura Bush calling out Trump they way you did

2) So does this Army vet

3) So did this business owner

4) So did @Skroe

5) All of that was pre-coronavirus, pre-martial law.

[Zulmaz]

A lot of Americans have an issue with identifying racist behaviour as racism, they find it simply being "biased against coloured people" or "common sense". This is something they most likely get spoon fed in since birth in certain communities.

I bring this up because the GOP doesn't run on policy it runs on fear of something, they motivate people to vote for them by creating enemies often if not always completely fabricated.

When others point out to them it isn't so with facts and highlight their bias as racism they believe they are being censored by the Political correctness crowd and while i don't agree with political correctness and how it has mutated over the years i would say that the anti-PC crowd, the counter movement holds a big responsibility as we are living in a backlash era, so the PC is a reaction to the anti-PC culture although i guess you can dispute who started first but it is also pretty much irrelevant as the tone and content is often set by the anti-PC crowd, who are anti-intellectual and have to use generalizations, populist lies or simply meme's to convey their hatred. This isn't uniquely something American, other nations have it to but other nations political system are often structured out of multiple parties and so they either force said party to tone their rhetoric down or end up in the opposition.

They support the GOP because the current GOP dares to say what they think, what again is based on fear of something and hatred of something. All the rest is not important, the GOP has also started an "ideological" purge so to speak since the Tea party moved in and later with trump "cleansing" the party of any "other thinkers".

I mean just look at how much slander even Mccain got post mortem and how many Republicans dared to speak out against it, Romney? anyone besides Romney who is also considered to be a RINO by a good portion.

In other words, the GOP's base is largely motivated by fear and ignorance? Invisible enemies and a basic none-understanding of the world around them?

[Elegiac]

In other words, the GOP's base is largely entirely motivated by fear and ignorance? Invisible enemies and a basic none-understanding of the world around them?

For more information, please refer to the copy of Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-Fascism that we gave you at the door.

On the subject of Republicans, the mandatory kissing of the brown ring has begun.

Top Republican senators defended the move to use force to clear out peaceful protesters near the White House in order for President Donald Trump to pose with a Bible in front of a church amid the continued unrest in the United States. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the GOP leadership team, said the protesters had to be cleared out "for security purposes" since Trump was "walking over to the church" and they were asked to clear "but refused to do so."

"So obviously, it was a necessary security measure," Cornyn told CNN. Cornyn rejected the notion that they were acting peacefully since they can't "ignore what law enforcement officers are telling them to do for the security of the president or anybody else." Asked if the President should have gone to the church for a photo-op that led to tear gas and other measures to be used on the protesters, Cornyn criticized the media and others who are "never going to find any good or any positive development in anything. So you can characterize it the way you want, but obviously the President is free to go where he wants and to hold up a Bible if he wants," calling it a "civil message."

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the most senior Republican in the Senate, told CNN that peaceful protesters have the right to demonstrate but he didn't know the extent to which the "police might expect violence from some of the people -- maybe 5% of the people -- and that could be a potential problem, the answer would be, it's OK" to clear them out with force. Grassley defended Trump's move to go to St. John's Church, citing the fire that protesters set to the church's premises the night before. "We expect leadership from our president and particularly in times like this," Grassley said Tuesday. "And I think that when there was destruction to a church or any other historical thing that America would put great confidence in that should not be destroyed, I think a president ought to bring attention to that terrorist activity, and go there and do ... what he did last night." Asked about the fact that the protesters were acting peacefully, Grassley said: "It's all assumed to be peaceful until someone that's got a terrorist activity or a rioting activity, you don't know that until it happens. So I don't know if they could have known that."

The GOP reaction diverges sharply from Democrats who liken his move to clear out protestors with force in order to hold a photo-op to being a "dictator," with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer saying it's an "action worthy and appropriate to censure and criticize." Peaceful protesters just outside the White House gates were dispersed with tear gas, flash grenades and rubber bullets ahead of Trump's remarks and trip to the church.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and close ally of Trump's, seemed to question the need for Trump to have a photo-op in front of the church -- and said the events in New York and other cities was "pretty disturbing" and "we need to get a grip on order" to deal with the "underlying issue" that resulted in the death of George Floyd. "Well, I don't know what the point was," Graham said of the photo-op. "I guess he's trying to say we're reclaiming the church. But the point is that we need to focus on what happened to Mr. Floyd, it's a systematic problem, but you can't do that until you get order."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican who rarely voices public objection to Trump's actions, was silent and declined to comment when asked by CNN his reaction to police clearing out peaceful protesters.

