Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

[sameolds33]

Again the argument isn't about damaging or undermining democracy....its very specifically about your quote that the US was "perilously close to the brink of collapse as a democratic nation."

I say this is an exaggeration. If you don't think it is then that's cool but argue that point....don't reframe the argument to be about something else like whether its damaging or undermining.

That was not my quote. My point is that you (or I) are in no position to know if that's an exaggeration or not - just as we don't know what compromises are made before legislation is passed into law so it's dumb to hold one senator responsible for it (which is where this whole argument started.) I do think that the damage caused to the US by the Trump administration will take years to undo, if ever.

 

[Vander18]

That was not my quote. My point is that you (or I) are in no position to know if that's an exaggeration or not - just as we don't know what compromises are made before legislation is passed into law so it's dumb to hold one senator responsible for it (which is where this whole argument started.) I do think that the damage caused to the US by the Trump administration will take years to undo, if ever.

I conflated you with Old Campaigner.

 

[sameolds33]

Saying it's an exaggeration that the US was perilously etc isn't that same thing as saying the actions didn't undermine US democracy.

Again, I didn't say "the US was perilously etc" I did say its legal institutions were sorely undermined by the Trump administration. And I did say that Vanders was in no position to say that it wasn't an exaggeration because how would we know. The storming of the Capitol at the instigation of the US President who was angry about an election he'd lost. Unprecedented.

 

[sameolds33]

I conflated you with Old Campaigner.

Your mistake. Also your mistake to say that "If you don't think it is then that's cool but argue that point....don't reframe the argument to be about something else like whether its damaging or undermining."

 

[Vander18]

Your mistake. Also your mistake to say that "If you don't think it is then that's cool but argue that point....don't reframe the argument to be about something else like whether its damaging or undermining."

Sorry about the first but but Not so sure about the last bit.

You did seem to take issue with calling it an exaggeration. That was the post you responded to. Hard not to come to the conclusion you were disagreeing with that statement.

 

[boncer34]

Again, I didn't say "the US was perilously etc" I did say its legal institutions were sorely undermined by the Trump administration. And I did say that Vanders was in no position to say that it wasn't an exaggeration because how would we know.

I never said you did. And when I made the post you hadn't said that.

 

[sameolds33]

I never said you did. And when I made the post you hadn't said that.

So what's your point then, beside pointless point scoring?

 

[boncer34]

So what's your point then, beside pointless point scoring?

My point at the time was Vanders had in no way said that the Capital insurrection didn't undermine US democracy.

 

[Vander18]

Not directed at anyone here but I often feel like this!

 

[sameolds33]

Sorry about the first but but Not so sure about the last bit.

You did seem to take issue with calling it an exaggeration. That was the post you responded to. Hard not to come to the conclusion you were disagreeing with that statement.

I've set out below the way this thread has become stupid. What I'd like to know is why you think the military coup in Myanmar is more of a threat to democracy in that country than the storming of Capitol in the US in the context of what is/isn't an exaggeration in terms of threatening Us democracy.

you

Think about Myanmar....that's what a coup looks like. If you really think the American military was poised to support Trump in overthrowing democracy and replacing it with a dictatorship.....

me:

I disagree. Why was the mob in Congress? Because they were incited by Trump. If he had accepted the election result and the due process of law they would not have stormed the Capitol.
As to Myanmar, military coups are a part of Burmese political history - how long was Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest - its not the first time the military have been in power in Myanmar. Burmese democracy has a different trajectory to US democracy. It's a false analogy to say one is damaging political unrest because its a military coup in country with a history of military coups and the other is not because the military was not involved.



This all started when you said:

I think it is an exaggeration tbh....Think about what that really entails and whether at any point in time it was really on the cards. I think not personally.

You can argue all of the first paragraph certainly but I don't buy that the US was ever "perilously close to the brink of collapse as a democratic nation."

And I said:

Have you seen the film footage of the invasion of Congress? 5 people died. Senators felt personally threatened. Imagine that insurrection taking place in any other country - Russia, Australia, South Africa. I find it hard to believe that anyone witnessing that event could come to any other conclusion that Trump's incitement of his followers to storm his country's seat of power to threaten the authority of everyone in the Senate chamber (who were all elected in that same election!) did not undermine US democracy.

