6 Jan 2020 U.S. Events (Split from A Deeply Fractured US)

[Kilted]

Sure, I agree to a point. But I also think we need to recognize that 'better than the US' can be a pretty low bar, and not pretend we did things perfect.

When I got posted to Halifax my neighbour actually grew up in Africville, and hadn't ever heard of it, so was kind of appalled when I read about it. And that grew directly out of descendents of escaped slaves as well as black loyalists that fought for the crown, so kind of disengenous that it was sheer altruism and also ignore that we really shat on their descendants, who only finally got some recognitions of their deeds recently.

Growing up the history we got in school was pretty massively filtered, and generally the only First Nations things we saw were like Potemkin villages. The last residential schools ran until the 1990s, so that's also contemporary. It was pretty eye opening to read the TRC report, as none of that stuff was ever mentioned in school, so really knocked some blinders off for me personally on what I thought Canada was, as I had a pretty one sided view of how awesome we were.

If you want to celebrate good things that happened 100 years before you were born, you should also recognize bad things that happened in the same time frame. I think to do otherwise is willful ignorance, and also means that the lasting effects from those previous deeds will continue to drag on until we recognize them and make them right. Sure, it was awesome to give escaped slaves somewhere to go, but not so awesome to subsequently pack them into a slum (with deeds), never run any infrastructure to it, turn it into a dump, then ignore any of their deeds and bulldoze their houses and community. The whole story from then to know is a lot less Heritage moment, but we shouldn't pretend it didn't happen.

I never said that I was going to ignore it. I think the way history is taught now is based almost entirely on the negative, maybe those things were not covered as much as they should in the past, but that's not our entire history. Some of my classes in university I was almost afraid to share my view of things because I was worried that the teacher would fail me because I disagree with them. Some of the classes severely left leaning, I did a two semester Canadian history class from New France to the present, many things like the War of 1812 were not even mentioned. It almost feels like we are being taught to hate ourselves. I'm ok with acknowledging our short comings in the past, but that shouldn't be the only thing that is talked about. I will never apologize for being Canadian, and I will always be proud to be. Anyways this is getting off topic.

 

[mariomike]

I think if the plan to impeach goes ahead, and he goes to jail, that country will burn.

His cheerleaders seemed to think it was pretty hilarious chanting "Lock her up!" over and over at their maga rallies.

 

[lenaitch]

No move before 19 January unless the senate unanimously consents, which they obviously won’t.

I actually have no idea what happen if the President transitions before the conclusion of the proceedings. Hypothetically could they meaningfully continue with it with the potential consequence of future disqualification from office?

Certainly no US Constitutional expert but anything I have seems to suggest that bringing impeachment proceedings against a 'civil officer' - to remove them from office - when they no longer hold it, is very much up in the air. Even if they manage to complete the process before the 20th, does congress 'lose jurisdiction'? Dunno. As well, the issue of burden of proof threshold, although apparently ill-defined, seems to be lower that that required for criminal prosecution. There might be a movement to try to take him out of the play for 2024. The new administration will no doubt struggle with that.

Apparently if he is impeached, he ceases to be eligible for benefits and protection under the 'Former Presidents Act'.

 

[mariomike]

Apparently if he is impeached, he ceases to be eligible for benefits and protection under the 'Former Presidents Act'.

No lifetime Secret Service protection for him and the Mrs.?

 

[dapaterson]

Deconstruction (rather lengthy) of Trump's speech by Seth Abramson:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1347908845281095680

 

[Kilted]

Certainly no US Constitutional expert but anything I have seems to suggest that bringing impeachment proceedings against a 'civil officer' - to remove them from office - when they no longer hold it, is very much up in the air. Even if they manage to complete the process before the 20th, does congress 'lose jurisdiction'? Dunno. As well, the issue of burden of proof threshold, although apparently ill-defined, seems to be lower that that required for criminal prosecution. There might be a movement to try to take him out of the play for 2024. The new administration will no doubt struggle with that.

Apparently if he is impeached, he ceases to be eligible for benefits and protection under the 'Former Presidents Act'.

Taking him out of the running for 2024 will help the Republicans because it will prevent the party from being split by Trump. Although I wouldn't rule out him forming his own party.

 

[Pelorus]

Unsurprisingly, many of the individuals involved in stoking the fires that led to the events of 6 Jan are now trying to cover their asses, in some cases contradicting themselves less than 24 hours later.

We need to stop pretending to ourselves that far right extremists in the US will simply take their ball and go home satisfied if only Biden turns the other cheek and comes forward with a message of unity and healing. The old saying that "a cornered animal lashes out" is overly simplistic and works for literal animals, much less so as an analogy for human beings within a society.