GOP Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas released a statement Tuesday morning citing violence against law enforcement officers "who weren't given the support they deserve to restore order." "The only way to end this insurrection is the overwhelming display of force," Cotton said.

The bolded part for emphasis.

That's right folks. An elected member of the US Senate just outright admitted that any protest against Trump cannot be considered peaceful.

[Breccia]

An elected member of the US Senate just outright admitted that any protest against Trump cannot be considered peaceful.

I like the way he says "The press will never find anything positive in anything" after Trump is caught dispersing a peaceful protest for a photo op. Sorry, but that's not a defense when caught doing something dictatorial and evil. You want to prove it? Pick a better example.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and I guess I should add: it seems the GOP is trying to use the Kaepernick Defense here: "you can protest, as long as we don't see it, hear it, or find out about it".

Then it's not a protest.

[Acidbaron]

In other words, the GOP's base is largely entirely motivated by fear and ignorance? Invisible enemies and a basic none-understanding of the world around them?

Yes and this started a long time ago, you can trace this fear and there for voting against their own interest as far as Reagan if not further. There has been a brain drain happening for a while in the Republican party. Trump simply seems to be the current and hopefully the final highest point of anti-intellectualism.

Conservatives who have been silent and even supporting Trump are going to regret their actions, this is going to be one of the biggest blows to conservatism in the US once he's out of Office, the ruins left i am not even sure the party can recover.

Especially if you consider that in the democratic party you have a more conservative "left" (European centre right) older established class and a more younger class who is competing against them who is more liberal, such as AOC being one of those new young and upcoming fighting against the established party.

So yes once more those who remain to vote for the GOP do so either based on "family tradition", ignorance or fear. Or obviously a combination of all three.

[Elegiac]

I like the way he says "The press will never find anything positive in anything" after Trump is caught dispersing a peaceful protest for a photo op. Sorry, but that's not a defense when caught doing something dictatorial and evil. You want to prove it? Pick a better example.

I will say, however, there are two reactions which I think bear looking out for.

The first reaction is the display of vapors from someone who is just desperate to get younger men to fill the GOP's eager, needy judicial openings. The second is less a reaction, and more inability of reporters to coax a reaction despite having an ample supply of lettuce and a fully powered solar heating lamp.

Methinks it has something to do with how bad this is going to look in their reelection campaigns.

[Acidbaron]

For more information, please refer to the copy of Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-Fascism that we gave you at the door.

On the subject of Republicans, the mandatory kissing of the brown ring has begun.



The bolded part for emphasis.

That's right folks. An elected member of the US Senate just outright admitted that any protest against Trump cannot be considered peaceful.

Serious question can he actually deploy the military to stop protests? I know he is trying to rely on a very old law, can this be done?

Another question with the division of the nation and that is shown among the army support for Trump, would people in service actually answer this call?

[Zulmaz]

Yes and this started a long time ago, you can trace this fear and there for voting against their own interest as far as Reagan if not further. There has been a brain drain happening for a while in the Republican party. Trump simply seems to be the current and hopefully the final highest point of anti-intellectualism.

Conservatives who have been silent and even supporting Trump are going to regret their actions, this is going to be one of the biggest blows to conservatism in the US once he's out of Office, the ruins left i am not even sure the party can recover.

Especially if you consider that in the democratic party you have a more conservative "left" (European centre right) older established class and a more younger class who is competing against them who is more liberal, such as AOC being one of those new young and upcoming fighting against the established party.

So yes once more those who remain to vote for the GOP do so either based on "family tradition", ignorance or fear. Or obviously a combination of all three.

Haven't people been saying they will "regret their actions" for years now, with the base growing during this time? Like, Trump's own aproval rating has been fairly solid, and whenever it dips it rapidly goes right back to where it was.

[Felya]

Bolded is a lie.

Now you are accusing Australia of lying too?



Was this Australian crew the antifa, Anarchist Trump is afraid of?

[-aiko-]

Serious question can he actually deploy the military to stop protests? I know he is trying to rely on a very old law, can this be done?

Another question with the division of the nation and that is shown among the army support for Trump, would people in service actually answer this call?

Yes and yes. It has been done before.

[swiftowner]

Bill Barr: (06:43)
I know situations vary around the country, but it seems that some of the common dimensions are we have the normal protestors. You have opportunistic people like looters. But in many places, it’s not most places, you have this ingredient of extremist anarchist types, agitators, who are driving the violence. Law enforcement response is not going to work unless we dominate the streets as the president said.