And I said, in response to Boncer:

And on what basis can he - or you or I - say that is/isn't an exaggeration? Like there's a sliding scale of what constitutes a real threat? and if there was in fact some objective scale a real threat to Us democracy we would all know what that is? The word that's been used repeatedly about the pandemic is "unprecedented". The damage caused to US democracy and its legal institutions by the destructive chaos of the Trump administration is unprecedented. And real.

And then it went like this:

you:
The storming of the Capitol was scary, violent, absurd and wrong - Its quite possible that if they had come across an AOC or Nancy Pelosi that they would have been killed.

And you know what? Even if that horrible scenario had played out, the US still wouldn't have been "perilously close to the brink of collapse as a democratic nation." Again, have a really good think about what that statement means, what has to happen for it to occur and whether that was genuinely realistic.

Think about Myanmar....that's what a coup looks like. If you really think the American military was poised to support Trump in overthrowing democracy and replacing it with a dictatorship.....

me:

I disagree. Why was the mob in Congress? Because they were incited by Trump. If he had accepted the election result and the due process of law they would not have stormed the Capitol.
As to Myanmar, military coups are a part of Burmese political history - how long was Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest - its not the first time the military have been in power in Myanmar. Burmese democracy has a different trajectory to US democracy. It's a false analogy to say one is damaging political unrest because its a military coup in country with a history of military coups and the other is not because the military was not involved.

 

[sameolds33]

My point at the time was Vanders had in no way said that the Capital insurrection didn't undermine US democracy.

I didn't say that he did. I said that he was in no position to know whether it was an exaggeration.

 

[boncer34]

I didn't say that he did. I said that he was in no position to know whether it was an exaggeration.

Sure. Ok.

 

[jmoo wan]

in times like this it’s important to find some common ground - at least we can all agree that scott morrison is a massive incompetent flog right?

 

[Old Campaigner]

I think it is an exaggeration tbh....Think about what that really entails and whether at any point in time it was really on the cards. I think not personally.

You can argue all of the first paragraph certainly but I don't buy that the US was ever "perilously close to the brink of collapse as a democratic nation."

The attempts to undermine the postal service to prevent mail in ballots in key states from being counted? The call to that GOP official asking him to 'find more votes'? Inciting unrest over what was a fairly clear result? The majority of the GOP refusing to unequivocally rebuke those things? Partisan judges actually supporting the nonsensical court cases relating to the election bought before them?

Imagine if Trump had actually put some effort into planning to steal the election rather than having his addled lawyers making it up as they went along afterwards. He probably would've managed to pull it off.

And all with (so far) zero consequences, which has set an incredibly dangerous precedent for future elections. In a national already in the grip of rampant gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts.

 

[Vander18]

The attempts to undermine the postal service to prevent mail in ballots in key states from being counted? The call to that GOP official asking him to 'find more votes'? Inciting unrest over what was a fairly clear result? The majority of the GOP refusing to unequivocally rebuke those things? Partisan judges actually supporting the nonsensical court cases relating to the election bought before them?

Imagine if Trump had actually put some effort into planning to steal the election rather than having his addled lawyers making it up as they went along afterwards. He probably would've managed to pull it off.

And all with (so far) zero consequences, which has set an incredibly dangerous precedent for future elections. In a national already in the grip of rampant gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts.

Even if all that is correct ( I’m not suggesting it is or isn’t) I would still argue that it’s an exaggeration to say American democracy was perilously close to collapse.

I simply don’t believe we were ever close to a situation where Trump assumed power in a dictatorship.

 

[Vander18]

I've set out below the way this thread has become stupid. What I'd like to know is why you think the military coup in Myanmar is more of a threat to democracy in that country than the storming of Capitol in the US in the context of what is/isn't an exaggeration in terms of threatening Us democracy.

you

me:

I disagree. Why was the mob in Congress? Because they were incited by Trump. If he had accepted the election result and the due process of law they would not have stormed the Capitol.
As to Myanmar, military coups are a part of Burmese political history - how long was Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest - its not the first time the military have been in power in Myanmar. Burmese democracy has a different trajectory to US democracy. It's a false analogy to say one is damaging political unrest because its a military coup in country with a history of military coups and the other is not because the military was not involved.



