Who the “we” is when people say “this is not who we are”?

edited January 7 in Purgatory
Who the “we” is when people say “this is not who we are”?

Because if they keep doing it and look like they're close to 50% of the population, the thing could be "this is indeed who we are". - don't think they can be excluded, don't think they're interested in reconciliation, they want to win. It looks more de-radicalization is required.

It looks dangerous, it doesn't look over. Half of the people are for this form of "we". Though it's nice when there's an interlude, that very bad politicians stop being quite as much of this form of "we". At least for a while.
«134

Comments

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    It does show just how divided this nation (I am assuming we are talking about the US) are.
  • It's contagious. The USA is leading the way but we've got people just like this "we" in my sparsely populated province (Saskatchewan) of 1.1 million, close to the size of Texas.

    So I think this question applies to more than one country. Here it's called the Buffalo Party. They didn't even really campaign and came second in some constituencies in our October 2020 election. They align with the trumpo-fascists.
  • The problem includes the notion that selfishness is not only normal, but a positve virtue ... I still cringe when I hear Ronald "Gipper" Reagan intoning, "Are YOU better off than YOU were four years ago ... ??? as if that is what civilized society is about --- ME ME ME ...
  • This mostly clearly and evidently is who we are.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    And somehow we must embrace ourselves. Can Biden embrace the neo-fascist slavers who stormed the Capitol? Who will block him with their automatic weapons.
  • "We" in this sense, as in Biden's speech, are the people we are meant to be.

    It's a common rhetorical phraseology in pep talks in, e.g. schools, when persuading the pupils/students to be their better selves and not get swept up in something nefarious.
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    The sharpest critiques of the Capitol invasion from a different American 'we' have come from Black Lives Matter spokespeople asking about the pipe bombs and guns of the insurrectionists along with the ineffectual complicit policing of the Capitol. POC in the US seem united in denouncing Trump's instigation of domestic terrorism for what it is.

    From Black Lives Matter Twitter @Blklivesmatter

    "When Black people protest for our lives, we are met by National Guard troops or police equipped with assault rifles, tear gas and battle helmets. When white people attempt a coup, they are met by an underwhelming number of law enforcement personnel who act powerless to intervene."
  • "We" in this sense, as in Biden's speech, are the people we are meant to be.

    It's a common rhetorical phraseology in pep talks in, e.g. schools, when persuading the pupils/students to be their better selves and not get swept up in something nefarious.

    No to get swept up in something nefarious? What am I missing x4 yrs and this attack? With almost 50% of people on the side of the instigator of all of it. With all of his supporting elected people chiming in. This isn't school. It's half the people wanting fascism. Here it's 11%. And growing.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited January 7
    I'm not sure it's fascism they want. They seem to want to be able to enforce their own little fascisms, free from government stopping them.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Curiosity Killed: "We".....It's a common rhetorical phraseology"

    Agreed, which means it's imprecise, covering a variety of contexts and meaning. It is also dangerous, because it assumes that the totality of "we" has a common set of values and purposes and is, therefore, more than an expression of majority opinion. There is also the notion that those not sharing the laudable values being extolled are not part of the "we". Biden, for example, was implicitly excluding the rioters from the "we" as a means of rejection and dividing the Republicans. On the other side, the Trumpians do not include American of colour among the "we". I must confess that as a foreigner listening to Biden saying "it's not who we are", (or words to that effect), my response was "O, yes you are, QED!" As MaryLouise pointed out, the role of the police suggested a greater affinity with the lawless rioters than of blacks peacefully demanding their legal rights.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    As has been pointed out elsewhere on the interwebs, 'this is not what we do' is more effective as a motivator than 'that's not what you should do'. Trump is offering people an identity to feel part of; the best way to carve away at his support is to offer another identity to feel part of.
  • Was thinking at breakfast, that there must a list of greivances and problems which are not answered by current and recent governments. Is it the usual list?
    -feeling a financial squeeze where standard of living is slipping

    -perception (truth) that wealth people are siphoning off the country's wealth

    -lack of job skills for the changing economy - where I live, this is oil workers who won't be working in fossil fuels in the future

    Not sure what else. I do believe that people feel more stress and and are more anxious today than in decades past. Less happy. I'm personally more happy than a decade ago, but that's just me. Maybe it's my increase that makes me see a contrast?
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    That was a fair number of white Americans' first thought, too - some of us have witnessed how police treat Black people firsthand often enough to have got the message, others finally started paying attention after Ferguson, and of course the murder of George Floyd was an eye-opener for still others. This is no longer something only Black people say right off the bat, which gives me hope. Black people still lead the way with, as you say, the sharpest critiques, but they're being heard. On MSNBC last night Brian Williams asked Brittany Packnett Cunningham how police would have responded if Black people had stormed the Capitol, in that way that anchors ask their network's commentators setup questions they know the answer to, and she laid it all out. At the same time, there are random ordinary white Americans saying the same things on Twitter. This is now an idea in the mainstream.

