Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

Full Version: Election 2020
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
(11-17-2020, 04:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Only if you confuse "totalitarian" with "inhuman" or "anti-human". A capitalist system with a leader at all dictatorial (as in Pinochet or Trump) will be inhuman to the extent that it holds that that those who own and administer the assets have no responsibility to the common man, but instead that the common man knows no restraints on the responsibility to the economic elites.  Pinochet is often suggested as an exemplar of market forces but he was the head of an order of extreme concentration of wealth and economic power. He destroyed democracy and stifled freedom of expression to protect the elites from all challenge. Trump is more neurotic and less organized, and the American economy has a larger small-business sector.

Capitalist systems do not have leaders. It is Capital itself which is a totalitarian social system, not this clique of bourgeois politicians or that. Just as we can imagine a revanchist, reactionary interwar Germany bot led by Hitler and the NSDAP but doing substantially the same things - perhaps with Hugenberg at the helm - so too can we imagine the system governed by different actors functioning near-identically (e.g. Herbert Hoover inaugurating the New Deal, or Jimmy Carter deregulating airlines, trucking etc. before Reagan).

Capital is the system; politics is its obfuscation
 
Quote:Engels as an authority

The point is that you are wrong to say that "Marxist socialism is simply the imposition of state ownership of the productive capital". That is rather (State) capitalism.
(11-17-2020, 02:52 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]The Democratic Party is not "loyal to the working man", lol. Even from a vulgar left-populist position (laborite capitalism - pro-unions, pro-welfare, etc.) the Democrats are loyal to specific segments of the working class- workers in the tech sector and finance, the actual Democratic base.

In reality, social democratic demands like "loyalty to the working class" are useless. What is necessary is nothing less than the self-abolition of the working class as a class.

Unions are useless in this struggle, indeed counterrevolutionary. Per Professor Paul Mattick:

In the FDR to LBJ period, the loyalty was real and unions were not useless.  From Nixon though now, pretty useless.  The elites and racists have frustrated the Democratic loyalty to the working man and minorities.  You are essentially correct though the unraveling, but not in general.  The Democrats have at least made the correct promises.  We will see how they deliver.

(11-17-2020, 02:52 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]All though the continued existence of capitalism, in either its private or state-capitalist forms, proved that the expectation of the growth of a new labour movement in the wake of the Second World War was pre mature, the continued resilience of capitalism does not remove its immanent contradictions and will therefore not release the workers from the need to put an end to it. Of course, with capitalism still in the saddle, the old labour organisations, parliamentary parties and trade unions, could also be maintained. But they are already recognised, and recognise themselves, as part and parcel of capitalism, destined to go down with the system on which their existence depends.

The revolution does not require a formalized Party at all. I would suggest studying Amadeo Bordiga's views on the matter.

There is a big difference between the idealized Marxist theory and what actually occurs when you try to implement it.  If you are going to win a revolution, you need organization, you need to control whoever is revolting.  Otherwise you loose the revolution.  If you organize enough to win, the folks once they get power have always become a new group of elites, more interested in maintaining power, profit, and keeping the people subdued than behaving according to the theory.  The leaders of the revolution become the new oppressive class.

Preventing this from happening is what it would take to make Marxism work.  Until that happens, there is a big gap between the theory of what will happen and what actually happens.  That gap is the reason communism and socialism are dirty words these days.  Marxism has so obviously and repeatedly failed that it is impossible to gather enough believers to try again.

I look at the Boogaloo Bois as Marxists without the theory and language, the theory and language being so much of ill repute that they have been dropped.  They are just no longer effective propaganda.  The Boogaloo Bois still believe capitalism is hopelessly broken, that violence is necessary to fix things, but they have recognized that the words, theory and justifications are not beneficial.  They turn people off.  Not that the raw unjustified actions of the Boogaloo Bois have attracted much of a following.  They are a tiny cult.  I don't know that they are any more relevant than those who still propose the old Marxist theory in spite of history repeatedly proving the theory wrong.

