[Hoseyb]

Really good speech by Arnie I thought

https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/1348249481284874240?s=20

[petejh]

Hi Pete.

If you think I'm teaching someone to suck eggs, I assure you I'm not.

Your response is very strong, on a let's do something now to stamp this thing out level, yes, as though the aggressor is appearing over the hill.

Maybe your approach and reaction here, is more a product of your time in the infantry than you realise. Just a thought.

If I can say, you are very strong in your position. It's already decided.
Are you willing to consider other things, to re-evaluate how you see them? That includes the comments and contributions of attention seeking celebs with funny hair  (and I admit to hiding from my own prejudice when listening to what he says!)

I think you negate "philosophising" to defend your own perspective. You present something of a circular argument.
Let's look at things differently, is always a valid suggestion, is it not?
Who sees who/what as toxic?

This thread is titled "Trump", and I've always felt uneasy about the tendency to put certain figures up there as pariahs; to ridicule and bash.
It's way too easy, and in my view, is as symptomatic of the polarising of opinion, as what we might want to "attack".

How often do groups of people want to find an enemy, in order to establish their own virtue?

There are lots of people who contribute to this thread, who might read it. We all have different perspectives on things - or rather, see different "things". I try to consider this when putting up a reply.

The great thing about an online forum, is that it creates a space, hopefully for something more discursive than a call to arms.

 

I give up. I'm not engaging in 'a call to arms'.  I'm afraid your philosophising on this topic leaves me cold. Some people and some events don't require that much introspection in the immediate moment Dave.

[Sasquatch]

Trump did not cause all the disaffection and extreme right wing views which feed off it, but he has hugely enabled people of that ilk because the bully pulpit gives his words so much power. They are more confident now.

yes he did.  Or the republican view that he epitomizes did.  The corporate first America vision has created a massive income inequality which creates a poor base.  They then blame "liberal socialism" for the poorness and create a cycle that repeats itself. 

[mrjonathanr]

Well we do agree that mentality has a lot to answer for. This is really going back to Reagan and beyond. What do you make of Lisa Murkowski then?

[seankenny]

Still haven’t got the time for a proper reply to the Nazi nurture debate, but I wanted to suggest there is evidence that poverty is perhaps not the biggest driver of Trump (nor Brexit):

“Trump’s voters weren’t overwhelmingly poor. In the general election, like the primary, about two thirds of Trump supporters came from the better-off half of the economy.“


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Thought this may be of interest:

https://onezero.medium.com/claims-antifa-embedded-in-capitol-riots-come-from-a-deeply-unreliable-facial-recognition-company-459603c0d073

In my view here, there is too much investment in "Trump", and mythological "root causes".
It's not "philosophising" to look at the irrationality of our own position - looking at "the problem" to be removed.

I give up. I'm not engaging in 'a call to arms'.  I'm afraid your philosophising on this topic leaves me cold. Some people and some events don't require that much introspection in the immediate moment Dave.

Pete I think this is nonsense, and in my view, your own position begs the question, "what is the situation?"; "what are the events?".

It's absurd to not be able to ask these questions about the complexity of the situation. Simply saying "I give up" doesn't help much 

I actually don't really agree with Matt in this case; we need very specific historical analyses rather than just amorphous stuff about human nature.

.. and neither is it "amorphous stuff about human nature". Sorry Andy.

It is so easy to focus on the naughty child (Trump), as though "dealing with him" will stamp out the badness for good.

That's a mistake. It's irrational.
I think it's times like these, that do require for more introspection. What are we doing, in our own response? I appreciate that may be unpopular.

Investing more urgency in the situation, is just a circular argument, to avoid thinking about it.

And can someone please explain why you can't have several lines of enquiry at the same time?

I really appreciate just how much I'm compromising the efforts of the UKB Mob to deal with the situation, but how much, to what degree, is the strength of conviction here, any different to that of those who marched on the Capitol offices?