This all started when you said:


And I said:

Have you seen the film footage of the invasion of Congress? 5 people died. Senators felt personally threatened. Imagine that insurrection taking place in any other country - Russia, Australia, South Africa. I find it hard to believe that anyone witnessing that event could come to any other conclusion that Trump's incitement of his followers to storm his country's seat of power to threaten the authority of everyone in the Senate chamber (who were all elected in that same election!) did not undermine US democracy.

And I said, in response to Boncer:

And on what basis can he - or you or I - say that is/isn't an exaggeration? Like there's a sliding scale of what constitutes a real threat? and if there was in fact some objective scale a real threat to Us democracy we would all know what that is? The word that's been used repeatedly about the pandemic is "unprecedented". The damage caused to US democracy and its legal institutions by the destructive chaos of the Trump administration is unprecedented. And real.

And then it went like this:


me:

I disagree. Why was the mob in Congress? Because they were incited by Trump. If he had accepted the election result and the due process of law they would not have stormed the Capitol.
As to Myanmar, military coups are a part of Burmese political history - how long was Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest - its not the first time the military have been in power in Myanmar. Burmese democracy has a different trajectory to US democracy. It's a false analogy to say one is damaging political unrest because its a military coup in country with a history of military coups and the other is not because the military was not involved.

If have misrepresented your views then I apologise but I think most would have interpreted your posting as I did.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Even if all that is correct ( I’m not suggesting it is or isn’t) I would still argue that it’s an exaggeration to say American democracy was perilously close to collapse.

I simply don’t believe we were ever close to a situation where Trump assumed power in a dictatorship.

I don't know if 'dictatorship' is the word I'd use, there's some limits on presidential power and I'm not sure if even the nut cases he put in the SCOTUS would let him rule unchecked via executive orders.

But if he had managed to pull it off that I think that would constitute the collapse of US democracy. The systems and structures in place to stop that from happening would've failed and having failed once I'm not sure the GOP would allow them to properly function again.

It was seriously close though. If they'd been more effective at curtailing the US Postal Service and stopping postal ballots from being counted they'd have probably won. If that Georgia GOP official decided he would find him the extra votes he wanted he probably would've won. If a few state electorial colleges had refused to certify there would've been a constitutional crisis and which the SCOTUS stacked the way it is who knows how that might've turned out. Same deal if the mob in the capitol had found the electoral college votes. If the National Guard hadn't decided to depart from the strict chain of command and respond to Pence's call for assistance during the riot there could've been members of congress killed. If a president inciting a mob which kills members of congress didn't represent a collapse of the democratic process I'm not sure where the line gets drawn.

There's more and I could go on, but the point is every one of those things were extremely close to actually happening, and any one of them would've been a total disaster for US democracy. The fact that the GOP couldn't even muster up enough votes to impeach him suggests to me that the problem is far from solved and in later years we may well look back at the events since November and realise it was just the beginning of the eventual collapse of the democratic process.

 

[BrunoV]

The storming of the Capitol was scary, violent, absurd and wrong - Its quite possible that if they had come across an AOC or Nancy Pelosi that they would have been killed.

And you know what? Even if that horrible scenario had played out, the US still wouldn't have been "perilously close to the brink of collapse as a democratic nation." Again, have a really good think about what that statement means, what has to happen for it to occur and whether that was genuinely realistic.

Think about Myanmar....that's what a coup looks like. If you really think the American military was poised to support Trump in overthrowing democracy and replacing it with a dictatorship.....

On the topic of Trump the dictator, what examples do people cite of him expanding executive power?

That's not an executive order, they're just a thing now. I think Biden hold the record in only a few weeks.

If the decision was between federalism and centralising power, what changes did Trump make to expand his power? Like did he use covid to trample on states rights in some way?

Did he ignore what courts told him to do and act in contempt or did he complain publicly and the redo laws?

See, words do actually matter because when they're stretched beyond meaning people lose the vocabulary to describe and understand what is happening.

