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

24

Comments

  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    @Martin54: Here's a Lawfare piece on the federal crimes committed yesterday.
  • If this is treated as a matter of public order rather than politics, there are an awful lot of people to prosecute, ie, the ones who actually broke into the Capitol, fired guns, and contributed to the deaths.

    Much as I'd love to see Trump prosecuted, it's not as if the alternative is prosecuting no one.

    ISTM the best way of getting Trump is to initiate civil actions or prosecution for tax evasion, fraud or other similar things (assuming there is evidence). Non-political things that show him to be a shyster, and which would ideally make his support (other than the die-hards who will never be convinced) drain away.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    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.
    @ECraigR, who is the 'we' who 'should find a way forward'. Since you've said
    I have no idea how to fix things. I'm not a politician, I'm a librarian and poet.
    it's clearly a 'we' that doesn't include you. So who does it include?

    @Ruth wrote:
    ... 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. ...
    @Ruth unless you've chosen to align yourself with wrongdoing that is current now, in 2021, I don't think you should beat yourself up about the guilt of others. You not answerable for the iniquities of your own ancestors, yet alone other peoples'. You may dislike many of the deeds of the US government, but it's not good to blame yourself for things you have no ability to change. That's either just rhetorical guilt or, if you believe it's real guilt, landing yourself with something nobody can carry. It would be like saying that every time Mr Trump, as President, told a lie, you were lying too.

    Also, rhetorical guilt can all too easily be used as an excuse for not dealing with the things one can do something about.

    @Martin54 wrote:
    ... 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) ...
    I don't know about US law, but those are criminal offences here, as are a number of other public order offences that they appear to have committed. And if the security personnel were contracted rather than government staff, that doesn't entitle yobs to attack them with impunity. I'm sure that's the same there.

  • PendragonPendragon Shipmate
    That's likely to happen in New York, which has the added advantage, as I understand it, of being a state prosecution, when Presidential pardons only work for federal crimes.

    Am I right in thinking that the two new senators from Georgia can take their seats on Monday? If so, then a motion for Impeachment Mark 2 would get to at least 50/50, and possibly even pass the Senate if some of the people denouncing Trump last night put their money where their mouth is.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    @Enoch I'm confused how you think that my statement saying I don't know how to fix things, but we as a group should find a way forward, doesn't include me. We does include me. I'm saying I don't have all the answers, no single person does, but we need to find a way forward together that doesn't lead to war.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I have an idea: just load DJT up with Thorazine for the next two or three weeks, until Biden and Harris are installed and have been able to assume power.

    No, Trump has allegedly broken the law now, and he needs to face the consequences be it at the federal level and/or the state level.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    @Ruth wrote:
    ... 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. ...
    @Ruth unless you've chosen to align yourself with wrongdoing that is current now, in 2021, I don't think you should beat yourself up about the guilt of others. You not answerable for the iniquities of your own ancestors, yet alone other peoples'. You may dislike many of the deeds of the US government, but it's not good to blame yourself for things you have no ability to change. That's either just rhetorical guilt or, if you believe it's real guilt, landing yourself with something nobody can carry. It would be like saying that every time Mr Trump, as President, told a lie, you were lying too.

    Also, rhetorical guilt can all too easily be used as an excuse for not dealing with the things one can do something about.

    You misunderstand me. This is not the kind of guilt where I walk around feeling bad all the time because of something I did. I don't blame myself for the shitty things the government does. But it does them in my name. This is collective, inherited, implicit guilt. It is just a fact. It's not an excuse for not dealing with things I can change. It's an acknowledgement of reality, something that has to happen if we're ever going to have permanent change.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    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.

    What evidence is there that they threatened the lives of public officials?

    How is Trump unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office?

    For the next 13 days.

    In which to start a war.
  • PendragonPendragon Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »

    What evidence is there that they threatened the lives of public officials?

    How is Trump unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office?

    For the next 13 days.

    In which to start a war.

    Guns in Parliament
    Bombs at both national party headquarters.