    "This is not who we are" rhetoric is bullshit. This is exactly who we are, as mousethief says. It's who we've always been. If we are to have a chance in hell of being otherwise, we need to recognize this truth.

    Hearing stuff like this from Biden and other Democratic leaders makes me think they're not going to go hard on prosecuting the criminals, from Trump to the Nazis who stormed the Capitol. We'll get another Ford-like put it all behind us, turn the page and move on line of shit that will do little or nothing to address the problem.

    We need criminal prosecutions. We need to have Hawley and Cruz expelled from the Senate. We need the DOJ to be focussing on white supremacists as the biggest terrorist threat we have.

    We have privileged whiteness for over 400 years. We should not be surprised when toxic white people run riot. It has been happening constantly, in big ways and small, ever since Europeans set foot on this soil.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Saying, This is not who we are, seems to me compatible with criminal prosecutions. Prosecuting someone for something everybody does looks arbitrary. On the other hand, thus is not who we are, leads naturally into, and we do not put up with this kind of thing.
  • After listening to Biden yesterday I was struck by one impression: that he sounds like a transatlantic Neil Kinnock, far too long-winded.

    I think this is bad news for the coming days. The people he needs to convince of his legitimacy don't have the patience to listen to long, rambling musings about "who we are". Trump's (evil) genius was in addressing his lunatic fringe in short sound-bites - MAGA, build the wall, crooked Hillary, etc. They're going to switch off long before Biden gets to the point.
  • GalilitGalilit Shipmate
    Well put ... I was just writing something similar to a friend in New York. Biden looked pale and weak and his voice was either too high-pitched or he was all tensed-up.
    I think he could have said "This is not who we are" and that would have been fine and calming if he had delivered it with confidence and depth of conviction.
    Perhaps he wasn't even convinced of it himself.
    Ruth (whose thoughts and opinions I always find well-thought-out) says that is who Americans really are, presumably even Biden
  • When trying to persuade someone to change, is it not a good idea to appeal to their better self? Isn't it counterproductive to say to them "You need to realise that you're despicable and always have been despicable?"
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold. Expelling Hawley and the other Republican enablers from Congress would do the same exact thing.

    I suppose one could argue those are the exact right things to do if you want open sectarian combat, but that seems ill-advised.

    Furthermore, I’m not a big fan of Biden, but I didn’t find his performance speaking to be at all bad or unusual.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold. Expelling Hawley and the other Republican enablers from Congress would do the same exact thing.

    We have open sectarian combat. That horse has left the barn.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold.

    You either enforce the line or acknowledge it is meaningless.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold. Expelling Hawley and the other Republican enablers from Congress would do the same exact thing.

    (...)

    As things stand, it seems to me* that a good medium-term# strategy for the Democrats would be to offer Mr Trump a pardon. That's because my understanding is that since (?) 1915 the Supreme Court have argued that accepting a pardon means that the person pardoned accepts that they were guilty of the offence. So if Mr Trump accepts the pardon, he accepts that he was guilty of federal offences: if he doesn't accept the pardon then he leaves himself open to prosecution and punishment.

    The problem with this is that in the long term, it suggests that a President can do whatever they like in office in the reasonable expectation that their successor will pardon them. This doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

    *A Brit living in the UK, and so with no knowledge to speak of of the US political system

    #In this context - short-term = between now and inauguration, medium-term = the weeks after inauguration, long-term = anything beyond that.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold. Expelling Hawley and the other Republican enablers from Congress would do the same exact thing.

    We have open sectarian combat. That horse has left the barn.

    An angry mob is not the same thing as open war.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold.

    You either enforce the line or acknowledge it is meaningless.

    What line is this?
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold. Expelling Hawley and the other Republican enablers from Congress would do the same exact thing.

    (...)

