Jump to content

U.S. Politics: I Did Nazi That Coming


Manhole Eunuchsbane

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Morpheus said:

Everyone there WAS a Nazi, KKK, WS etc. or a sympathizer, no decent person could march alongside those people. Trump specifically mentioned the "peaceful" protest Friday night, the one where rabid racist marched with tiki torches shouting hateful slogans. There is no such thing as a peaceful protest celebrating violent ideology.

You forgot to include that there's a lot of video evidence of the neo-Nazis beating people with those tiki torches too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gorn said:

One thing I (as a non-American) always found bizarre about the worship of Confederate generals is the fact that these men were, literally, traitors. Sure, they were shown enormous amounts of leniency after the war for reasons of healing and reconciliation, and I can understand that. But erecting and maintaining monuments to them in public spaces? Imagine public monuments to Benedict Arnold or Robert Hanssen (who, by the way, did far less damage to their country).

And the people defending them are often at the same time super-patriots with giant US flags in their yards. Like I said, bizarre.

This is the key thing to understand. Those people believe that they are super-patriots, and that the Confederate generals were too. They're absolutely open about their belief that the Confederacy were the right side, and that this view should go unchallenged, as it often does. That is what those statues represent: the idea that the Confederacy aligns with American values, as they are and/or should be.

This is what people mean when, concerning a certain TV series, 'what do you mean what if the Confederacy won?' There's a huge chunk of the US that hasn't ever admitted that the Confederacy lost. It's not in any way weird to them to erect monuments to those men, and they would think you were mad for calling them traitors.

The US has never dealt with the legacy of the Civil War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

While I agree with you that the comparison doesn't really work, it seems fairly obvious that it's only a matter of time before those monuments also draw the attention of the groups that go after these types of symbols.  It's just that they have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

Perhaps.  I'm sure they'll get no traction with the populace at large anytime soon.  I'm not worried about hypothetical battles over statues 50 years from now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

While I agree with you that the comparison doesn't really work, it seems fairly obvious that it's only a matter of time before those monuments also draw the attention of the groups that go after these types of symbols.  It's just that they have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

I don't think so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's important to remember that most of the Confederate Statuary was erected well after the Civil War had ended and was entirely about white supremacy. The first major wave of them hits around the time Jim Crow laws are getting put into place. The second around the time the Civil Rights Act is getting passed. Many of them are placed in black neighborhoods. None of this is coincidental.

Here's the SPLC on the issue:

https://www.splcenter.org/20160421/whose-heritage-public-symbols-confederacy

There's a great graph in there:

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/timeline-whoseheritage.png

You really want to see what it's about, look at the surge in schools being named for Confederates right after Brown v Board.

These statues and monuments and such are literally just attempts by white supremacist state and local governments to keep their local black population in their place. To remind them they are subhuman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to ThinkerX a few pages ago:

A President can only pardon someone for FEDERAL offenses.

This guy is surely going to be tried first in the Virginia state courts for murder, and if he is convicted the person who could then pardon him is the governor of Virginia, not the President.

It is quite plausible that he could also be tried for federal civil rights violations. However, this is not one of those cases (such as where the perpetrator is a police officer) where it is likely that an offender would be acquitted in the state courts and then convicted of civil rights violations in the federal courts. So even if Trump pardons this guy for any federal civil rights conviction, he will almost surely still be in a Virginia prison for a very long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gorn said:

One thing I (as a non-American) always found bizarre about the worship of Confederate generals is the fact that these men were, literally, traitors.

Trust me, you're not alone. In fact, it actually makes less sense than if the Germans still celebrated the Nazi generals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Otherwise, I think Trump is only gone if the Cabinet and Pence go 25th amendment on him. That still requires Congress to act, but it is a much easier vote because Republicans have cover from the Cabinet and Pence acting first. And I have no sense at all of how close the Cabinet might be to revolting like that; I suspect it's pretty far though.

This doesn't really make any sense.  Ultimately, the 25th is more stringent than traditional impeachment as section 4 requires 2/3s from both chambers:

Quote

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

In other words, if 2/3s of the Senate (let alone the House) is going to vote to remove, I really don't see them worrying about cover from the cabinet and the VP.  Moreover employing the 25th is simply messier because Trump could just continue to reapply for reinstatement and Congress would have to repeatedly take votes on the matter over a long period of time.