    Someone who is inciting the mob to attack Congress is not upholding the constitution, which is an essential part of his oath of office, and therefore he is not discharging the duties of his office.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    What evidence is there that they threatened the lives of public officials?

    They planted explosive devices.
    How is Trump unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office?

    They don't have to answer this question, actually. Enough of them just have to decide that this is the case. He has stopped doing most of the job as it is, so it's a reasonable conclusion that he's not able to do it.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    edited January 8
    ECraigR wrote: »
    @Enoch I'm confused how you think that my statement saying I don't know how to fix things, but we as a group should find a way forward, doesn't include me. We does include me. I'm saying I don't have all the answers, no single person does, but we need to find a way forward together that doesn't lead to war.
    Yebbut, @ECraigR. My question still stands. Who is your 'we'?

    If it does include you after all, who else are you?

    Who are you speaking for? Or even, who do you wish you were speaking for?

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Pendragon wrote: »
    Am I right in thinking that the two new senators from Georgia can take their seats on Monday? If so, then a motion for Impeachment Mark 2 would get to at least 50/50, and possibly even pass the Senate if some of the people denouncing Trump last night put their money where their mouth is.

    I understood that those new senators were in different categories. One was elected for a vacancy at the end of another senator's term. The other was elected to replace a senator who had died. I'd think that only the second would be able to take his seat immediately, the first, along with all other senators elected this time, would have to wait.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Pendragon wrote: »
    Am I right in thinking that the two new senators from Georgia can take their seats on Monday? If so, then a motion for Impeachment Mark 2 would get to at least 50/50, and possibly even pass the Senate if some of the people denouncing Trump last night put their money where their mouth is.

    I understood that those new senators were in different categories. One was elected for a vacancy at the end of another senator's term. The other was elected to replace a senator who had died. I'd think that only the second would be able to take his seat immediately, the first, along with all other senators elected this time, would have to wait.

    The new congress has already been sworn in.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ruth wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    What evidence is there that they threatened the lives of public officials?

    They planted explosive devices.
    How is Trump unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office?

    They don't have to answer this question, actually. Enough of them just have to decide that this is the case. He has stopped doing most of the job as it is, so it's a reasonable conclusion that he's not able to do it.

    The explosives weren't in the Capitol and have what to do with Trump?

    Reason has nothing to do with it. They have no political reason for deciding. In what regard is he not doing his job?

    May be I should be three thousand miles six hundred and twenty two mile closer and I would see.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    Pendragon wrote: »
    Am I right in thinking that the two new senators from Georgia can take their seats on Monday? If so, then a motion for Impeachment Mark 2 would get to at least 50/50, and possibly even pass the Senate if some of the people denouncing Trump last night put their money where their mouth is.

    I understood that those new senators were in different categories. One was elected for a vacancy at the end of another senator's term. The other was elected to replace a senator who had died. I'd think that only the second would be able to take his seat immediately, the first, along with all other senators elected this time, would have to wait.

    The new congress has already been sworn in.

    Thank you. In that case, the answer to Pendragon's post is that the new senators from Georgia can take their seats and vote.
  • I fear the article is behind a paywall, but Lionel Shriver in today's Times* is interesting:
    "...an incensed mob living in an alternative reality and smashing up a building ... That is transparently, demonstrably, who many Americans are."

    She is firmly of the opinion that it isn't safe to leave Trump in the White House even for the short period from now to the inauguration of Biden.

    * just in case you're interested and it isn't blocked here it is.

  • I fear the article is behind a paywall, but Lionel Shriver in today's Times* is interesting:
    "...an incensed mob living in an alternative reality and smashing up a building ... That is transparently, demonstrably, who many Americans are."

    She is firmly of the opinion that it isn't safe to leave Trump in the White House even for the short period from now to the inauguration of Biden.

