Colorado supreme court ruled that they can take Trump off the ballot, now it looks like California is trying to do that as well. Meanwhile, republican states are threatening to retaliate in kind.
This seems unprecedented for US, does anybody know what happens in this scenario?
Federal crimes like lying about hush money to his pornstar mistress? I mean, how many of us here actually buy the claims he "instigated an insurrection"- or that the "capitol attack" was much of, if any sort of insurrection (much less one instigated by Trump), that Trump tried to rig the election, or that his bringing classified documents home and to the washroom, as POTUS, was some great act of treason? Is the using of RICO laws- blatantly excessive, overly broad, whose use since inception has never been about justice but rather striking at those the government can't pin anything else on- supposed to strengthen their case?
I don't like the guy, but the more indictments they toss his way, the more certain I am that they're just trying to bury him, and these are political attacks and the weaponization of the courts against a political opponent on a scale not really seen (against a former POTUS no less) in US history. Trump is no less dirty, no less a criminal by the legal definitions, of a candidate than Biden if you ask me- but rather the opposite- literally nothing the establishment elites are accusing Trump of either doing (or wanting to do in a second term), they aren't doing many times over at the moment.
If I cared in any way whatsoever about liberal "democracy," and if I believed it was actual democracy- if you ask me, the real enemy of that system is Biden and the gang.
Fascism in America and the west has proven to come now, not merely with a flag and a bible- it's with two groups of competing fascists, both with flags, one holding the bible, and the other holding a much smaller rainbow flag (rainbow-washing, mere tokenism, mind) and espousing all sorts of faux-progressive platitudes. And if you ask me- my take on things is, one side has started its own take on the Reichstag fire and is now doing its best to stir the flames- and it's not the Trump side.
I very much agree with this. The real concern people who care about the current system in US should have is with the precedent being set here. It's very obviously a political prosecution and liberals being the smooth brains that they are keep cheering this on. What they don't seem to realize is that once the precedent is set, then this will be how politics are done going forward. They're forging the tools that the future fascist government will use to jail all its opposition.
These idiots have infantile understanding of how fascists take over a country. They think it's going to be a spectacle like Jan 6 where armed mobs overthrow the government. The reality is that fascists will simply take over the existing state machinery. All the police militarization, surveillance laws, and so on are what's actually setting up the stage for open fascism.
deleted by creator
💯💯💯💯
I don't agree with this "setting precedents is bad" logic. The Republicans have shown absolutely no qualms about breaking with previous precedents and setting their own, so why should the Democrats? From our POV this is just an indication that the collapse of US institutional legitimacy might proceed slightly faster than it was before, but it in no way alters the course that the political system has been taking since the neoliberal turn.
For sure, this is an indicator of how far the collapse of the institutions has progressed more than anything else. Deteriorating material conditions is the underlying reason that US institutions are losing legitimacy, and there's no path to fixing that problem that I can see within the current system.
I agree with many points in here or don't disagree enough to really respond.
However, I will say about the "insurrection" stuff: did Trump orchestrate it? Depends on what that means to you, I guess.
To me, a sitting president spent 2 months-ish crying because he lost, refused to just say that he lost, and then tweeted "everyone! I have evidence! Come to the Capitol Jan 6th! It'll be wild!" (Paraphrasing there obviously). And (further paraphrasing) had his henchmen and kid give speeches followed by himself which boiled down to "we're gonna go to the Capitol building...and convince them to not certify this election. wink wink"
So he purposely and clearly spent months after and years before the election laying the ground, prepping his base (and Republicans had done this for 40+ years waaaaaay prior to Trump. They've been whining about election stealing back to Kennedy, LBJ, etc. (some legitimate, some not. Also they did the same shit anyway).
Then he gave them a specific event which he manufactured basically and pretended it mattered beyond ceremony (the actual stuff on Jan 6 is literally just ceremony. All the locking-in has been done by that point. As Pence correctly has said, it didn't matter what he did/didnt do that day (from a purely legal outlook)).