I agree that removing Trump from office remains unlikely, but at the beginning of the year I would have said it was borderline impossible.  His ability to take self destructive actions in the interest of making everything all about himself makes Nixon look like a monk.  Moreover, his willingness to alienate virtually anybody - whether it be legislators, agencies, his staff, 3/4s of the American public, or his own family - in his interest in doing so could very well lead to 67 Senators voting to convict.  Regardless, this undoubtedly will - and arguably already has - be his undoing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

While I agree with you that the comparison doesn't really work, it seems fairly obvious that it's only a matter of time before those monuments also draw the attention of the groups that go after these types of symbols.  It's just that they have bigger fish to fry at the moment.

To you, in your head. Not to others, which is what they've been saying.

12 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Everyone knows what a powerful voting block college students are. They are only taken seriously when the Right has a bone to pick with their (small subset of outspoken campuses) views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

This doesn't really make any sense.  Ultimately, the 25th is more stringent than traditional impeachment as section 4 requires 2/3s from both chambers:

In other words, if 2/3s of the Senate (let alone the House) is going to vote to remove, I really don't see them worrying about cover from the cabinet and the VP.  Moreover employing the 25th is simply messier because Trump could just continue to reapply for reinstatement and Congress would have to repeatedly take votes on the matter over a long period of time.

Most members of Congress are cowards and hate to take strong stands unless they know they'll be rewarded electorally. The two things they love to do are 1) kick the can down the road, and 2) when they have to vote, argue that their hands are tied. And when they can't do either, they generally require constant reassurance from congressional leadership that they aren't stepping out on a limb alone and that most political forces are with them.

A bill of impeachment does not allow for can-kicking at all, and the hands-tied argument will never work for people who still support Trump. Moreover, unless Trump is polling below 50% among Republicans, leadership would have a near-impossible task trying to convince members that they aren't stepping out on a very creaky limb. However, if the VP and Cabinet act first, that sends a very powerful message of where things stand and would cause Pence to be the lightning rod for anger from Trump supporters, not Congress. It would be significantly easier at that point to get members to vote against Trump.

Also, in Congress, once members take a vote, they rarely ever change their minds and they can very easily dispose of votes they don't want to take. If they voted against Trump once in a 25th amendment matter; if Trump tried pushing the matter again, they would likely start having voice votes with no fanfare in the middle of other vote series to deal with it again. Also, if they did vote against Trump like this; they likely would then vote to impeach him after that. Which at that point would be an easier vote to take because it would get caught up in all the news about the 25th amendment, and the focus would continue to stay on Pence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Fez said:

However, if the VP and Cabinet act first, that sends a very powerful message of where things stand and would cause Pence to be the lightning rod for anger from Trump supporters, not Congress. It would be significantly easier at that point to get members to vote against Trump.

If 2/3s of the Senate are going to vote to remove Trump, they are doing so because they already are not worried about electoral backlash.  They do not need Pence as lightning rod, nor Pence and the Cabinet to act first as a very powerful message of something they already know.

17 minutes ago, Fez said:

if Trump tried pushing the matter again, they would likely start having voice votes with no fanfare in the middle of other vote series to deal with it again.

Quite possible, but the point is why bother keeping him as technically the president in the first place...

18 minutes ago, Fez said:

Also, if they did vote against Trump like this; they likely would then vote to impeach him after that. Which at that point would be an easier vote to take because it would get caught up in all the news about the 25th amendment, and the focus would continue to stay on Pence.

So, the basis for why they'd use 25 first, then impeach, is keep "focus" on Pence?  If enough Senators were resolved to convict, not only are they not going to care or need Pence as a distraction, the GOP would not want to "place the blame" (as you seem to be implying) on their incoming president.  Congressional approval is always incredibly low, no logic in taking action that could lower Pence's as well if you're going to remove Trump anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Don't kid yourselves. Trump isn't going to get convicted by the Senate in the next 3 and a half years, even if it's discovered that he personally colluded with Putin.

Hypotheticals are fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

If the deal is not to have Statues for those who commited active treason than some people will listen.

I do think that there a White Supremacy ideology has dominated until F.D.R election when changes started. I do no like  many of the Platitudes of how these are against the Nation for they are, and should not be now.