    As things stand, it seems to me* that a good medium-term# strategy for the Democrats would be to offer Mr Trump a pardon. That's because my understanding is that since (?) 1915 the Supreme Court have argued that accepting a pardon means that the person pardoned accepts that they were guilty of the offence. So if Mr Trump accepts the pardon, he accepts that he was guilty of federal offences: if he doesn't accept the pardon then he leaves himself open to prosecution and punishment.

    The problem with this is that in the long term, it suggests that a President can do whatever they like in office in the reasonable expectation that their successor will pardon them. This doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

    *A Brit living in the UK, and so with no knowledge to speak of of the US political system

    #In this context - short-term = between now and inauguration, medium-term = the weeks after inauguration, long-term = anything beyond that.

    Trump is incapable, in his mind, of doing anything wrong. So that's not likely to happen.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Rant/Tangent Alert:

    Before on these threads, I've criticised what I'd call out as a serious misuse of 'we', what I call the 'portentous we'. It strikes me that this thread is demonstrating by its use of a negative, 'it's not who we are' so much about what is wrong with 'we', and why so much of its use is so detrimental and dishonest in public debate.

    The core of my original criticism was way the worthy to use the 'portentous we', when what they actually mean is, 'this is what I think and you ought to think the same way as I do'. Using 'we' is attempting to get one's hearer to agree with what one is saying not because the hearer agrees but because one hopes that he or she will identify with you, or perhaps already does.

    One of the devious benefits to the users of this pernicious construction is that one can so easily segué between different groups of people, 'me', 'the Cabinet', 'my party', 'you' and hope that one's listeners will not notice the switch. The idea is to get them to agree with you without their noticing that they've never actually decided that they do.

    Saying that some of people that one wants to get one's listeners not to agree with are 'not who we are', is doing the same thing in reverse. That is so, however laudable it may be that people should not identify with those that one is attempting to 'other'. The reason for not identifying with some group of people or their package of thoughts and actions shouldn't be that one has been persuaded to 'other' them. It should be because one has come to the conclusion that their thoughts and actions are wrong and/or wicked.

  • ECraigR wrote: »

    An angry mob is not the same thing as open war.

    An angry mob organized and directed by the sitting President and a significant number of the elected officials of his party.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold.

    You either enforce the line or acknowledge it is meaningless.

    What line is this?

    The thin blue one or the thin red one, take your pick. Against evil, lying, white, racist fascists.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    ECraigR wrote: »

    An angry mob is not the same thing as open war.

    An angry mob organized and directed by the sitting President and a significant number of the elected officials of his party.

    I agree totally. Imagine what would happen if he or they was arrested? They would call for armed, active resistance. They're already on the edge of doing so.

    If you want to arm and kill your neighbors then I'll pray for you, but there's no chance I'll ever support that path.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Martin54 wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold.

    You either enforce the line or acknowledge it is meaningless.

    What line is this?

    The thin blue one or the thin red one, take your pick. Against evil, lying, white, racist fascists.

    Not sure I follow.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited January 7
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold.

    You either enforce the line or acknowledge it is meaningless.

    What line is this?

    The political line that was crossed when the losing candidate encouraged his followers to go to DC and march on the Capitol building, and the line when his followers did just that and mobbed the building.

    Either you prosecute people from the top for that, or you forget about any political norms whatsoever, and resign yourself to a repeat or worse.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    I agree totally. Imagine what would happen if he or they was arrested? They would call for armed, active resistance. They're already on the edge of doing so.

    So from now on you don't want to enforce the law in cases where people call for armed active resistance? That's going to work out well, I wish you luck.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold.

    You either enforce the line or acknowledge it is meaningless.

    What line is this?

    The political line that was crossed when the losing candidate encouraged his followers to go to DC and march on the Capitol building, and the line when his followers did just that and mobbed the building.

    Either you prosecute people from the top for that, or you forget about any political norms whatsoever, and resign yourself to a repeat or worse.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    I agree totally. Imagine what would happen if he or they was arrested? They would call for armed, active resistance. They're already on the edge of doing so.

    So from now on you don't want to enforce the law in cases where people call for armed active resistance? That's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    How do you think that ends? Trump's violent supporters say, aw shucks our man got arrested guess we should lay down our arms and go home? Good luck my dude, that's going to work out well, I wish you luck.
  • That is why they need to put Amendment 25 into action now. If they did it on medical grounds it would offer a means of saying that Trump was wrong but give a fig-leaf of him not being in his right mind.