And on the day he planned he gave a speech basically like "go MAKE them listen." Did he say directly "go kill Nancy!"? No. But did he need to? Does a mafia boss have to say directly "kill whoever" or can it be reasonably assumed at a certain point that they're saying certain things, doing certain things, etc. with a clear agenda towards encouraging an outcome?
I mean, look. I don't actually care about congress, the Capitol, their ceremonies, etc. We all know this is a farce and has been for quite some time... it isn't a democracy it's just a capitalist-controlled hellscape. But I'm also not gonna pretend Trump didn't sick his hordes of most brainbroken, most fanatic supporters on congress to harass them. Do I think he expected them to actually break in and accomplish anything (killing members, specifically)? No. But he knew what he was doing.
I think the event itself is overhyped, but, be definitely did that shit. What I find more concerning is the stuff like threatening officials in GA (a perfect phone call folks!). Again, liberal democracy blah blah blah, but if we're playing the game, and we all are because we are stuck in it, he definitely was going far beyond any acceptable practices there and his party leaders should've barred him from office. Can't have a shitty liberal democracy if one party is just clearly ignoring the law, telling a state official to "find votes," etc.
I know this will absolutely never happen, but every time I hear Trump speaking on legitimate problems, I'm like "GODDAMNIT man! Can he drop the Nazi bullshit and just do... good stuff? He wants us to like him. Just do good shit!" Obviously that's pure fantasy, but it's absolutely frustrating sometimes hearing him speak, how he can read a room, and then seeing him pivot directly into the same neoliberal bullshit as everyone else.
I understand why they're going after him for it, legality be damned- but if you ask me? As you seem to agree, this wasn't an insurrection- and considering you agree with, or don't particularly disagree with, many of my points- they're grasping at straws or coming up with complete fabrications and farces of lawfare, to pin him and his supporters down as a result.
It's not a crime to contest an election- hell, the last time to my knowledge was with a Democrat- Al Gore. End of the day, Trump can't be said to have instigated anything more than an a protest which has since been blown wildly out of proportion IMO. They don't have anything legally (that is remotely related nor anywhere near similar to charges of "insurrection," anyways) on him, hell, they don't have anything on the majority of his supporters, but they're working like hell (and obfuscating events of capitol hill, and stretching the notions of plausibility like hell) to charge him with all sorts of things, with all sorts of assumptions simply taken for granted and swept under the rug legally, in order to do it.
That's what I'm seeing, anyways. The criminalization of a mass political movement (of assholes, sure, but assholes who are entirely within their legal rights to be assholes) and the persecution of the most prominent political opponent, a classic case of lawfare and complete perversion of law in my books, though not one I can really care too much about.
I guess I'm operating within the mindset of "if these are the rules (like you don't send a giant swarm of hogs towards the capitol) then he broke the rules and he should pay." It's also pretty clear by now that very little will happen to him. I know the libs are coping, but we all know Trump is only leaving the race by two means: voluntarily stepping down or nature takes its course.
My civil rights, civil liberties brain says "yeah people should be able to do this stuff minus the breaking in portion." Not because of property damage, but because, I mean, I absolutely despise Nancy and if something had happened to her then I'm not going to feel particularly sad over it. But it could also be a non total sack of shit and having a norm of "these few thousand hogs are really angry, so the Speaker just had to die" 🤷♀️ also seems "pretty bad."
And of course my leftist brain is ripping itself apart between "If (s)he dies, (s)he dies" and "this will directly lead to even harsher crackdowns on BLM, anti-Israel, etc. protests by the left" Which are basically all violence-free, yet get met with 100x the reaction of the hog rally directly threatening (to whatever degree) congress' lives. Of course that's happening ANYWAY and this prosecution or pursuit of prosecution will probably only accelerate timelines (I'm not an accelerationist because as of right now that just leads directly to true fascism, whatever that ends up looking like (not just orange man)).