The American Revolution was the rare example of a bunch of violent people fighting for ideals which strove to keep the leaders from going bad.  Trump has demonstrated the leaders can still go bad, but he has been rejected.  We will see what occurs.  I am waiting for the Marxists to come up with something other than democracy to keep those that lead the revolution straight.  So far, nothing.  Until they propose some way for the people to check the elites, I figure their sad reputation has been well earned.
(11-17-2020, 05:06 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]In  the FDR to LBJ period, the loyalty was real and unions were not useless.  From Nixon though now, pretty useless.

Quote:Feeling a strong allegiance to the president, Meany decided to turn the AFL-CIO’s biannual convention scheduled for December 1965 in San Francisco into a virtual rally for LBJ’s Vietnam policies, which already were controversial in some sectors. Meany lined up an impressive array of speakers, including the president, vice president, and secretary of state. He also invited a large delegation of South Vietnamese trade unionists to the convention and an array of other international visitors. A special breakfast session for all foreign visitors focused entirely on the Southeast Asian crisis. Johnson, insisting the American mission in Southeast Asia was “the pursuit of freedom,” spoke to the convention via telephone. Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Office of Economic Opportunity chief Sargent Shriver both personally addressed the crowd and vigorously defended the war.

https://omnilogos.com/labor-falling-domi...m-war-era/

American labor unions have always been non-oppositional and loyal to power.

Quote:elites and racists have frustrated the Democratic loyalty to the working man and minorities.  You are essentially correct though the unraveling, but not in general.  The Democrats have at least made the correct promises.  We will see how they deliver.

I'm correct about the Democratic Party throughout its entire history. It was no less than FDR who declared himself "the best friend the profit system ever had".

Quote:There is a big difference between the idealized Marxist theory and what actually occurs when you try to implement it.

Marxism isn't a theory to be implemented at al. Marx was quite clear on this point, as in e.g. his Letter to Ruge.

Quote:In fact, the internal obstacles seem almost greater than external difficulties. For even though the question "where from?" presents no problems, the question "where to?" is a rich source of confusion. Not only has universal anarchy broken out among the reformers, but also every individual must admit to himself that he has no precise idea about what ought to happen. However, this very defect turns to the advantage of the new movement, for it means that we do not anticipate the world with our dogmas but instead attempt to discover the new world through the critique of the old. Hitherto philosophers have left the keys to all riddles in their desks, and the stupid, uninitiated world had only to wait around for the roasted pigeons of absolute science to fly into its open mouth. Philosophy has now become secularized and the most striking proof of this can be seen in the way that philosophical consciousness has joined battle not only outwardly, but inwardly too. If we have no business with the construction of the future or with organizing it for all time, there can still be no doubt about the task confronting us at present: the ruthless criticism of the existing order, ruthless in that it will shrink neither from its own discoveries, nor from conflict with the powers that be.

I am therefore not in favor of our hoisting a dogmatic banner. Quite the reverse. We must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their ideas.

Quote:If you are going to win a revolution, you need organization, you need to control whoever is revolting.  Otherwise you loose the revolution.

This organization emerges organically, in the moment of revolutionary action itself.

Quote:If you organize enough to win, the folks once they get power have always become a new group of elites, more interested in maintaining power, profit, and keeping the people subdued than behaving according to the theory.  The leaders of the revolution become the new oppressive class.

An actual socialist revolution precludes this even as a possibility by dint of the fact that it emerges from immediate material conditions.
Also, revolution is not motivated by "believers". Per Marx's Holy Family:

Quote: 
When socialist writers ascribe this world-historic role to the proletariat, it is not at all, as Critical Criticism pretends to believe, because they regard the proletarians as gods. Rather the contrary. Since in the fully-formed proletariat the abstraction of all humanity, even of the semblance of humanity, is practically complete; since the conditions of life of the proletariat sum up all the conditions of life of society today in their most inhuman form; since man has lost himself in the proletariat, yet at the same time has not only gained theoretical consciousness of that loss, but through urgent, no longer removable, no longer disguisable, absolutely imperative need — the practical expression of necessity — is driven directly to revolt against this inhumanity, it follows that the proletariat can and must emancipate itself. But it cannot emancipate itself without abolishing the conditions of its own life. It cannot abolish the conditions of its own life without abolishing all the inhuman conditions of life of society today which are summed up in its own situation. Not in vain does it go through the stern but steeling school of labour. It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, in accordance with this being, it will historically be compelled to do. Its aim and historical action is visibly and irrevocably foreshadowed in its own life situation as well as in the whole organization of bourgeois society today.
(11-17-2020, 05:21 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]This organization emerges organically, in the moment of revolutionary action itself.

The organization emerges always as an elite ruling class that serves itself and oppresses the people.  It always has.  Most people have presumed it always will.  It doesn't matter if it is organic or not.

(11-17-2020, 05:21 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]An actual socialist revolution precludes this even as a possibility by dint of the fact that it emerges from immediate material conditions.

Why assume that?  You can write whatever you want on paper.  It has never been true in reality.  Give me a theory on what should be done next time to make it different.  I have seen nothing that looks like it might work.

The problem is the same I have over in the General Dynamics thread.  Everyone has a world view and set of values.  How is the world seen?  Towards what should you strive?  I listed a bunch of worldview and value pairs that have been actually relevant towards this crisis:  the KKK, Antifa, the looters, the Boogaloo Bois, Black Lives Matter, the bad cops, the Proud Boys, the Wolverine Watchmen...  I could go on.  If you do not understand all of these pairs, you don't understand the situation.

The Marxists have not been active players.  The folks that are active in this crisis do not have the Marxist world view and values.  Well, the Boogaloo Bois are close.  They do profess to believe that the existing system is broken beyond hope, and that violence is required to fix it, but they shun the propaganda for good reason.

But if you buy into any one of these worldview / values pairs, you often have to disregard certain facts that discredit the pair.  Black Lives Matter is perhaps an exception.  Few doubt that minorities have been oppressed and unequal for a long time.  It is their belief that the racists should become less racist that is the problem, that the political system can make it happen.  In the 1960s enough protest caused the Civil Rights act to be passed, and changed the behavior of the racists.  They anticipate something similar could be done again.  Can it?  Sometimes it is the ideas that don't work outside their environment.  Being of the ghetto mindset, the solutions don't work if you live in a prosperous community.  It is a specialized pair that only works in certain environments.

Do the mindset and values work?  How much do you have to ignore?  How many facts do you have to throw away?  Can you effect the folks whose mind is set otherwise, who are locked into other pairs?  People do not change mind sets and values unless they entirely fail the person totally.  The sort of failure that is adequate is Atlanta in the US Civil War, Berlin and Hiroshima in World War II, or the more recent failure of the Berlin Wall.  You need a real big sledgehammer, and even sledgehammers are not adequate for a few die hards.   People have an incredible ability to ignore facts and cling to their mindsets and values.  I don't care if I am talking about the absolute truth of the Bible, the infallibility of Pope Xenakis, the wisdom of the ghetto way of thinking, or Marxist theory.  If you have to throw away facts, your mindset and values are bad.

In order to adopt the Marxist mindset and values, you have to ignore everything that has happened since Marx.  Pull out your magic eraser.  Disregard what actually happened.  I am told that the theory has never been applied in its true form.  This might be because human nature was misjudged when the theory was developed, so the theory can't be applied in its true form.  You have to change the theory to accurately deal with human nature.  The theoretical people haven't done that.  They just drift their theories further from reality.

Hey, during my working career, I accidentally came to work on projects related to all three legs of the nuclear triad: land based ICBMs, submarine based missiles, and bombers.  You don't think I didn't give a little thought to the civilization I was threatening to destroy?  The triad did it's job.  Still, it is amusing that I read many of the original Marxist texts while relaxing in the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, the ultimate palace to capitalism, which happened to be located real close to Northeastern.  While the capitalist / communist conflict isn't as hot as it once was, I can revert to the old arguments if I have to.
Maybe Einzige has not heard the best rock song of all time? (he probably has). It makes Bob's point here, as I see it.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.