    In fact one of the many complications of ling-covid can be mental/emotional disturbance, including psychosis, so honour could be satisfied on all sides.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited January 7
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold.

    You either enforce the line or acknowledge it is meaningless.

    What line is this?

    The political line that was crossed when the losing candidate encouraged his followers to go to DC and march on the Capitol building, and the line when his followers did just that and mobbed the building.

    Either you prosecute people from the top for that, or you forget about any political norms whatsoever, and resign yourself to a repeat or worse.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    I agree totally. Imagine what would happen if he or they was arrested? They would call for armed, active resistance. They're already on the edge of doing so.

    So from now on you don't want to enforce the law in cases where people call for armed active resistance? That's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    How do you think that ends? Trump's violent supporters say, aw shucks our man got arrested guess we should lay down our arms and go home? Good luck my dude, that's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    Excellent. Mob rule it is then, until one of the mobs implements tyranny.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold.

    You either enforce the line or acknowledge it is meaningless.

    What line is this?

    The political line that was crossed when the losing candidate encouraged his followers to go to DC and march on the Capitol building, and the line when his followers did just that and mobbed the building.

    Either you prosecute people from the top for that, or you forget about any political norms whatsoever, and resign yourself to a repeat or worse.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    I agree totally. Imagine what would happen if he or they was arrested? They would call for armed, active resistance. They're already on the edge of doing so.

    So from now on you don't want to enforce the law in cases where people call for armed active resistance? That's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    How do you think that ends? Trump's violent supporters say, aw shucks our man got arrested guess we should lay down our arms and go home? Good luck my dude, that's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    Excellent. Mob rule it is then, until one of the mobs implements tyranny.

    You may have not noticed this, but the government continues to function, the mob was dispersed, and one political party controls two branches of the federal government. What mob rule are you referring to?
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold.

    You either enforce the line or acknowledge it is meaningless.

    What line is this?

    The political line that was crossed when the losing candidate encouraged his followers to go to DC and march on the Capitol building, and the line when his followers did just that and mobbed the building.

    Either you prosecute people from the top for that, or you forget about any political norms whatsoever, and resign yourself to a repeat or worse.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    I agree totally. Imagine what would happen if he or they was arrested? They would call for armed, active resistance. They're already on the edge of doing so.

    So from now on you don't want to enforce the law in cases where people call for armed active resistance? That's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    How do you think that ends? Trump's violent supporters say, aw shucks our man got arrested guess we should lay down our arms and go home? Good luck my dude, that's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    Excellent. Mob rule it is then, until one of the mobs implements tyranny.

    You may have not noticed this, but the government continues to function, the mob was dispersed, and one political party controls two branches of the federal government.

    You could say the same about the failed Spanish coup of 1981.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold.

    You either enforce the line or acknowledge it is meaningless.

    What line is this?

    The political line that was crossed when the losing candidate encouraged his followers to go to DC and march on the Capitol building, and the line when his followers did just that and mobbed the building.

    Either you prosecute people from the top for that, or you forget about any political norms whatsoever, and resign yourself to a repeat or worse.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    I agree totally. Imagine what would happen if he or they was arrested? They would call for armed, active resistance. They're already on the edge of doing so.

    So from now on you don't want to enforce the law in cases where people call for armed active resistance? That's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    How do you think that ends? Trump's violent supporters say, aw shucks our man got arrested guess we should lay down our arms and go home? Good luck my dude, that's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    Excellent. Mob rule it is then, until one of the mobs implements tyranny.

    You may have not noticed this, but the government continues to function, the mob was dispersed, and one political party controls two branches of the federal government. What mob rule are you referring to?

    The mob currently causing you to argue for the rule of law to be suspended, that mob. The mob that will give up none of their beliefs and merely be emboldened by the lack of consequence, free testament to the thought that if they don't like the way things are they can always break things again.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    edited January 7
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Prosecuting Trump would be the worst possible move. It would feed his martyr complex, be red meat for his base, and crank up the heat a thousandfold.

    You either enforce the line or acknowledge it is meaningless.

    What line is this?

    The political line that was crossed when the losing candidate encouraged his followers to go to DC and march on the Capitol building, and the line when his followers did just that and mobbed the building.