[SA Chris]

Really good speech by Arnie I thought

https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/1348249481284874240?s=20

Sentiment rings true, but came across as a movie monologue in places. And the background music is cringeworthy.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Still haven’t got the time for a proper reply to the Nazi nurture debate, but I wanted to suggest there is evidence that poverty is perhaps not the biggest driver of Trump (nor Brexit):

“Trump’s voters weren’t overwhelmingly poor. In the general election, like the primary, about two thirds of Trump supporters came from the better-off half of the economy.“


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/06/05/its-time-to-bust-the-myth-most-trump-voters-were-not-working-class/

Sean, I'm inclined to think that we're rather more similar in mindset to Trump's supporters, than we'd want to admit.

It feels to me as though we're looking to define a situation, in order to justify a response, and police things accordingly - *to restore order* as we see it, in just the same way as the mob want to restore the sense of order and justice that they believe they've lost. The poor will know very well, that there was no justice to buy into in the first place.

Again, what "feels right" in our response, probably just reflects the privilege of our position, more than the truth of things.

[mrjonathanr]

Good, in that case, to look for external and quantifiable yardsticks to guide us. Like numbers of votes cast?

[seankenny]

Again, what "feels right" in our response, probably just reflects the privilege of our position, more than the truth of things.

And just like that, any female, non-white or working class opposition to facism and the far right gets written out.

[Hoseyb]

Really good speech by Arnie I thought

https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/1348249481284874240?s=20

Sentiment rings true, but came across as a movie monologue in places. And the background music is cringeworthy.

I never bother with the sound on my phone. Given his age and history, I'd forgive him dropping into a familiar cadence

[mrjonathanr]

The Governator is back. Compared to what passes for leadership elsewhere in the GOP these days (Romney aside), it really commands a bit of respect.

[Oldmanmatt]

The official State Dept. website that lists all gov. official’s bio and current position, switched to show Trump’s term ended at 19:39 GMT today, then several other times in a 10 min time frame and is now off line.
His Wikipedia page was updated at the same time, to reflect something similar.

Is it a rogue staffer?
Has the Government been hacked (again)?
Has he resigned?
Been ousted?
Died (🤞)? (Sorry... ish).

Dunno, but it is quite funny.

Ooo! I saw a FB post and tried the site and it was down by then, so didn’t actually see the altered entry.
However, the “main stream media” have started reporting it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/state-department-website-trump-term-mystery-b1785700.html?utm_content=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2yC0L06m_r7_s2jWhCuwxnLK8sjWPOReXu9c9o_etzZHWYsAqxzioyBRY#Echobox=1610396465

[petejh]

..
I really appreciate just how much I'm compromising the efforts of the UKB Mob to deal with the situation, but how much, to what degree, is the strength of conviction here, any different to that of those who marched on the Capitol offices?

It follows that having strength in a conviction that legitimate elections should be protected from unlawful mobs who wish to overthrow them, is merely the moral equivalent of having strength in the conviction that fascist principles instilled by violence and intimidation should win out over peaceful democracy.

I feel a strong conviction that dogs shouldn't be kicked to death. Should *that* conviction be questioned, or are they all morally equivalent to you Dave? 

[Will Hunt]

Somebody give me a nudge when we're back to slagging off the planet's biggest cunt.

[Oldmanmatt]

Well, there should be 15000 Guardsmen swamping Washington within a few days and apparently several thousand there already.
That is an entire army, really. So, to achieve another takeover of the Capitol, the insurgents would need several thousand well armed, well trained and well coordinated “troops”; with masterful leadership.

I would call 15k Guardsmen a “strong conviction” on the part of “the system”, that some things need a good old stomp.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2021/01/11/national-guard-inauguration-deployment-twice-as-large-as-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-and-iraq-combined/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow+MIL&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR2HrggSesnbYZ3kwOgEDlwHp8_vFCwP5eYkOp5jKnsRRok4NuLVU9ZGe_M

[Oldmanmatt]

Somebody give me a nudge when we're back to slagging off the planet's biggest cunt.

I thought Dan had flounced again?

[DAVETHOMAS90]

..
I really appreciate just how much I'm compromising the efforts of the UKB Mob to deal with the situation, but how much, to what degree, is the strength of conviction here, any different to that of those who marched on the Capitol offices?

It follows that having strength in a conviction that legitimate elections should be protected from unlawful mobs who wish to overthrow them, is merely the moral equivalent of having strength in the conviction that fascist principles instilled by violence and intimidation should win out over peaceful democracy.