Einzige -- I see multiple drivers of history, and the class struggle, although important, is not everything. Religious and philosophical values are important. There's a huge difference between Quakers and ISIS, for example.

The class struggle between feudal landowners and the destitute peasantry was always just beneath the surface, but if there ever were a peasant rebellion, the feudal lords invariably drafted the indecisive as warriors against those peasants who rebelled. Those waging war against the masters who still claimed near ownership of the peasants invariably lost the struggle, and those who survived would be made examples of -- impaling, crushing, or burning. Everyone knew because the pattern was well known.

I also recognize the role of geography. Climate dictates what crops can grow or how else people can feed themselves and that often decides what sort of social order is possible. I doubt that we need go little into the details except to say that livestock could be everything and land nothing worthy of attachment if one herds livestock in marginal grassland; that if one relies upon irrigation in a desert that water rights are everything and that land that can't be irrigated is worthless -- and food may have to be stored and accounted for (which made the 'hydraulic' societies civilized so early) . But have cropland with reliable water, and one has property to defend. In contrast, in some rainforests, nothing can be stored, so there is no wealth.

Don't ignore technology. We are at or near the end of the line for the assumption that greater production and consumption makes people happier. Until recently the best way in which to get rich was to exploit shortages. That is just about over. Maldistribution is more the problem.

Marxism is obsolete. It had its heyday, such as it was, and that time is gone. What is wrong with capitalism is the scummy behavior of elites, which has always been a big problem.
(11-18-2020, 02:20 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Einzige -- I see multiple drivers of history, and the class struggle, although important, is not everything. Religious and philosophical values are important. There's a huge difference between Quakers and ISIS, for example.

The class struggle between feudal landowners and the destitute peasantry was always just beneath the surface, but if there ever were a peasant rebellion, the feudal lords invariably drafted the indecisive as warriors against those peasants who rebelled. Those waging war against the masters who still claimed near ownership of the peasants invariably lost the struggle, and those who survived would be made examples of -- impaling, crushing, or burning. Everyone knew because the pattern was well known.  

I also recognize the role of geography. Climate dictates what crops can grow or how else people can feed themselves and that often decides what sort of social order is possible. I doubt that we need go little into the details except to say that livestock could be everything and land nothing worthy of attachment if one herds livestock in marginal grassland; that if one relies upon irrigation in a desert that water rights are everything and that land that can't be irrigated is worthless -- and food may have to be stored and accounted for (which made the 'hydraulic' societies civilized so early) . But have cropland with reliable water, and one has property to defend. In contrast, in some rainforests, nothing can be stored, so there is no wealth.  

Don't ignore technology. We are at or near the end of the line for the assumption that greater production and consumption makes people happier. Until recently the best way in which to get rich was to exploit shortages. That is just about over. Maldistribution is more the problem.

Marxism is obsolete. It had its heyday, such as it was, and that time is gone. What is wrong with capitalism is the scummy behavior of elites, which has always been a big problem.

That's a well-stated summary. People with limited notions of life and history often try to lead or follow movements or revolutions to change what's happening in the world, and they fail because of their own limited perspective.
(11-17-2020, 04:46 PM)Einzige Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-17-2020, 04:30 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Only if you confuse "totalitarian" with "inhuman" or "anti-human". A capitalist system with a leader at all dictatorial (as in Pinochet or Trump) will be inhuman to the extent that it holds that that those who own and administer the assets have no responsibility to the common man, but instead that the common man knows no restraints on the responsibility to the economic elites.  Pinochet is often suggested as an exemplar of market forces but he was the head of an order of extreme concentration of wealth and economic power. He destroyed democracy and stifled freedom of expression to protect the elites from all challenge. Trump is more neurotic and less organized, and the American economy has a larger small-business sector.

Capitalist systems do not have leaders. It is Capital itself which is a totalitarian social system, not this clique of bourgeois politicians or that.