So, in the end... I guess I don't care? I mean I don't like what he did, obviously. [liberalness] The courts are the proper place for his grievances not in DC with his loyal squad of piggies. [/liberalness] But had it been a left winger or even a Bernie type who felt cheated, and I legitimately agreed with his claim of being cheated, then I'd want to do (hypothetically, in a book, etc.) what they did. Or, more hypothetical things even.
Of course this all runs up against reality which is you don't take over a government by force by occupying its capitol. You don't even do it by killing all those leaders. The government is run by thousands of faces and names we don't know and it would continue with or without those elected names in place. And liberals don't want to go down THAT road of speaking about actual revolutionary tactics, who would have to "go", what places have to be captured, etc. Certainly the MSM doesn't anyway for obvious reasons. The fucking FBI director would probably call Chris Hayes live on TV if he started talking about that shit. "Did Trump supporters plan to bomb local electrical infrastructure? New evidence is comin- hold on... ok, my producer is telling me to move on... ok... Trump was back in court today for his next round of slander cases..."
I don't know how much weight is placed behind "intent but lacking the knowledge or ability" vs pure "intent" devoid of context such as knowledge. Like if you intend to overthrow the government, but you think doing so means breaking into the capitol, is that an insurrection? I dunno. I'd classify the whole thing probably as a riot myself. Obviously libs love institutions so defacing the beautiful capitol is a crime worthy of execution by itself in their eyes.
Seems to me that this is what is going on with Trump, though. A few thousand- well no, a few million ghouls- card-carrying Democrats and Republicans alike- are really angry, so Mr. Former President has to be banned from office and his followers criminalized en masse, one way or another- doesn't matter how they do it.
I share the sentiment. Mainly I just plan to leave (Canada, not the US). Things are, especially in the US, almost certainly going to shit within the next decade if even that, and honestly? Trump probably isn't going to be the instigator, I also see him as no more of a threat than the "establishment" political bloc/blob, and considering how deranged their foreign policy has proven to be under Biden- I suspect Trump would even be the better candidate to maintain the status quo, reel in the empire a bit, and bring back some sanity in that regard.
But ultimately I don't care. I'm not an accelerationist, but I also can't bring myself to care- "red fascist, blue fascist, orange fascist-" the blue fascists at least are less likely to fuck over minorities and the LGBT community, but then at the same time it seems to me like they're the ones, alongside the red fascists (who are really just the opposite side of the same coin) driving the west rapidly towards outright fascism, domestically and certainly in foreign policy.
Agreed. Though obviously I don't think Trump tried to do any of that, nor do I think there is any solid case to be made (legally) arguing he did, however people might feel or extrapolate things wildly about it.
I imagine either is damning- if it can be decisively and legitimately proven in court. I'd argue that Trump's actions can't be, and that they didn't have either intent to begin with anyways, and a massive effort is underway to obscure events and muddy the waters to claim otherwise- he said his piece, which was not meaningfully different from Al Gore's contesting results in 2000- and handed over power, sure, he was a "bad sport" and didn't attend the inauguration, but he didn't do anything remotely illegal.
Let's be fair here, he did basically ask Republican governors to fuck with election results in their states
You don’t need to be convicted of a federal crime to be precluded. Aiding and abetting an armed insurrection WHEN the person is a sworn office holder is all that is needed. The crime isn’t that he committed a crime, it was that he violated a clause in the US constitution written to prevent Confederate leaders from holding office after the Civil War.
The 14 amendment 3rd clause (14.3) has 2 main components: 1: An office holder or military personelle who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution 2: participates in Rebellion or insurrection against said Constition or gives considerable aid to those who due. When both conditions are fulfilled in order, a person is ineligible to serve in federal office again.
The 14.3 wasnt just to ban all Confederates, but those Confederates who had essentially broken their oaths. It requires an act of congress to allow such a person to serve again.
Now insurrection against the Constitution isn't a crime to my knowledge at any level. And it's sort of clever that the writers of the amendment side step any criminal charges. Criminal charges require trials and convictions.