    Given her output and associations, that's very much "Woman who was in favour of the leopards-eating-face party surprised that leopards eat people's faces"
  • @chrisstiles Luke 15:7
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited January 8
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Enoch wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    @Enoch I'm confused how you think that my statement saying I don't know how to fix things, but we as a group should find a way forward, doesn't include me. We does include me. I'm saying I don't have all the answers, no single person does, but we need to find a way forward together that doesn't lead to war.
    Yebbut, @ECraigR. My question still stands. Who is your 'we'?

    If it does include you after all, who else are you?

    Who are you speaking for? Or even, who do you wish you were speaking for?

    Given that this is a discussion about a problem affecting America, and America is composed of Americans, I believe the reasonable conclusion is that I’m indicating We Americans ought to figure out a way forward that isn’t war.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    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.
    You may be quite sure of that, but I don’t think you’ve provided any compelling reasons for such certainty. And it seems odd that you’re so confident you know how they’d react to prosecution, but you have no idea what they might respond favorably to.
  • It seems to me that you arrest the people who've committed criminal acts, whether they hold elected office or not. If other people react violently to that you arrest them too. If you refuse to arrest criminals because their allies threaten violence then you've already lost.
  • An interesting thing hoved across my twitter feed this morning (it's worth reading in full) but here's the tl;dr version.

    These people do not believe the things they say. It's not about the truth of 5G or Obama's birth certificate or her emails or QAnon. It's about being offered cover for, and licence to be, a bigot, a racist, a sociopath. And the only thing that will make them stop using them for cover is actual consequences.

    So, to those who think that soft-peddling on insurrection and sedition is the only way to get through the next two weeks, it's not the next two weeks you have to worry about. It's the next two years, five years, ten years. If you don't shut it down now, it's going to bite you in the arse. Hitler's Beer Hall putsch got him a cosy prison cell in which to write Mein Kampf and nine months of a 5 year sentence (reduced because he was a 'patriot'). Everyone associated with this failed coup needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    It looks to me that US democracy is more robust than we feared it might be four years ago. I think Biden's move along now, we've won, business as usual approach is the right one. And one part of business as usual is that people who break the law get prosecuted.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    I've recently been re-reading Invictus (I'm all out of books to read, and the public library is closed :neutral:), and this has me musing on the "not who we are" trope. It strikes me as not a million miles away from what Nelson Mandela called appealing to people's "better angels".

    What Mandela understood about apartheid South Africa was this: 15% of Afrikaners were on his side, progressives who wanted apartheid to end. Another 25% were right wing extremists who wanted apartheid to continue and were prepared to resort to violence to defend it. As for the other 60%, they were mostly not politically engaged, hadn't given it all that much thought, and assumed the way things were was the way they should be (this group included most of the Springbok rugby team). In the first instance, Mandela wasn't trying to win over the 25% of white extremists, but the 60% who had been propping up the system without really thinking about it.

    In the same way, ISTM that trying to win over the kind of people who take up arms and storm the seat of American democracy is waste of time. However, there are plenty of other people who voted for Trump who are not intrinsically bad people. They voted Republican for all sorts of reasons, like it just being what their family does. Appealing to the "better angels" of people like that might be a way forward.
  • Yes, in schools, as the communities I know best, that "we are better than this" is appealing to the students who are likely to turn a blind eye to or be influenced by the bullies or whatever the current issue is, the 60% are being asked to support the 25% who are trying to do their best. The 15%, the perpetrators, will be dealt with, in full - sanctions, parents in, exclusion, planned school moves*, whatever it takes.

    * One of the tricks to break up gangs in schools is to negotiate exchanging students with other local schools - otherwise called planned school moves. (Not the only reason for planned school moves, there are others.
  • "not who we are" is aspirational, not reportage. My mother used to say "Our kind don't do THAT" whatever "that" was (usually something like licking the plate or whatever, which one of us had just in fact done). It was fairly effective at remodeling one's self-image and behavior, at least up to a point. I think it's worth a try with America-as-a-whole.
  • 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.

    I disagree ...
    Allowing an armed gang of militia thugs to do whatever they want with no consequences will lead only to worse situations down the line ...