Which is the utopian idea of libertarianism in which the State fades out. In essence the capitalist system becomes an irresponsible behemoth acting without responsibility toward anyone and anything other than its own existence.  



Quote:Just as we can imagine a revanchist, reactionary interwar Germany bot led by Hitler and the NSDAP but doing substantially the same things - perhaps with Hugenberg at the helm - so too can we imagine the system governed by different actors functioning near-identically (e.g. Herbert Hoover inaugurating the New Deal, or Jimmy Carter deregulating airlines, trucking etc. before Reagan).

I can't speak for Hugenberg, but I see him as the sort who wanted no elections and no institutions to interfere with the whims of big landowners, tycoons, and executives. A vacuum of power formed, and Hitler took over the Weimar Republic, an unstable entity as basically the German Empire without the Kaiser.

I can imagine many scenarios of alternative history, and the scariest that I can think of is a Klan-dominated America. For that to not end badly as the annihilation of all good in Western Christian civilization I must force Germany and Japan into the roles of victors  as Good Guys who preserve (Germany) or develop (Japan) democracy. To make it coherent I need analogues to history, even to the point of having a city divided like Berlin (that would be Chicago) and a cold war (maybe Japan isn't so democratic as it presents itself).     


Quote:Capital is the system; politics is its obfuscation

No, it is a moral culture alone that can mitigate the power of capital. Capitalism works well enough when shareholders and executives act with conscience. Powerful people devoid of conscience and without legal constraints steal, enslave, peonize, and murder at will; their worst murder is a war for profit -- as in Nazi Germany, war for the profit of weapons-manufacturers, capture of markets for the exploitation of German monopolists, plunder of property on behalf of German profiteers, and the enslavement of the defeated. If you wonder about the Jews -- many of the Jews were small-business owners who got in the way of further monopolization of the German economy. 

The worst war criminals who got away with it were German tycoons, executives, and big rural landowners (who often exploited slave labor on plantations that would have been as vile as those of the pre-Civil War South), and the only ones who felt real consequences were the big rural landowners if their pre-war property ended up behind the Iron Curtain -- whose land was confiscated by Polish, Czech, Soviet, or  East German Communists.   

I can say this of many of our MBA students: it would be a good thing if they had taken a few courses in philosophy that offer some challenge to the idea that the sole purpose of life for the common man is to suffer for the rich and powerful and that the sole legitimate objectives of the owners and the bureaucratic elites of Big Business are their own power, indulgence, and greed.  

Quote:
Quote:Engels as an authority

The point is that you are wrong to say that "Marxist socialism is simply the imposition of state ownership of the productive capital". That is rather (State) capitalism.

So how does the State gain power through its ownership of production capital without becoming an even more repressive behemoth? Democracy cannot assure social equity, but its absence ensures an inhuman monstrosity. Socialism without democracy is a sham.
The attorney general of New York via CNN explored a series of pardons, including Trump stepping aside temporarily or permanently for Pence to pardon him. It is compatible with what I guessed at some time ago.

He then gives reasons why Trump may not pardon himself or have Pence do it. What he also missed was an intent to maintain control of the Republicans, to link to a TV network, to remain a relevant force. A pardon has been basically is an omission of guilt. If he gets one, he winds up linked to Nixon and discredited among those not rabid red.

Interesting options anyway, and still leaving civil and state charges a possibility.
(12-09-2020, 11:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]The attorney general of New York via CNN explored a series of pardons, including Trump stepping aside temporarily or permanently for Pence to pardon him.  It is compatible with what I guessed at some time ago.  

He then gives reasons why Trump may not pardon himself or have Pence do it.  What he also missed was an intent to maintain control of the Republicans, to link to a TV network, to remain a relevant force.  A pardon has been basically is an omission of guilt.  If he gets one, he winds up linked to Nixon and discredited among those not rabid red.

Interesting options anyway, and still leaving civil and state charges a possibility.