Are you really defending Trump? You think this is a massive witch-hunt?
As I said, I don't like the guy- I don't give two shits what happens to the guy, or to US "democracy." But yeah, anyone who thinks that the capitol "attack" was an insurrection, is a sucker who hasn't seen real insurrection (successful or not) like that which the west has instigated across countless other countries, and who watches far too much CNN. Real talk here- you lot (those who fall for this) distrust western establishment media about China, about Russia/Ukraine, about all sorts of foreign issues- but then you fall hook, line, and sinker for a blatant set-up in domestic politics, as long as it's "the other guy" (because that is what it is- you may have progressed past liberalism and pop leftism, yet the mentality of the "other guy" remains) IMO.
Yeah, it's a witch hunt. The "witches" being hunted are a bunch of chuds who generally deserve it, but almost entirely not for the reasons being tossed at them- hell, mostly they're legally in the clear. Hilariously enough, the far more powerful and active forces of fascism in the US are the ones massively ramping up the powers of the state, directing precedent in dangerous new territory, and blatantly engaging in political suppression and violating the alleged rights of their citizenry on paper, all while claiming to be "defending their democracy" and "preventing the rise of fascism."
Fascism in the US and much of the west is coming in blazing through the metaphorical backdoor- the establishment, ie. the "left" (center, center-right, faux-progressives) and the establishment center/mainstream "right," and you somehow can't see it?
I think saying Trump is not complicit in the Jan 6th event is foolishness and accomplishes nothing. What are you trying to prove? If someone commits a crime with little competence they are still guilty by definition. Of course, in an outrage driven political environment, people will blow it out of proportion for their own ends, but this doesn't change that Trump routinely attempts to rile up his base into committing acts of violence, including sedition, which is a crime.
I'm simply stating facts as I see it. What am I trying to prove? Nothing much really, stating my opinion based on facts as I've seen them. As said, I don't care for Trump and his crowd, and I care even less for American "democracy" so frankly I'm just enjoying the beautiful sights of the empire's decline and keeping myself informed both out of personal interest, and out of a desire to insulate myself from whatever the future holds.
They'll have to pin that on him first. Once again, stating facts as I see them- they can't, not without further mutilations of the justice system as it exists, and a further collapse of their ability to manufacture consent with large portions of the population- not just Trump's followers, but anyone with enough sense to see the writing on the wall IMO.
Indeed.
The imperial narrative is discursive and inherently contested. It is not simply created and enforced by conscious state agents, but is also an inherent part of the social relations and characteristics of the public. It is a result of contradictions and relations, not mere top down hegemony. However, the divide doesn't necessarily inhibit imperial hegemony nor does it necessarily signal a decline, only development, which may actually end up invigorating imperial power.
There have always been massive contradictions in the American system and now is not even close to as dire as past struggles have been. In fact when internal contradictions really got hairy for the US leading up to the Civil War, it eventually allowed for massive expansion at the cost of breaking the enslaver plantation class. There was no intial intention to pay such a price but they did it anyway and it got them a continent once the dust settled. The US is not as rigid as many believe.
Like all the people that know Trump tried to incite a coup, even if it was carried out by incompetent people that have no clue about anything at all? The idea that prosecuting Trump will choke the US seems to be a massive stretch. If anything it will bring it more cohesion and make it easier to achieve the consent you are concerned about.
The question is how will it actually play out? Has Trump played his role already? Is he necessary for legitimizing the already popular democracy vs tyranny narrative or is Putin/Xi enough? Is he still needed to solidify the Democratic Party and the Republican Party? Maybe they decide he is better to keep around so they can inflate fears over project 2025 or maybe he is booted off more ballets anyway and they roll with it. I don't see a bad option. Even a Trump win has imperial benifits discursivley and materially.
Clearly we don't exist in the same universe in regards to this topic. It's the facts as you see them here as well.