    Part of the predictable run-up was back in 2014 at The Bundy Ranch in Nevada, where armed "militia" guys held off US Marshals trying to enforce a US District Court order ...
    I thought at the time that backing down was a mistake ...

    Same thing when the same outlaws seized a Federal Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in 2016 ...
    In both instances, the seditionists should have been taken into custody immediately ...
    Meek demonstration of weakness only invites larger violence later ...
    January 6, 2021 ...
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    @Enoch I'm confused how you think that my statement saying I don't know how to fix things, but we as a group should find a way forward, doesn't include me. We does include me. I'm saying I don't have all the answers, no single person does, but we need to find a way forward together that doesn't lead to war.
    Yebbut, @ECraigR. My question still stands. Who is your 'we'?

    If it does include you after all, who else are you?

    Who are you speaking for? Or even, who do you wish you were speaking for?

    Given that this is a discussion about a problem affecting America, and America is composed of Americans, I believe the reasonable conclusion is that I’m indicating We Americans ought to figure out a way forward that isn’t war.

    If it makes you feel better, **I** got what you were saying.

  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Dave W wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    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.
    You may be quite sure of that, but I don’t think you’ve provided any compelling reasons for such certainty. And it seems odd that you’re so confident you know how they’d react to prosecution, but you have no idea what they might respond favorably to.

    They stormed the federal capitol building because they’re man Trump lied and said the election was stolen from him. That’s my evidence. People who would storm the seat of power of the American government all because they’re dear leader is upset over a valid election don’t seem amenable to systems and processes working in anyway against them. If you disagree then cool, but the far right has been valorizing anti-government activists killed doing dumb shit for decades, this is all just the culmination of that.

    I don’t understand your second point. It doesn’t follow in anyway that from knowing how a group of people would respond to one thing that I know how they’d respond to another. That is, it’s obvious they don’t give two shits for systems and processes, they don’t support the system as it stands, that’s why they invaded the capitol. Knowing that, how would I then know what they would respond favorably to? They haven’t said what they’d respond favorably to other than Trump declared God Emperor in perpetuity.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    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.
    You may be quite sure of that, but I don’t think you’ve provided any compelling reasons for such certainty. And it seems odd that you’re so confident you know how they’d react to prosecution, but you have no idea what they might respond favorably to.

    They stormed the federal capitol building because they’re man Trump lied and said the election was stolen from him. That’s my evidence. People who would storm the seat of power of the American government all because they’re dear leader is upset over a valid election don’t seem amenable to systems and processes working in anyway against them. If you disagree then cool, but the far right has been valorizing anti-government activists killed doing dumb shit for decades, this is all just the culmination of that.

    I don’t understand your second point. It doesn’t follow in anyway that from knowing how a group of people would respond to one thing that I know how they’d respond to another. That is, it’s obvious they don’t give two shits for systems and processes, they don’t support the system as it stands, that’s why they invaded the capitol. Knowing that, how would I then know what they would respond favorably to? They haven’t said what they’d respond favorably to other than Trump declared God Emperor in perpetuity.

    This horror isn't going to go away on January 21 ...
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    @Enoch I'm confused how you think that my statement saying I don't know how to fix things, but we as a group should find a way forward, doesn't include me. We does include me. I'm saying I don't have all the answers, no single person does, but we need to find a way forward together that doesn't lead to war.
    Yebbut, @ECraigR. My question still stands. Who is your 'we'?

    If it does include you after all, who else are you?
    Who are you speaking for? Or even, who do you wish you were speaking for?
    Given that this is a discussion about a problem affecting America, and America is composed of Americans, I believe the reasonable conclusion is that I’m indicating We Americans ought to figure out a way forward that isn’t war.
    According to the internet, that's about 331M people. Of that 331M, you are only one. You think that the other 331M-1 of them ought to want to agree with you and would be better people if they did. However, they've given you no authority to speak for them. You've no more ability to do so or make them agree with you than I have. That illustrates what I mean by the 'portentous we' and what's wrong with it.

    I hope that means I can now say Rant/Tangent Alert ended.