I doubt Trump can do anything that would alienate his most loyal followers.  He's right: he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
(12-09-2020, 02:38 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2020, 11:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]The attorney general of New York via CNN explored a series of pardons, including Trump stepping aside temporarily or permanently for Pence to pardon him.  It is compatible with what I guessed at some time ago.  

He then gives reasons why Trump may not pardon himself or have Pence do it.  What he also missed was an intent to maintain control of the Republicans, to link to a TV network, to remain a relevant force.  A pardon has been basically is an omission of guilt.  If he gets one, he winds up linked to Nixon and discredited among those not rabid red.

Interesting options anyway, and still leaving civil and state charges a possibility.

I doubt Trump can do anything that would alienate his most loyal followers.  He's right: he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.





Scary, isn't it?  That is a personality cult.
(12-10-2020, 04:00 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2020, 02:38 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2020, 11:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]The attorney general of New York via CNN explored a series of pardons, including Trump stepping aside temporarily or permanently for Pence to pardon him.  It is compatible with what I guessed at some time ago.  

He then gives reasons why Trump may not pardon himself or have Pence do it.  What he also missed was an intent to maintain control of the Republicans, to link to a TV network, to remain a relevant force.  A pardon has been basically is an omission of guilt.  If he gets one, he winds up linked to Nixon and discredited among those not rabid red.

Interesting options anyway, and still leaving civil and state charges a possibility.

I doubt Trump can do anything that would alienate his most loyal followers.  He's right: he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Scary, isn't it?  That is a personality cult.

Scary, yes, but in any but the reddest state, his loyal followers are enough to make a politician who opposes him lose the primary, but not enough to win the general election. It creates an interesting dynamic.
(12-10-2020, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-10-2020, 04:00 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2020, 02:38 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2020, 11:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]The attorney general of New York via CNN explored a series of pardons, including Trump stepping aside temporarily or permanently for Pence to pardon him.  It is compatible with what I guessed at some time ago.  

He then gives reasons why Trump may not pardon himself or have Pence do it.  What he also missed was an intent to maintain control of the Republicans, to link to a TV network, to remain a relevant force.  A pardon has been basically is an omission of guilt.  If he gets one, he winds up linked to Nixon and discredited among those not rabid red.

Interesting options anyway, and still leaving civil and state charges a possibility.

I doubt Trump can do anything that would alienate his most loyal followers.  He's right: he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.

Scary, isn't it?  That is a personality cult.

Scary, yes, but in any but the reddest state, his loyal followers are enough to make a politician who opposes him lose the primary, but not enough to win the general election.  It creates an interesting dynamic.

Trump moved to Florida to make himself immune to rationality.  Remember, this is the state that ran a raid on the home of a health researcher with guns drawn and children in the house: her crime was telling the truth.

Nothing is outside the bounds anymore.
(12-09-2020, 02:38 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2020, 11:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]The attorney general of New York via CNN explored a series of pardons, including Trump stepping aside temporarily or permanently for Pence to pardon him.  It is compatible with what I guessed at some time ago.  

He then gives reasons why Trump may not pardon himself or have Pence do it.  What he also missed was an intent to maintain control of the Republicans, to link to a TV network, to remain a relevant force.  A pardon has been basically is an omission of guilt.  If he gets one, he winds up linked to Nixon and discredited among those not rabid red.

Interesting options anyway, and still leaving civil and state charges a possibility.

I doubt Trump can do anything that would alienate his most loyal followers.  He's right: he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Trump couldn't but Obama or Biden probably could these days. The LIBERAL elite better be careful because they're playing with fire in a room that's full of power kegs right now. Like I said, since when has it been legal to sick the dogs on political opponents in this country? You may prefer to live in a third world country with tyrants but the American right doesn't and that's becoming more clear to more Americans as time goes on.
(12-09-2020, 11:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]The attorney general of New York via CNN explored a series of pardons, including Trump stepping aside temporarily or permanently for Pence to pardon him.  It is compatible with what I guessed at some time ago.  