    Either you prosecute people from the top for that, or you forget about any political norms whatsoever, and resign yourself to a repeat or worse.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    I agree totally. Imagine what would happen if he or they was arrested? They would call for armed, active resistance. They're already on the edge of doing so.

    So from now on you don't want to enforce the law in cases where people call for armed active resistance? That's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    How do you think that ends? Trump's violent supporters say, aw shucks our man got arrested guess we should lay down our arms and go home? Good luck my dude, that's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    Excellent. Mob rule it is then, until one of the mobs implements tyranny.

    You may have not noticed this, but the government continues to function, the mob was dispersed, and one political party controls two branches of the federal government. What mob rule are you referring to?

    The mob currently causing you to argue for the rule of law to be suspended, that mob. The mob that will give up none of their beliefs and merely be emboldened by the lack of consequence, free testament to the thought that if they don't like the way things are they can always break things again.

    My dude, the rule of law has never applied to the powerful. Has Kissinger been arraigned on war crime charges? Have Bush and Cheney been charged with lying to the American people and falsely getting us into a 2 decade long conflict?

    I don't understand how you think enforcing the rule of law you're touting will lead to anything positive. Are you willing to kill your neighbor for enforcing the rule of law? Because I'm not, and I'm in my twenties, so the civil war you're theoretically cheering on will be fought by me and my friends. No fucking way I'm doing that.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    How do you think that ends? Trump's violent supporters say, aw shucks our man got arrested guess we should lay down our arms and go home? Good luck my dude, that's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    So... what solution, short of allowing Trump to remain in office, do you think is going to get them to go home peacefully? Again, that horse has left the barn.

    Do you think the same mob aren't going to try to stop Biden's inauguration, now that they know exactly how easy it is to walk into a federal building and disrupt the proceedings?
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    ECraigR wrote: »
    How do you think that ends? Trump's violent supporters say, aw shucks our man got arrested guess we should lay down our arms and go home? Good luck my dude, that's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    So... what solution, short of allowing Trump to remain in office, do you think is going to get them to go home peacefully? Again, that horse has left the barn.

    Do you think the same mob aren't going to try to stop Biden's inauguration, now that they know exactly how easy it is to walk into a federal building and disrupt the proceedings?

    I have no idea how to fix things. I'm not a politician, I'm a librarian and poet. I sure as hell know, however, that charging Trump and his enablers with crimes will be seen as vindictive, embolden the persecution complex of everyone on the right, and lead immediately (within the timeworkings of society) to civil war. That slice of the right has been yelling for that much to happen for a long time, and I'm quite convinced that satisfying that base need will be disastrous.

    I'd hope that our military that we throw half of our budget to every year can figure out how to secure the inauguration.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    I don't understand how you think enforcing the rule of law you're touting will lead to anything positive. Are you willing to kill your neighbor for enforcing the rule of law? Because I'm not, and I'm in my twenties, so the civil war you're theoretically cheering on will be fought by me and my friends. You can fuck all the way off with that right now.

    Okay, whatever, ignore it and hope it goes away, let's see how that works out for you.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Am I saying that? I don't believe I'm saying that. I'm saying that we should find a way forward that isn't war. That seems reasonable.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited January 7
    As a Republican President once said, Speak softly and carry a big stick. Win over the moderates and condemn the extremists. Don't alienate the moderates; but don't appease the extremists. The split you want to put a bridge over is between you and their moderates. If the extremists do something to alienate the moderates widen that split; don't try to build a bridge over it for them.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Galilit wrote: »
    Well put ... I was just writing something similar to a friend in New York. Biden looked pale and weak and his voice was either too high-pitched or he was all tensed-up.

    He's an old man, and it was late. I imagine he was exhausted as well as tense.
    Ruth (whose thoughts and opinions I always find well-thought-out) says that is who Americans really are, presumably even Biden

    Collectively, yes, all of us, including Biden, including me. There is such a thing as collective guilt. My family arrived here after slavery was over, I am not overtly racist, and I have been anti-war my whole life, but I am still implicated in every shitty thing we do as a country. It is my government that illegally makes war. It is my government that prosecutes Black people for jay-walking but looks away from or actively encourages wrong-doing by white people. Even many Black Americans find themselves in this, having to actively root out the anti-Blackness instilled in them by education and institutions.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    How do you think that ends? Trump's violent supporters say, aw shucks our man got arrested guess we should lay down our arms and go home? Good luck my dude, that's going to work out well, I wish you luck.