  • Enoch wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    @Enoch I'm confused how you think that my statement saying I don't know how to fix things, but we as a group should find a way forward, doesn't include me. We does include me. I'm saying I don't have all the answers, no single person does, but we need to find a way forward together that doesn't lead to war.
    Yebbut, @ECraigR. My question still stands. Who is your 'we'?

    If it does include you after all, who else are you?
    Who are you speaking for? Or even, who do you wish you were speaking for?
    Given that this is a discussion about a problem affecting America, and America is composed of Americans, I believe the reasonable conclusion is that I’m indicating We Americans ought to figure out a way forward that isn’t war.
    According to the internet, that's about 331M people. Of that 331M, you are only one. You think that the other 331M-1 of them ought to want to agree with you and would be better people if they did. However, they've given you no authority to speak for them. You've no more ability to do so or make them agree with you than I have. That illustrates what I mean by the 'portentous we' and what's wrong with it.

    I hope that means I can now say Rant/Tangent Alert ended.

    But the claim is not that Americans think blah blah blah, but that ECraig thinks Americans ought to blah blah blah. You've completely misunderstood the claim.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    edited January 8
    Enoch wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Enoch wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    @Enoch I'm confused how you think that my statement saying I don't know how to fix things, but we as a group should find a way forward, doesn't include me. We does include me. I'm saying I don't have all the answers, no single person does, but we need to find a way forward together that doesn't lead to war.
    Yebbut, @ECraigR. My question still stands. Who is your 'we'?

    If it does include you after all, who else are you?
    Who are you speaking for? Or even, who do you wish you were speaking for?
    Given that this is a discussion about a problem affecting America, and America is composed of Americans, I believe the reasonable conclusion is that I’m indicating We Americans ought to figure out a way forward that isn’t war.
    According to the internet, that's about 331M people. Of that 331M, you are only one. You think that the other 331M-1 of them ought to want to agree with you and would be better people if they did. However, they've given you no authority to speak for them. You've no more ability to do so or make them agree with you than I have. That illustrates what I mean by the 'portentous we' and what's wrong with it.

    I hope that means I can now say Rant/Tangent Alert ended.

    You're so wrong I don't even know where to begin. Are you seriously suggesting that I think I know what everyone else should do, after I've explicitly said the exact opposite ten times? That 'portentous we,' is not a mandate. It's how people speak when they're identifying with a group and wondering what they, as a member of a group, should do. Perhaps you shouldn't walk around with an axe to grind.

    I said we Americans ought to figure out a way forward that isn't war. I don't know how you're interpreting that as a narcissistic statement of my believing myself to be deputized to speak on behalf of others when I've clearly said, many times, I cannot do such; nor do I know how to say we Americans ought to figure out a way forward that's not war without including myself as a we American.

    Again, you're so far off the mark a map doesn't exist to get you back on track.
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    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.
    You may be quite sure of that, but I don’t think you’ve provided any compelling reasons for such certainty. And it seems odd that you’re so confident you know how they’d react to prosecution, but you have no idea what they might respond favorably to.

    They stormed the federal capitol building because they’re man Trump lied and said the election was stolen from him. That’s my evidence. People who would storm the seat of power of the American government all because they’re dear leader is upset over a valid election don’t seem amenable to systems and processes working in anyway against them.

    If they aren't amenable to "systems and processes working with against them in any way", then you better ask yourself 'what price peace', because last time around it was 90+ years of racial oppression.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    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.
    You may be quite sure of that, but I don’t think you’ve provided any compelling reasons for such certainty. And it seems odd that you’re so confident you know how they’d react to prosecution, but you have no idea what they might respond favorably to.