He then gives reasons why Trump may not pardon himself or have Pence do it.  What he also missed was an intent to maintain control of the Republicans, to link to a TV network, to remain a relevant force.  A pardon has been basically is an omission of guilt.  If he gets one, he winds up linked to Nixon and discredited among those not rabid red.

Interesting options anyway, and still leaving civil and state charges a possibility.
So, how many times have we seen four presidents in office over the course of four years during our history? Would it be the first time? I can't speak for you but I'm all giddy about the idea of one of them being a brown skinned woman ( a couple of firsts wrapped into one) I with no experience running anything being given the power to run our country. Is that what you wanted and knew you were getting when you voted a month or so ago? I vote Republican because the Republican side isn't as fucked up or into as much nonsense and mischief as the Democratic side.
(12-10-2020, 03:32 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2020, 02:38 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt Trump can do anything that would alienate his most loyal followers.  He's right: he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Trump couldn't but Obama or Biden probably could these days. The LIBERAL elite better be careful because they're playing with fire in a room that's full of power kegs right now. Like I said, since when has it been legal to sick the dogs on political opponents in this country? You may prefer to live in a third world country with tyrants but the American right doesn't and that's becoming more clear to more Americans as time goes on.

At least since Nixon was caught with the Watergate scandal, each party has been looking to catch the other at shenanigans.  In cases like Iran Contra, lying about the cause of war in Iraq and ignoring the law about profiting from official acts, the Democrats have come closer to making it stick.  That is because Republican persistently walk closer to the line than Democrats.  Neither side has had a politician shoot someone on 5th Ave.  I would suggest Ted Kennedy’s cover up of Chappaquiddick was a close to it as anything.

The longer a party is dominant, the more corrupt they become.  Trump and the Republicans illustrate this as well as anyone.  For a while the Democrats will be playing straight arrow.  In time they too will go Trumpish, assuming another progressive era.  But for now, it will be Trump who brags about how much he is above the law.

Of course, he isn't.

If you break the law, you have always had to pay a price.  I think Biden is wise in staying above the fray, in letting various attorney generals do their job rather than being vindictive.  Still, if you don’t want to be prosecuted, you shouldn’t get in the habit of acting criminally.  You have to assume that since Watergate, your opponents are waiting, watching, ready to make political hay.  What do you think Trump was doing looking for dirt on Biden?  He just wasn’t wary about it being turned around, of breaking the law while taking a conspicuous position.

I figure he will get what he deserves.
(12-10-2020, 10:08 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-10-2020, 07:47 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-10-2020, 04:00 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2020, 02:38 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2020, 11:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]The attorney general of New York via CNN explored a series of pardons, including Trump stepping aside temporarily or permanently for Pence to pardon him.  It is compatible with what I guessed at some time ago.  

He then gives reasons why Trump may not pardon himself or have Pence do it.  What he also missed was an intent to maintain control of the Republicans, to link to a TV network, to remain a relevant force.  A pardon has been basically is an omission of guilt.  If he gets one, he winds up linked to Nixon and discredited among those not rabid red.

Interesting options anyway, and still leaving civil and state charges a possibility.

I doubt Trump can do anything that would alienate his most loyal followers.  He's right: he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.

Scary, isn't it?  That is a personality cult.

Scary, yes, but in any but the reddest state, his loyal followers are enough to make a politician who opposes him lose the primary, but not enough to win the general election.  It creates an interesting dynamic.

Trump moved to Florida to make himself immune to rationality.  Remember, this is the state that ran a raid on the home of a health researcher with guns drawn and children in the house: her crime was telling the truth.