    So... what solution, short of allowing Trump to remain in office, do you think is going to get them to go home peacefully? Again, that horse has left the barn.

    Do you think the same mob aren't going to try to stop Biden's inauguration, now that they know exactly how easy it is to walk into a federal building and disrupt the proceedings?

    As many as the FBI can track down will be arrested -- all that video footage the insurrectionists took of themselves will come in handy, and the FBI is soliciting tips as well.

    It's important that everyone at every level of this thing be brought to account. The FBI will deal with the mob. But there needs to be accountability for the hundred-plus House Republicans and the six Senators who objected to legally selected electors, not to mention Trump. We tried the pardon-and-move-on thing with Nixon, and it's a bad idea. No one is above the law. No one.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Am I saying that? I don't believe I'm saying that. I'm saying that we should find a way forward that isn't war. That seems reasonable.

    So what are you going to do the next time they take affront and flip the tables over? There's a cost to the Reconciliationist course too, even if it is bourne by other people.

    People who are affronted by the very existence of the modern world can generate grievances endlessly, they don't need excuses for that.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    There is no law to enforce.

    Fascist Trump, unfortunately, has committed no crime. The Capitol's security was derelict. None of the fascist mob has committed a criminal offense except for criminal damage in breaking windows, assaulting security personnel (they look suspiciously private to me), so much as I would love the evil son of a bitch to be strip searched and wearing clothes that match his hair, no charges can be brought. Furthermore there is no basis for invoking the 25th. What? You don't have to be mentally ill to be a lying fascist. And is he innocent until proven guilty in that he is deluded about the election? I can't see how. And we have to love this revolting, implacable enemy of democracy and his followers.

    Why aren't there military guards? Even more democratic countries have them
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Am I saying that? I don't believe I'm saying that. I'm saying that we should find a way forward that isn't war. That seems reasonable.

    So what are you going to do the next time they take affront and flip the tables over? There's a cost to the Reconciliationist course too, even if it is bourne by other people.

    People who are affronted by the very existence of the modern world can generate grievances endlessly, they don't need excuses for that.

    As someone with friends who are far left accelerationists and other friends who are far right Trumpers, I believe that not othering people, and listening to their concerns is one way forward. What that looks like on a massive scale? No idea, but it has to start individually and personally.

    As for what I'm going to do when they start flipping tables, it should be obvious by now that I'm the person picking the table up and putting things back together.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Martin54 wrote: »
    There is no law to enforce.

    Fascist Trump, unfortunately, has committed no crime. The Capitol's security was derelict. None of the fascist mob has committed a criminal offense except for criminal damage in breaking windows, assaulting security personnel (they look suspiciously private to me), so much as I would love the evil son of a bitch to be strip searched and wearing clothes that match his hair, no charges can be brought. Furthermore there is no basis for invoking the 25th. What? You don't have to be mentally ill to be a lying fascist. And is he innocent until proven guilty in that he is deluded about the election? I can't see how. And we have to love this revolting, implacable enemy of democracy and his followers.

    Why aren't there military guards? Even more democratic countries have them


    I agree with this as well. Some are arguing that Trump can be prosecuted for inciting violence or something, but he didn't say, go fuck shit up. He said march down Pennsylvania Ave. As usual, he stays just on the bare edge right side of the law.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Fascist Trump, unfortunately, has committed no crime.

    Sedition is a crime.
    The Capitol's security was derelict. None of the fascist mob has committed a criminal offense except for criminal damage in breaking windows, assaulting security personnel (they look suspiciously private to me), so much as I would love the evil son of a bitch to be strip searched and wearing clothes that match his hair, no charges can be brought.

    They threatened the lives of public officials -- this is a federal crime punishable by life in prison. Charges will be brought. Here's the FBI tip site.
    Furthermore there is no basis for invoking the 25th. What? You don't have to be mentally ill to be a lying fascist. And is he innocent until proven guilty in that he is deluded about the election? I can't see how.

    He doesn't have to be mentally ill. The VP and a majority of the Cabinet simply have to declare that he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." The VP takes over immediately. Then Congress has 25 days to review this, and it takes a 2/3 vote to make it permanent. Trump will be out in less than two weeks anyway, so they wouldn't have to take this vote.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    I'll be the Bishop of Rome before Trump sees the inside of a cell.
Sign In or Register to comment.