    They stormed the federal capitol building because they’re man Trump lied and said the election was stolen from him. That’s my evidence. People who would storm the seat of power of the American government all because they’re dear leader is upset over a valid election don’t seem amenable to systems and processes working in anyway against them. If you disagree then cool, but the far right has been valorizing anti-government activists killed doing dumb shit for decades, this is all just the culmination of that.
    Lots of people riot; very few start wars. And frankly these cosplayer idiots didn't really look like the martial type.
    I don’t understand your second point. It doesn’t follow in anyway that from knowing how a group of people would respond to one thing that I know how they’d respond to another. That is, it’s obvious they don’t give two shits for systems and processes, they don’t support the system as it stands, that’s why they invaded the capitol. Knowing that, how would I then know what they would respond favorably to? They haven’t said what they’d respond favorably to other than Trump declared God Emperor in perpetuity.
    They failed to stop the vote count - why didn't that start a civil war? Will Biden's inauguration start a civil war? A fair number of them are probably headed for trial themselves - will that start a civil war?

    Or are all these circumstances also outside your certain conviction about how they'll respond to things?
  • My understanding is that quite a few of them came prepared to take hostages and/or execute senators, reps, etc. That makes this something that MUST be taken seriously and prosecuted with the full exactitude and publicity of the law, repercussions be damned.

    The fact that there might have been dumbasses in the crowd who showed up on a lark doesn't change that fact.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    The faces of those I've seen don't look like people on a lark - they all look dangerously intent on disrupting normal processes.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    And labouring under the delusion that there is safety in numbers.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    I'm not saying that the actors involved in Wednesday's shitshow shouldn't be prosecuted, clearly they should be and are. I'm saying, specifically, Trump should not be, and I don't believe there are any grounds for prosecuting Hawley and the like, though they should certainly be smeared and stained with this forever. I'm responding directly to the claim that Trump should be charged with sedition or something along those lines. That won't solve anything besides make all of us who don't like him happy.

    Also a big enough riot is called a civil war. You call them cosplayers, I agree, but those cosplayers were given directions to congresspeople's offices once inside by uniformed police. You're incorrect if you think they're all cosplayers; some of them are genuinely uniformed.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    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.
    You may be quite sure of that, but I don’t think you’ve provided any compelling reasons for such certainty. And it seems odd that you’re so confident you know how they’d react to prosecution, but you have no idea what they might respond favorably to.

    They stormed the federal capitol building because they’re man Trump lied and said the election was stolen from him. That’s my evidence. People who would storm the seat of power of the American government all because they’re dear leader is upset over a valid election don’t seem amenable to systems and processes working in anyway against them.

    If they aren't amenable to "systems and processes working with against them in any way", then you better ask yourself 'what price peace', because last time around it was 90+ years of racial oppression.

    You mean the last civil war that didn't solve anything for a hundred years? Admittedly, Reconstruction probably could have solved stuff if it had been adhered to, but it wasn't.

    Again, does anyone think that prosecuting Trump will result in his followers going home and giving up? Does anyone think it will solve any of the underlying tensions? Is anyone willing to kill their neighbor?
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Again, I think you're making a ludicrous jump from "prosecuting Trump" to "kill your neighbor."

    If these rioters are so terribly dangerous, why did they stop? Why didn't certifying Biden's election cause a civil war? And what about the inauguration - won't they be enraged to see anyone other than Trump declared president? Why aren't you certain that will cause a civil war?
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    I'm not saying that the actors involved in Wednesday's shitshow shouldn't be prosecuted, clearly they should be and are. I'm saying, specifically, Trump should not be, and I don't believe there are any grounds for prosecuting Hawley and the like, though they should certainly be smeared and stained with this forever. I'm responding directly to the claim that Trump should be charged with sedition or something along those lines. That won't solve anything besides make all of us who don't like him happy.

    Well, that's something.

    And in fact, it would certainly do something. It would say to future Trumps, "You will be held accountable." And even if Trump escapes the consequences, there's no guarantee that future Trumps will.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Again, does anyone think that prosecuting Trump will result in his followers going home and giving up? Does anyone think it will solve any of the underlying tensions? Is anyone willing to kill their neighbor?

    It may cause those with a brain cell remaining to "go home and give up." It may shock others into realizing what the fuck they're doing. It may very well go whoooosh over the heads of the other idiots, but you can't enrage them any more than they already are, because they're maxed out already. They think the United States "stole" the election from Trump. That's sufficient injury in their minds to destroy the Capitol and kill congresspeople. What greater sense of injury are you imagining?