Bill Barr: (07:15)
We have to control the streets. If we treat these are demonstrations, the police are in back guarding places and don’t have the dynamic ability to go out and arrest the trouble makers. They’re just standing in the line, watching the events. Then when they dispersed the crowds, the class goes running off in different directions and create havoc, looting, and other things. We have to control the crowd and not react to what’s happening on the street. And that requires a strong presence. In many places, we think it will require the National Guard. And when there’s a strong presence, not just an adequate presence to defend buildings, but a strong presence to control the crowd, requiring that as in Minneapolis. Some places may not look for the National Guard. And I think that New Jersey so far has been doing a very good job with the state police and Newark police.

I’m confused by this, is this even Barr’s place to say things like this? Why is Trump asking for his opinion on this? Legitimate question

[Poopymonster]

Serious question can he actually deploy the military to stop protests? I know he is trying to rely on a very old law, can this be done?

Another question with the division of the nation and that is shown among the army support for Trump, would people in service actually answer this call?

In order:He could. Yes. Unknown. Y'all Queda would love a chance to go whup some uppity....protesters.

You could probably drown a toddler in Kokolums panties right now.

- - - Updated - - -

Now you are accusing Australia of lying too?



Was this Australian crew the antifa, Anarchist Trump is afraid of?

Of course it's a lie. Australians are all convicts and vicious criminals. They would have used drop bears if they were in trouble.
/s

[kaelleria]

This has also been going around FB/Reddit

[Breccia]

I’m confused by this, is this even Barr’s place to say things like this?

Are you talking about the part where he claims there's a strong presence of professional anarchists? Maybe if he had evidence.

[Acidbaron]

Haven't people been saying they will "regret their actions" for years now, with the base growing during this time? Like, Trump's own aproval rating has been fairly solid, and whenever it dips it rapidly goes right back to where it was.

The Republican party is slowly but surely going on life support, their base is dying often literally due to age. Their future youth movements aren't as big despite the image created by the vocal minority online, they alienated their biggest possible base that being the south American immigrants who are actually rather open to conservative ideals if the GOP wasn't as racist as they are and completely and continuously torpedo's that possibility.

The Republican party needs voter suppression to win just about anything, even states who were considered previously dark red are starting to turn.

While his approval rating remains stable and rather high i do believe a lot of this is a cult of personality, that's why i said once he's out who is going to follow him? Trump does not allow the spot light to be shared, i mean i have a gut feeling they will try to launch one of this kids in the future if the name trump hasn't gotten completely tainted by then. But beyond nepotism, there is literally nobody who can fill that void because he does not let there be room for anyone and he also attacks his own entourage the second it suits him.

So yes people have been saying it for a while but i don't think there has been any worst President in recent times, i mean he made most people think highly of Bush jr. President "WMD's are there let's invade a nation and destabilize a region!".

- - - Updated - - -

Yes and yes. It has been done before.

But would the military in today's world really be open to use force to protestors? A lot of this also hinges on the Military doing that and this does not always happen if we look at history in general.

[swiftowner]

Are you talking about the part where he claims there's a strong presence of professional anarchists? Maybe if he had evidence.

More in reference to this:

...Law enforcement response is not going to work unless we dominate the streets as the president said.
...
We have to control the streets. If we treat these are demonstrations, the police are in back guarding places and don’t have the dynamic ability to go out and arrest the trouble makers. They’re just standing in the line, watching the events. Then when they dispersed the crowds, the class goes running off in different directions and create havoc, looting, and other things. We have to control the crowd and not react to what’s happening on the street. And that requires a strong presence. In many places, we think it will require the National Guard. And when there’s a strong presence, not just an adequate presence to defend buildings, but a strong presence to control the crowd, requiring that as in Minneapolis.

Is that even in the AG’s job description? I mean we know he’s a patsy for Trump, but why do people care if he has this to say? Why is Trump calling on him to say this?

[Thekri]

You know how Trump says shit, and you go back and look at it years later, and it has always aged horribly?

Well I found something that aged really well. Turns out that we can use this exact speech again in January 2021, and it will make a lot more sense than the first time.

"American Carnage"

I mean it seems almost prophetic. Trump was perfectly describing the conditions at the end of his first term. He just got his second inaugural mixed up with his first! We just didn't realize it was aspirational in nature!

[Elegiac]

Serious question can he actually deploy the military to stop protests? I know he is trying to rely on a very old law, can this be done?

Another question with the division of the nation and that is shown among the army support for Trump, would people in service actually answer this call?

As -aiko- said: yes, and yes. I should tack on a 'but', because as so often with this sort of thing there's a lot of gaps that need court rulings that haven't been tested yet.