The difference between the slaving, plantation owning class of yesteryear, and the petit bourgeois and working classes' discontent today, is that one side happens to be overwhelmingly representing US industry and production- agriculture, domestic industry, etc... and the other side is the financier/managerial class which has been starving out the former, or exporting it overseas for its own profit. In the US civil war, the Union represented American industry- that same industry has been gutted into a shadow of what it once was, and its bitter remnants are coalescing with all the other demographics who have been left at the wayside of the globalized economy. And- for all the "blue state, red state" divisions- both sides' spread across the country know no borders; the comparison of the "slave state, free state" does not exist.
I ain't concerned about the "cohesion/consent." Frankly, if every American citizen decided tomorrow that the US was an illegal government, and the country balkanized into thousands of microstates, I would be very happy. I don't care about your country, actually I see it as the epicenter of all modern evil and what's wrong with the world, I'd go so far as to describe it as the likely "great filter" humanity must overcome, lest we face extinction.
If you think this is going to lead to more "cohesion" though.... really? What are you smoking? Unless by "cohesion" you mean jackboots on the ground, not beyond the official borders of the empire, but within the continental USA...
Why wouldn't it lead to more cohesion? The discourse becomes more entrenched and settler nightmares become easier to wield making action easier to mobilize or imagine. The future becomes more and more certain. This is how American history has always worked and it's how American politics has developed. I wish more people understood this place before speaking on it.
In other words, things aren't really that dire for the empire, like I said. (Although if you look at oil backed attempts to dictate how shadow banks invest you will find some striking geographic, class divisions brewing even if they are not like the mid 19th century) Furthermore, the slave-free question was not about the merrits of slavery, it was about unified expansion. Your fixation on industry in the Civil War misses the point that the Civil War marks the most rapid expansionary period in US history all despite the turmoil of speculation driven depression and political polarity.
You flatter me
This is an exhausting narrative that is rarely wielded correctly. I'll just say one thing to blow it up. Oil.
As for the apparent victims of "globalization," none of this is new to US history. We blow up our economic systems pretty routinely. There are dead mines and ghost towns dating back nearly 200 years yet it hasn't truly harmed the empire yet and it's not clear that the overplayed narrative about the rust belt, or rural communities, will be anything more than more of the same. It's not like those regions are not being actively gentrified as we speak anyway.
Further, the tensions of the civil war are not the only tense moment in US history that led to massive expansion. So was the great depression. Gee now how did that turn out? Roll the war footage, Jerry.
Its not that simple. We literally mined all the best iron already. The steel industry died of natural causes and that shit isn't coming back regardless of how nefarious finance is or isn't. Golden ages don't last forever, especially when they are inherently extractive and imperial, this is something the US "working class" doesn't seem to understand and it's partially because this false bourgeoisie narrative that coddles industrialists can only breed reaction. US prosperity cannot and never will be legitimate and looking to the past is meant to breed nostalgia for a reset, which is exactly the cohesion the US seeks and it's exactly where we are headed.
This has already been the case for literally centuries.
Yet, unsurprisingly, it's structure and history has evaded you.
It was an insurrection though. The rioters were threatening to shoot, hold hostage and stamp over the political power in this country. Just because not all of them had guns doesn't mean it wasn't an insurrection.
Not saying there's any world that it would have worked in but he 100% instigated it. He hyped up the rally for weeks talking about how he needed people there to make sure they don't steal it then held a rally the morning of where he said they should all march to the capitol and he'd be marching with them.
It's wild people still act like it was anything more than the worst examples of humanity smearing their shit on the wall but that is their attempt at overturning an election, it's just they literally never considered the possibility of negative consequences.
He deffinitly tried to incite an insurrection he's just really dumb and lazy.
Trump didn’t start a land war in Europe, so I’m willing to cut him some slack.
By some mystical alchemy, Bidens crimes aren't charged even with nearly a million casualties.
Because neither party wants to set rhe precedent of charging presidents for war crimes.