Nothing is outside the bounds anymore.
Isn't that the same state that Clinton sent in a group of heavily armed Feds to enter an American home to seize a little Cuban kid and end a drawn out international custody dispute? Isn't that the same state that we watched the Liberal courts drag out an election result for months as it tried to change election laws after Gore lost the election? Isn't it also the state where a group of heavily armed Feds and a group of CNN reporters were sent to the home of an avid Trump supporter to be arrested on petty charges that had nothing to do with Russian collusion?
(12-10-2020, 04:15 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-10-2020, 03:32 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2020, 02:38 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]I doubt Trump can do anything that would alienate his most loyal followers.  He's right: he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Trump couldn't but Obama or Biden probably could these days. The LIBERAL elite better be careful because they're playing with fire in a room that's full of power kegs right now. Like I said, since when has it been legal to sick the dogs on political opponents in this country? You may prefer to live in a third world country with tyrants but the American right doesn't and that's becoming more clear to more Americans as time goes on.

At least since Nixon was caught with the Watergate scandal, each party has been looking to catch the other at shenanigans.  In cases like Iran Contra, lying about the cause of war in Iraq and ignoring the law about profiting from official acts, the Democrats have come closer to making it stick.  That is because Republican persistently walk closer to the line than Democrats.  Neither side has had a politician shoot someone on 5th Ave.  I would suggest Ted Kennedy’s cover up of Chappaquiddick was a close to it as anything.

The longer a party is dominant, the more corrupt they become.  Trump and the Republicans illustrate this as well as anyone.  For a while the Democrats will be playing straight arrow.  In time they too will go Trumpish, assuming another progressive era.  But for now, it will be Trump who brags about how much he is above the law.

Of course, he isn't.

If you break the law, you have always had to pay a price.  I think Biden is wise in staying above the fray, in letting various attorney generals do their job rather than being vindictive.  Still, if you don’t want to be prosecuted, you shouldn’t get in the habit of acting criminally.  You have to assume that since Watergate, your opponents are waiting, watching, ready to make political hay.  What do you think Trump was doing looking for dirt on Biden?  He just wasn’t wary about it being turned around, of breaking the law while taking a conspicuous position.

I figure he will get what he deserves.

We had a Watergate like scandal that took place while Obama was in office that we may or may not completely find out about now that Biden will be in office. So, how have you ever walked on thin ice before? You can do it but you have to cautious, pay attention and listen while you're doing it.

Unfortunately, Biden was smack dab in the middle of the fray which will make it difficult for him to remain above the fray and he's already standing on thin ice. You still seem to be pretty clueless and arrogant for someone who is walking on thin ice along with Biden these days. Trump deserves a second stint in office. Whether it's now or in four years, doesn't matter to me. The Democratic party isn't as dominant as it once was but it's still the more dominant of the two with all the members of the media, institutions and the courts on its side.
(12-10-2020, 03:32 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2020, 02:38 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-09-2020, 11:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]The attorney general of New York via CNN explored a series of pardons, including Trump stepping aside temporarily or permanently for Pence to pardon him.  It is compatible with what I guessed at some time ago.  

He then gives reasons why Trump may not pardon himself or have Pence do it.  What he also missed was an intent to maintain control of the Republicans, to link to a TV network, to remain a relevant force.  A pardon has been basically is an omission of guilt.  If he gets one, he winds up linked to Nixon and discredited among those not rabid red.

Interesting options anyway, and still leaving civil and state charges a possibility.

I doubt Trump can do anything that would alienate his most loyal followers.  He's right: he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.

Trump couldn't but Obama or Biden probably could these days. The LIBERAL elite better be careful because they're playing with fire in a room that's full of power kegs right now. Like I said, since when has it been legal to sick the dogs on political opponents in this country? You may prefer to live in a third world country with tyrants but the American right doesn't and that's becoming more clear to more Americans as time goes on.

Barack Obama would be scared if he were to find that he had the ability to shoot someone on any street and get away with it. He scrupulously avoids such rhetoric... or knows enough to not say it. 

As the defeat of Donald Trump sinks in, American political life seems to be getting quieter. So much for the "powder kegs".

Having dogs attack political opponent? Alabama in the early 1960's. See also water cannons. 

You may not like being around people whose origins are in the Third World... tough luck! Let's start with the descendants of enslaved Africans: they are as American as is possible. Slave-owners did everything possible to suppress any African culture (language, music, religion, passed-down heritage) so that by 1865 they were Americans by default.