The Robert E. Lee statue was erected during the time of Jim Crow and  "The Birth of A Nation" was a Popular view of the Civil War and Reconstruction in Virginia. It is very reasonable to see the Statue celebratory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, drawkcabi said:

Yes he was totally wrong.

I'm usually someone who tries to look at things from more than just one side. But there can be no hedging in the condemnation of the white supremacists and those who joined with them. Their message must be rebuked 100% in this particular case, no wriggle room allowed, a proper leader would have done that.

I agree, he absolutely has to condemn them. 

The problem for Trump is that parts of his base are wanting him to stand up for them. The removal of a statue of Lee is seen really as part of a general trend of modern culture ignoring white European American history and culture and that's why it upsets people.

They see violence perpetuated by left wing groups such as BLM and Antifa which are justified or simply ignored by the media and it just adds to their sense of injustice and conspiracy. 

Thats why his latest statement probably plays well with certain segments of his base. There is a general theme about a rabid left and a dishonest media which many recognise and him pushing the discussion there when it's not mentioned anywhere else will help him.

Again I'll repeat these aren't my views before everyone jumps on me. There is clearly no moral equivalence between both sides. However i do think if one side is throwing rocks and pepper spraying people and if Trump brings it up then he's technically not incorrect, and the way the story about his speech is being reported is only helping him in some ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

If 2/3s of the Senate are going to vote to remove Trump, they are doing so because they already are not worried about electoral backlash.  They do not need Pence as lightning rod, nor Pence and the Cabinet to act first as a very powerful message of something they already know.

Quite possible, but the point is why bother keeping him as technically the president in the first place...

So, the basis for why they'd use 25 first, then impeach, is keep "focus" on Pence?  If enough Senators were resolved to convict, not only are they not going to care or need Pence as a distraction, the GOP would not want to "place the blame" (as you seem to be implying) on their incoming president.  Congressional approval is always incredibly low, no logic in taking action that could lower Pence's as well if you're going to remove Trump anyway.

I think you seriously over-estimate Senate (and House) resolve, and how changeable that resolve can be. The point is they won't have the resolve to do anything, unless Pence acts first; and then they would have the resolve. Or at least be more likely to have it.

 

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Don't kid yourselves. Trump isn't going to get convicted by the Senate in the next 3 and a half years, even if it's discovered that he personally colluded with Putin.

I think personal collusion would do it, possibly. My feeling is, he'll only ever get impeached over direct evidence of action on his part, and it needs to be an undeniably bad action. He won't ever get impeached over words he has said, or the actions of others that he knew about, or the fallout caused by his inaction, or an action that can be read multiple ways. There needs to be something physically tangible that he did, and that cannot be denied.Unfortunately, he is such a toxic combination of cowardice and incompetence, I suspect that there hasn't been such an action.

However, this is why I think Congressional Republicans will turn much more forcefully on him if he does commit an action that is blatantly unconstitutional or incredibly harmful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

If the deal is not to have Statues for those who commited active treason than some people will listen.

I do think that there a White Supremacy ideology has dominated until F.D.R election when changes started. I do no like  many of the Platitudes of how these are against the Nation for they are, and should not be now.

The Robert E. Lee statue was erected during the time of Jim Crow and  "The Birth of A Nation" was a Popular view of the Civil War and Reconstruction in Virginia. It is very reasonable to see the Statue celebratory. 

OK?  I don't have any issue with removing confederate statues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

I think you seriously over-estimate Senate (and House) resolve, and how changeable that resolve can be. The point is they won't have the resolve to do anything, unless Pence acts first; and then they would have the resolve. Or at least be more likely to have it.

See, the fundamental flaw in your logic is Pence's apparent resolve.  There is no way he would invoke the 25th and directly take on Trump unless he knew Congress was going to vote to remove him.  If he did so without reassurances, and the GOP voted down his attempt to oust Trump, that is political self-immolation.  I'm not over-estimating MCs' resolve, I'm continuing in my position that they lack any.  If enough GOP members are going to vote to remove Trump, this is not only because they are not worried about electoral backlash, it is because these members are more worried about electoral backlash if they don't vote to convict.  In which case, the 25th is completely pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Week said:

To you, in your head. Not to others, which is what they've been saying.

Everyone knows what a powerful voting block college students are. They are only taken seriously when the Right has a bone to pick with their (small subset of outspoken campuses) views.

What is the basis by which you find these college students arguments about the Jefferson statue to be invalid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...