    Besides, appeasement never works. You should know that.

  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    edited January 9
    No @mousethief and @ECraigR, you've either misread or misunderstood what I've criticised and called the 'pretentious we'.

    Anyway, I'm not going to say any more about this on this thread. It's a tangent, material only to the thread's title and not to its actual subject matter.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited January 9
    Jail them all for 20 years. That's the law. Sack the police chiefs responsible and their political overseers.

    Romans 13:1-7
    1 Timothy 1:9

  • PendragonPendragon Shipmate
    I believe that the last of the people responsible for Capitol security will be gone when the Majority leader changes in the Senate, if not before.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Again, I think you're making a ludicrous jump from "prosecuting Trump" to "kill your neighbor."

    If these rioters are so terribly dangerous, why did they stop? Why didn't certifying Biden's election cause a civil war? And what about the inauguration - won't they be enraged to see anyone other than Trump declared president? Why aren't you certain that will cause a civil war?

    This isn't over yet ... It didn't just start on Wednesday or even last November ... It has been building for a long time ...
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    I'm not saying that the actors involved in Wednesday's shitshow shouldn't be prosecuted, clearly they should be and are. I'm saying, specifically, Trump should not be, and I don't believe there are any grounds for prosecuting Hawley and the like, though they should certainly be smeared and stained with this forever. I'm responding directly to the claim that Trump should be charged with sedition or something along those lines. That won't solve anything besides make all of us who don't like him happy.

    Well, that's something.

    And in fact, it would certainly do something. It would say to future Trumps, "You will be held accountable." And even if Trump escapes the consequences, there's no guarantee that future Trumps will.
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Again, does anyone think that prosecuting Trump will result in his followers going home and giving up? Does anyone think it will solve any of the underlying tensions? Is anyone willing to kill their neighbor?

    It may cause those with a brain cell remaining to "go home and give up." It may shock others into realizing what the fuck they're doing. It may very well go whoooosh over the heads of the other idiots, but you can't enrage them any more than they already are, because they're maxed out already. They think the United States "stole" the election from Trump. That's sufficient injury in their minds to destroy the Capitol and kill congresspeople. What greater sense of injury are you imagining?

    Besides, appeasement never works. You should know that.

    Indeed ... "Appeasement" didn't mollify the Bundy Family after 2104 ... It only added to their resolve ...
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    I'm not saying that the actors involved in Wednesday's shitshow shouldn't be prosecuted, clearly they should be and are. I'm saying, specifically, Trump should not be, and I don't believe there are any grounds for prosecuting Hawley and the like, though they should certainly be smeared and stained with this forever. I'm responding directly to the claim that Trump should be charged with sedition or something along those lines. That won't solve anything besides make all of us who don't like him happy.

    I've given this rant before elsewhere but I think it needs re-stating.

    Richard Nixon suffered no consequences from Watergate. Most of his inner circle did time in various minimum security prisons, but the precedent was established that the president would suffer no consequences for his criminal actions.

    Ronald Reagan illegally sold weapons to a state sponsor of terrorism in order to fund a secret war in Central America, subverting both the law and the Constitution. (Presidents aren't supposed to have funds available that don't ultimately come from Congress.) Following the Nixon precedent Reagan was let off scot free but for a while it looked like his advisors would follow Ehrlichman and Haldeman to the federal slam. Then George H. W. Bush, Reagan's successor and possible Iran-Contra co-conspirator, pardoned everyone on his way out the door in December 1992, establishing the precedent that not only was the president immune to consequences, his top advisors were too.

    George W. Bush lied America into an unnecessary war and ran a bunch of secret torture prisons (plus one non-secret torture prison). Saying it bluntly makes it sound like a crazy conspiracy theory, but that's what happened. Once Barack Obama got elected he said the country needed to "look forward, not backward", meaning not only that the president and his advisors were immune from any consequences for their actions but that no one was even going to investigate what those actions were.