I feel a strong conviction that dogs shouldn't be kicked to death. Should *that* conviction be questioned, or are they all morally equivalent to you Dave?

Does anything you've written there, refer to any of the points I've tried to raise and consider? No.

Pete, you're trying to reduce everything to your own position, and how you've already chosen to define things. The Mob. The Unlawful. Etc. That seems irrational to me.

I'm trying to look at wider issues too. It's too simplistic to refer to those marching on the Capitol offices simply as "The Mob". However, you don't want to address any of the other questions that remain, Trump or not.

Your last paragraph is absurd in its allusion, and fails to address what appears to be your own conviction on who/what you decide it is OK to kick - who to blame, etc.

You seem to be mistaken in your view that this is about "moralising". It isn't.
Edit: it's too easy in situations like this, to polarise, and mistake that for morality, when all we are doing, is reducing our arguments to confirm our own position.

Are we too threatened by things, to take a second look at them?

[spidermonkey09]

Are we too threatened by things, to take a second look at them?

I feel like we don't need to take a second look at fascism, no. (yes, I know this is flippant- its a joke!)

I'm currently reading Anne Applebaum's 'Twilight of Democracy.' I am only partway through but the takeaway for me, already, is the absolute imperative to call things what they are. We cannot afford to soft soap this - democracy is not a given and if we make the same mistakes we have with Trump in the future, it will collapse in the US just as it has collapsed elsewhere. So whilst in some ways I admire your inquisitive approach Dave, I see your argument as contrarianism for the sake of it (which I have also accused Pete of on several occasions!) Asking questions about why it happened, in this moment, has the effect of lending it legitimacy. I think that would be a huge error.

If I come across someone kicking a dog to death, I would not stop to ask them detailed questions about their upbringing/politics and why they are kicking the dog to death. Those are questions for further down the line. In the moment, you just stop the dog being kicked to death. Thats the moment we are in now in US democracy in my view.

[webbo]

I spent 30 years at work discussing with colleagues why people behaved in the way they do. In the end we often came to the conclusion that  some people are just cunts.

[Oldmanmatt]

I spent 30 years at work discussing with colleagues why people behaved in the way they do. In the end we often came to the conclusion that  some people are just cunts.

I spent 30 years at work discussing with colleagues why people behaved in the way they do. In the end we often came to the conclusion that  some people are just cunts.

Yep.
Then add these sweeties:




And the more money than sense brigade:

How it started:



How it’s going:



Yes, something has to be done about the root causes, but that’s going to be a long, arduous task.
These people are programmed.
Sorry, said that already, didn’t I.

Anyway, the only practical course of action, right now and for several months, is cutting off heads.

[tomtom]

I spent 30 years at work discussing with colleagues why people behaved in the way they do. In the end we often came to the conclusion that  some people are just cunts.

That’s priceless Webbo.

Solid life advice there.

I’m going to save that and read it whenever someone has pissed me off at work/cut me up driving/etc.. etc..

[TobyD]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/12/once-trump-leaves-office-senate-cant-hold-an-impeachment-trial/

This is interesting

[tommytwotone]

This was always the case - the impeachment stuff is really just political theatre / messing with Trump's legacy surely.

Unless this is a backstop against some kinda hail-mary last-minute change that reverses the election result?!

[petejh]

Are we too threatened by things, to take a second look at them?

Err... No?
 
But nobody else on this thread, including me, is suggesting that. I don't get why you're continuing to bang your head against this wall, like others have said it feels like you're being contrarian for the sport of it.

Basically what spidermonkey said is spot on. And Webbo. Sometimes people do just act like cunts - most of us are guilty of it at some point to a greater or lesser degree, not just one section of society. But most cuntish behaviour most of the time doesn't threaten anything fundamental and vital to a civil society. What's currently under threat from a minority of supporters of Trumpism is far more vital to society than the concept of pausing to understand the reasons why some people might want to use violence to overthrow a legitimate democratic election.

On some occasions such as right now in the US, some people's ideas need to be stood up to with robustness. That doesn't mean they need to be vilified or banished from society or forgotten about etc. I really fail to understand why you seem to have such a problem with this concept.