If Trump is the fascist and authoritarian what do you say about the regime presiding over a militarised DC pushing domestic terrorism legislation which is essentially patriot act 2.0 (prepared before 6 January) turned on Americans?

Here is a clip of former CIA director talking about libertarians as domestic terrorists:



This is an analysis of other discussions from former high ups of the CIA talking about how "insurrectionists" should be treated.

JOHN KIRIAKOU: A Terrible Take on the Capitol Storming

What does a CIA-style counterinsurgency campaign inside the U.S. look like? Just use Iraq and Afghanistan as a model. By John Kiriakou Special to Consortium News Like most Americans, I was appalled and disgusted by what I saw take place in the Capitol building on Jan. 6, when a right-wing

consortiumnews.com

Kiriakou is rabidly left in his world view, by the way.

Does these proposals sound a bit authoritarian? They are not far removed from the admin and they're in keeping with the proposed legislation.

 

[Old Campaigner]

On the topic of Trump the dictator, what examples do people cite of him expanding executive power?

That's not an executive order, they're just a thing now. I think Biden hold the record in only a few weeks.

If the decision was between federalism and centralising power, what changes did Trump make to expand his power? Like did he use covid to trample on states rights in some way?

Did he ignore what courts told him to do and act in contempt or did he complain publicly and the redo laws?

See, words do actually matter because when they're stretched beyond meaning people lose the vocabulary to describe and understand what is happening.

If Trump is the fascist and authoritarian what do you say about the regime presiding over a militarised DC pushing domestic terrorism legislation which is essentially patriot act 2.0 (prepared before 6 January) turned on Americans?

Here is a clip of former CIA director talking about libertarians as domestic terrorists:



This is an analysis of other discussions from former high ups of the CIA talking about how "insurrectionists" should be treated.

JOHN KIRIAKOU: A Terrible Take on the Capitol Storming

What does a CIA-style counterinsurgency campaign inside the U.S. look like? Just use Iraq and Afghanistan as a model. By John Kiriakou Special to Consortium News Like most Americans, I was appalled and disgusted by what I saw take place in the Capitol building on Jan. 6, when a right-wing

consortiumnews.com

Kiriakou is rabidly left in his world view, by the way.

Does these proposals sound a bit authoritarian? They are not far removed from the admin and they're on keeping with the proposed legislation.

I wouldn't say he 'expanded' the power of the executive but I think he definitely made attempts to undermine the limitations put on executive power and accountability. Barr shutting down the Muller investigation early is the main example that comes to mind. It's probably a good thing that he was so damn lazy that he was content to just get his big sharpie out and sign stuff without actually following up to make sure whatever it was got carried out.

Law enforcement is inherently authoritarian. If there's groups trying to commit acts of violence the response is going to be an authoritarian one by necessity - unless you decide to try for an appeasement approach of course. While BLM protesters would probably have been mollified by a promise of police reform I'm not sure what the government could do to appease the far right hell bent on overturning an election.

Libertarian groups have been identified as potential sources of domestic terrorism for ages, mainly the SovCit ones but there's plenty of overlap between libertarians and the militia groups that are increasingly prevalent in the US, as well as QAnon. It's probably a bit of a sensitive topic for serving security chiefs given groups of people seem make up a large part of the Republican voter base and even have a presence in congress now, but I'm not surprised former security people are talking about it.

 

[sameolds33]

If have misrepresented your views then I apologise but I think most would have interpreted your posting as I did.

you still haven't answered the question.

 

[Lore]

Dangerously close to invoking Godwin's law in here...

 

[jmoo wan]

Dangerously close to invoking Godwin's law in here...

you would do that you ******* nazi

 

[BrunoV]

I wouldn't say he 'expanded' the power of the executive but I think he definitely made attempts to undermine the limitations put on executive power and accountability. Barr shutting down the Muller investigation early is the main example that comes to mind. It's probably a good thing that he was so damn lazy that he was content to just get his big sharpie out and sign stuff without actually following up to make sure whatever it was got carried out.