    Given all this, is it any wonder that Trump believes he can act with impunity? We've reached a point where people like @ECraigR are arguing that it's somehow wrong or improper that a president* suffer any legal consequences for using violence in an attempt to overthrow Congress, overthrow the Constitution, and reverse an election he lost (bigly). This is literally one of the biggest fears of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, that a demagogic president would perform an autogolpe. They're essentially following Nixon's line, that if the president* does it, it's not illegal.

    It should also be noted that the U.S. has one of the most draconian legal systems in the developed world. If the U.S. system is willing to sentence a woman to five years in prison for trying to cast a vote she honestly (though mistakenly) thought she was legally entitled to cast then saying Donald Trump shouldn't be held accountable for trying to steal an election (he was on the phone with Senators lobbying them to overturn the election even as the Capitol was being invaded) is simply arguing that the rich and powerful aren't subject to the same laws as those who are neither.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    I'm not saying that the actors involved in Wednesday's shitshow shouldn't be prosecuted, clearly they should be and are. I'm saying, specifically, Trump should not be, and I don't believe there are any grounds for prosecuting Hawley and the like, though they should certainly be smeared and stained with this forever. I'm responding directly to the claim that Trump should be charged with sedition or something along those lines. That won't solve anything besides make all of us who don't like him happy.

    I've given this rant before elsewhere but I think it needs re-stating.

    Richard Nixon suffered no consequences from Watergate. Most of his inner circle did time in various minimum security prisons, but the precedent was established that the president would suffer no consequences for his criminal actions.

    Ronald Reagan illegally sold weapons to a state sponsor of terrorism in order to fund a secret war in Central America, subverting both the law and the Constitution. (Presidents aren't supposed to have funds available that don't ultimately come from Congress.) Following the Nixon precedent Reagan was let off scot free but for a while it looked like his advisors would follow Ehrlichman and Haldeman to the federal slam. Then George H. W. Bush, Reagan's successor and possible Iran-Contra co-conspirator, pardoned everyone on his way out the door in December 1992, establishing the precedent that not only was the president immune to consequences, his top advisors were too.

    George W. Bush lied America into an unnecessary war and ran a bunch of secret torture prisons (plus one non-secret torture prison). Saying it bluntly makes it sound like a crazy conspiracy theory, but that's what happened. Once Barack Obama got elected he said the country needed to "look forward, not backward", meaning not only that the president and his advisors were immune from any consequences for their actions but that no one was even going to investigate what those actions were.

    Given all this, is it any wonder that Trump believes he can act with impunity? We've reached a point where people like @ECraigR are arguing that it's somehow wrong or improper that a president* suffer any legal consequences for using violence in an attempt to overthrow Congress, overthrow the Constitution, and reverse an election he lost (bigly). This is literally one of the biggest fears of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, that a demagogic president would perform an autogolpe. They're essentially following Nixon's line, that if the president* does it, it's not illegal.

    It should also be noted that the U.S. has one of the most draconian legal systems in the developed world. If the U.S. system is willing to sentence a woman to five years in prison for trying to cast a vote she honestly (though mistakenly) thought she was legally entitled to cast then saying Donald Trump shouldn't be held accountable for trying to steal an election (he was on the phone with Senators lobbying them to overturn the election even as the Capitol was being invaded) is simply arguing that the rich and powerful aren't subject to the same laws as those who are neither.

    Yes ... If we don't hold Trump accountable, why should anyone be held accountable ... ???

    (Hypothetical)
    Had Hitler not foolishly killed himself, should he just have been sent into retirement to collect a government pension ... ??? ...

    "It's time to end the divisions ... We must unite as a country and as a people ... !!!" .. Really ... ???
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    (Hypothetical)
    Had Hitler not foolishly killed himself, should he just have been sent into retirement to collect a government pension ... ??? ...

    "It's time to end the divisions ... We must unite as a country and as a people ... !!!" .. Really ... ???

    "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who" is the last defense of the shameless who've been caught red-handed.
Sign In or Register to comment.