The far right in the US are masters of self-victimization. For decades, they have propagandized and recruited moderate conservatives with a full court press arguing that "liberals" are out to get them and will destroy moderates' way of life if left unchecked.

The traditional (Fox News commentary shows, OAN, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc.) and social (Facebook groups, Parler, Gab, Voat, thedonald.win, etc.) media ecosystem of the far right is so entrenched that someone who only gets their news from those sources without an anchor to tether them in reality (family, coworkers, etc.) will be pulled towards radicalization regardless of what the objective facts of the matter are. Attempting to meet the far right in the middle will simply cause it to take a step back and demand that moderates take a further step towards them. This is true of any extremist belief system.

Weak prosecution of Confederate leaders, pardons for Nixon and Iran-Contra, etc. have not prevented the US from arriving at the events of this week.

US society and its judicial system must determine the arcs of fire of acceptable speech and action, and take action against those who fall outside of it before the problem worsens. Will that cause more violence in the short term? Maybe, but that violence was probably going to happen at some point anyways. Tolerating extremism without limit simply destroys tolerance. Unfortunately, short term violence may be the required wake up call for American society to realize that far right extremism is the major source of terrorism in the United States.

 

[brihard]

Let us hope Biden says "It's time to move forward and put away the past". Couple that with a "Commission to improve voting procedures" and that will satisfy a lot of the moderate right for the time being. It also means your not pushing people into a corner where they feel they have nothing to lose.

The conduct of elections are a state issue per the constitution. The feds have no place telling the states how to run them. This exact principle was one of the factors that got a lot of the lawsuits tossed.

Certainly no US Constitutional expert but anything I have seems to suggest that bringing impeachment proceedings against a 'civil officer' - to remove them from office - when they no longer hold it, is very much up in the air. Even if they manage to complete the process before the 20th, does congress 'lose jurisdiction'? Dunno. As well, the issue of burden of proof threshold, although apparently ill-defined, seems to be lower that that required for criminal prosecution. There might be a movement to try to take him out of the play for 2024. The new administration will no doubt struggle with that.

Apparently if he is impeached, he ceases to be eligible for benefits and protection under the 'Former Presidents Act'.

There’s no burden of proof. It’s up to each senator to vote, making it a mostly partisan exercise.

Unsurprisingly, many of the individuals involved in stoking the fires that led to the events of 6 Jan are now trying to cover their asses, in some cases contradicting themselves less than 24 hours later.

We need to stop pretending to ourselves that far right extremists in the US will simply take their ball and go home satisfied if only Biden turns the other cheek and comes forward with a message of unity and healing. The old saying that "a cornered animal lashes out" is overly simplistic and works for literal animals, much less so as an analogy for human beings within a society.

The far right in the US are masters of self-victimization. For decades, they have propagandized and recruited moderate conservatives with a full court press arguing that "liberals" are out to get them and will destroy moderates' way of life if left unchecked.

The traditional (Fox News commentary shows, OAN, Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, etc.) and social (Facebook groups, Parler, Gab, Voat, thedonald.win, etc.) media ecosystem of the far right is so entrenched that someone who only gets their news from those sources without an anchor to tether them in reality (family, coworkers, etc.) will be pulled towards radicalization regardless of what the objective facts of the matter are. Attempting to meet the far right in the middle will simply cause it to take a step back and demand that moderates take a further step towards them. This is true of any extremist belief system.

Weak prosecution of Confederate leaders, pardons for Nixon and Iran-Contra, etc. have not prevented the US from arriving at the events of this week.

US society and its judicial system must determine the arcs of fire of acceptable speech and action, and take action against those who fall outside of it before the problem worsens. Will that cause more violence in the short term? Maybe, but that violence was probably going to happen at some point anyways. Tolerating extremism without limit simply destroys tolerance. Unfortunately, short term violence may be the required wake up call for American society to realize that far right extremism is the major source of terrorism in the United States.

Not sure if you saw, but Amazon Web Services is pulling Parler’s server hosting as of tomorrow night. If they don’t get alternate infrastructure in place fast they’re going to have a tough time recovering.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The conduct of elections are a state issue per the constitution. The feds have no place telling the states how to run them. This exact principle was one of the factors that got a lot of the lawsuits tossed.


I am aware of that, having a commission study the issue and make recommendations is pretty much all the feds can do, but it would help dampen the flames. It might also highlight some the issues, helping people in those States force changes.

 

[FJAG]

No move before 19 January unless the senate unanimously consents, which they obviously won’t.

I actually have no idea what happen if the President transitions before the conclusion of the proceedings. Hypothetically could they meaningfully continue with it with the potential consequence of future disqualification from office?