Law enforcement is inherently authoritarian. If there's groups trying to commit acts of violence the response is going to be an authoritarian one by necessity - unless you decide to try for an appeasement approach of course. While BLM protesters would probably have been mollified by a promise of police reform I'm not sure what the government could do to appease the far right hell bent on overturning an election.

Libertarian groups have been identified as potential sources of domestic terrorism for ages, mainly the SovCit ones but there's plenty of overlap between libertarians and the militia groups that are increasingly prevalent in the US, as well as QAnon. It's probably a bit of a sensitive topic for serving security chiefs given groups of people seem make up a large part of the Republican voter base and even have a presence in congress now, but I'm not surprised former security people are talking about it.

Is that the same Mueller investigation premised on the Steele dossier which was DNC funded research and which was not only unverified but fabricated?

You know my favourite part about it, no its not even that the saintly James Comes blackmailed Trump with it as a way of helping the media launder it into publication, it's that house and senate intel (controlled by the GOP), the FBI and Mueller all knew the Steele dossier was bullshit as early as summer 2017.

This is what people don't understand. Trump is the RINO. He has been betrayed by the GOP establishment at every turn.

Some of the knowledge allegations are detailed in the summary of the Horowitz report by Matt Taibi below:

'Corroboration Zero': An Inspector General's Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke

The reports throws water on one “deep state” conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, but validates complaints about “fake news”

www.rollingstone.com

Below is an article by John Solomon addressing how early on Comey knew:

Smoking gun: Comey told Clapper FBI unable to 'sufficiently corroborate' Steele — then signed FISA

In January 2017 email to intel chief coughed up under court order, the former FBI director contradicted sworn avowal to FISA court that Steele dossier was verified.

justthenews.com

I've got to find something more definitive on Mueller's knowledge. By that I mean Andrew Weisemann. Mueller was Joe Biden levels of demented the whole time.

You know what will come out in time, the Steele dossier isn't even the Steele dossier. It was the second run of the same rubbish Clinton confidant Cody Shearer put together months earlier.


This is what I was talking about in terms of vocabulary. Law and order is not authoritarian in the sense of the tropes run out about Trump. Authoritarian is used interchangeably with dictator and fascist.

Do you consider the EU countries authoritarian? Australia, NZ? If so, why is it even necessary to point out Trump is authoritarian if that's just the status quo in the west. It's not unless authoritarian has another meaning.

How does the Western authoritarian compare to someone like Duterte or the Iranian government, Erdogan, Lukashenko and a number or other "strong men" running countries which are not dictatorships you find in China, North Korea or Iraq, etc prior to the US liberation of the Middle East and Saudi Arabia?


In relation to Brennan, the libertarians you are referring to are covered by the other categories mentioned by Brennan, hence "and even libertarians".

 

[Vander18]

you still haven't answered the question.

“What I'd like to know is why you think the military coup in Myanmar is more of a threat to democracy in that country than the storming of Capitol in the US in the context of what is/isn't an exaggeration in terms of threatening Us democracy?”

Starting point here is that I was debating how close we were to the collapse of US democracy as suggested by Old Campaigner. I interpreted collapse as meaning democracy ceased to exist there and was replaced by something else. My conversation with you was also based on this idea of what collapse meant.

Myanmar was democratic, it no longer is. The military overthrew the government and imposed a miltrary dictatorship. The threat to Democracy was as real as it gets and the complete colllapse (as I took collapse to mean) in fact occurred.

I do not believe the collapse of American democracy (again, meaning it’s ceasing to exist) was ever remotely imminent during the Trump administration, including the storming of the capital. I believe it’s an exaggeration to suggest that it was.

I think we are now clear that Old Campaigner and I were probably a way off in what we thought the collapse of democracy entailed. Not sure whether or not that confusion has also contaminated our conversation.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

Myanmar was democratic, it no longer is.

No state in which the military retains an explicit constitutional veto, control over key arms of government and an implicit threat of coup can really be deemed democratic.

The broader point though is democracy/non-democracy isn't an either/or prospect, but rather a sliding scale of institutions, stability and so on. There's a vast grey area in the middle and the erosion of democratic norms, institutions and protections slowly but steadily shifts states that way.