There are two pieces of legislation central to the subject. The first is the Insurrection Act of 1807 which empowers the executive to deploy the armed forces within US borders under specific circumstances - i.e. insurrection or rebellion. The second is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which explicitly prohibits the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement with certain exceptions.

One of the chief exceptions to the latter, and also one of the qualifying conditions for invoking the Insurrection Act, is if the federal government is specifically requested to do so by the legislature or governor of the state where the unrest is taking place. That isn't a requirement, however, as there have been cases where the Insurrection Act has been invoked without the state government's approval. They're so few in number I will actually list them here:

1) South Carolina, 1871 - President Grant deploys the army to suppress the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina.
2) New Orleans, Louisiana 1872 - President Grant deploys the army to quell unrest following the 1872 Louisiana gubernatorial election.
3) Little Rock, Arkansas 1957 - President Eisenhower deploys the army to protect the Little Rock Nine.
4) Oxford, Missisippi 1962 - President Kennedy deploys the army to enforce court ordered segregation at the University of Missisippi.
5) Alabama, 1963 - President Kennedy deploys the army to enforce court ordered segregation in Alabama public schools.

If you've noticed a common theme here, very good. They've all been in cases where the state government has been in direct violation of federal and constitutional law (i.e. part of the problem), and two of them occurred before the Posse Comitatus Act was passed. What it has not been used for is the widespread suppression of domestic political dissidents against the explicit wishes of a functional state government, and that is where the muddiness comes in.

Oh, and the truly ironic thing?

The Insurrection Act of 1807 was only passed in the first place because of the Haitian revolution happening two years prior and white slaveowners getting scared shitless and agitating for greater federal ability to put down slave revolts.

[Odinfrost]

Let's continue with an eyewitness account of being subjected to the enforcement of curfew.
Over time, it became abundantly apparent that the cops had no idea what to do with us--that they'd brought a bunch of out of town officers in to bolster their ranks and get vengeance for recent events, and it backfired.


Underlined portion for emphasis.

That is absolutely terrifying. What is futher terrifying is that you underlined that part, yet the remainder of the account is just as bad or even worse:

they took to asking us where we had been picked up. when I said I didn't know because I haven't been here very long, a cop wrote down a super specific address I'd never heard of before on my paperwork. when I said "that's awfully specific given what I just told you" he replied "oh uh that's a general area haha uh here I'll note that you were just downtown" and changed it. he was trying to pin me to a specific location/officer without evidence, right? I'm not misreading this?

THAT needs to be emphasised, like, holy crap. What is happening over there, if it isn't another step towards a dictatorship?

[Acidbaron]

As -aiko- said: yes, and yes. I should tack on a 'but', because as so often with this sort of thing there's a lot of gaps that need court rulings that haven't been tested yet.

There are two pieces of legislation central to the subject. The first is the Insurrection Act of 1807 which empowers the executive to deploy the armed forces within US borders under specific circumstances - i.e. insurrection or rebellion. The second is the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which explicitly prohibits the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement with certain exceptions.

One of the chief exceptions to the latter, and also one of the qualifying conditions for invoking the Insurrection Act, is if the federal government is specifically requested to do so by the legislature or governor of the state where the unrest is taking place. That isn't a requirement, however, as there have been cases where the Insurrection Act has been invoked without the state government's approval. They're so few in number I will actually list them here:

1) South Carolina, 1871 - President Grant deploys the army to suppress the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina.
2) New Orleans, Louisiana 1872 - President Grant deploys the army to quell unrest following the 1872 Louisiana gubernatorial election.
3) Little Rock, Arkansas 1957 - President Eisenhower deploys the army to protect the Little Rock Nine.
4) Oxford, Missisippi 1962 - President Kennedy deploys the army to enforce court ordered segregation at the University of Missisippi.
5) Alabama, 1963 - President Kennedy deploys the army to enforce court ordered segregation in Alabama public schools.

If you've noticed a common theme here, very good. They've all been in cases where the state government has been in direct violation of federal and constitutional law (i.e. part of the problem), and two of them occurred before the Posse Comitatus Act was passed. What it has not been used for is the widespread suppression of domestic political dissidents against the explicit wishes of a functional state government, and that is where the muddiness comes in.

Oh, and the truly ironic thing?

The Insurrection Act of 1807 was only passed in the first place because of the Haitian revolution happening two years prior and white slaveowners getting scared shitless and agitating for greater federal ability to put down slave revolts.

Thanks for explaining, i figured there was quite a few string attached to all this. It is often hard to get a good report on this through all the hysteria and noise on the media.