That's the way I see it. Although I really doubted that he had any chance in 2024 anyway. But then I figured he didn't in 2016 so what do I know?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Avoid the unnecessary battle. Let the House vote articles if they really can't contain themselves, but toss them in Senate. Forget 25A. Trump could be feeling his age, be unwell, be dead by 2024. His wife might threaten to leave rather than go through that shitshow again. He might be a convicted felon (finance/fraud crimes). Why add more fuel to fires?

If the people who talk about turning down the heat in US politics are serious, someone will have to move to de-escalate first.

 

[Altair]

Avoid the unnecessary battle. Let the House vote articles if they really can't contain themselves, but toss them in Senate. Forget 25A. Trump could be feeling his age, be unwell, be dead by 2024. His wife might threaten to leave rather than go through that shitshow again. He might be a convicted felon (finance/fraud crimes). Why add more fuel to fires?

If the people who talk about turning down the heat in US politics are serious, someone will have to move to de-escalate first.

Somehow, I don't think the executive branch directing a mob to deal with the legislative branch is a turn the other cheek kind of thing.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Oh, he’ll be impeached in the house easily enough, but I doubt he’ll face trial in the senate. My money is McConnell kicks the can down the road beyond the inauguration date to save Senate republicans from the embarrassing dilemma of having to vote on it.

McConnell has already issued instructions to the Senate. If they stick to their Christmas schedule it won't go to the Senate. If it does they run out the clock, legally. This only shows me that the democrats are still scared shitless of him. This second impeachment has nothing to do with whatever they accuse him of and more to do with stopping him from running for public office again. Then we go back to Pelosi's last argument, that he can be impeached in the House without the sanctity of a trial in the Senate.

 

[kkwd]

Here is a document from the Secretary Of Defense regarding the timeline for National Guard support for the events of January 6th.
Planning And Execution For National Guard Support

 

[Edward Campbell]

... This second impeachment has nothing to do with whatever they accuse him of and more to do with stopping him from running for public office again ...

I really don't think there is much chance of that.

First: he's 74. Yes, I know Joe Biden in 78 but he was a compromise candidate, almost the last man standing for those Democrats who are actually more frightened of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than they are of Donald Trump.

Second: the GOP now has three years to reform itself and I suspect that by 2022 they will have some very attractive young conservatives ~ America First types ~ without much or Trump baggage.

My guess ~ waaaay too early, I know ~ is that in 2024 we see Kamala Harris vs Nikki Haley.

The Trumps, perhaps in the person of Ivanka Trump, are NOT dead and gone, but they are, for now, a spent force. I think that President Trump honestly believes that he should have won. I suspect that belief led him over the morally/politically acceptable edge and makes him toxic for a majority of Republicans. Most GOP legislators are not "rats deserting a sinking ship," thy are practical men and women who can see the future clearly ... and it is a future without Donald J Trump.

Governor Haley gave a good speech to the RNC the other day. She highlighted the several good things President Trump did in four years and asked Republicans to remember them and build on them; but, she said, in just a few days President Trump had nullified his legacy. He is, in effect, she suggested, damaged goods ~ too damaged to be rebuilt. Now, of course, she is positioning herself to be his successor so her remarks are self-serving ... but that doesn't make them wrong.

It seems to me that 'Trumpians' (the ones in Canada, too) must find a new champion.

 

[dimsum]

Unsurprisingly, many of the individuals involved in stoking the fires that led to the events of 6 Jan are now trying to cover their asses, in some cases contradicting themselves less than 24 hours later.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at that video. Shaggy's "it wasn't me" defence would have been better.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Shaggy's "it wasn't me" defence would have been better.

That's the best comparason to Trump I think I've ever seen.

 

[mariomike]

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at that video.

"If Republicans don't challenge and change the US election system, there will never be another Republican president elected again."

Don't like the Electoral College? Don't like the Popular Vote? What election system do Republicans want to change to?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I really don't think there is much chance of that.

First: he's 74. Yes, I know Joe Biden in 78 but he was a compromise candidate, almost the last man standing for those Democrats who are actually more frightened of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez than they are of Donald Trump.

I think the Impeachment stuff is as much about appeasing the radicals in the Democrat Party as it is revenge against Trump.

 

[MJP]

I think the Impeachment stuff is as much about appeasing the radicals in the Democrat Party as it is revenge against Trump.

Revenge, appeasement and holding a sitting president to account for inciting a insurrection….all good reasons

Not likely to move forward with the time remaining nor do I think personally that they would get 2/3rds vote in the senate. The GOP despite what they likely want to do are still too cowed by the potential for backlash from Trump supporters to do what they probably should. By should I mean it in two ways; 1) to uphold the democratic processes they say they deeply observe and 2) because they need to rebuild themselves and distancing themselves from the DJT era is a good start.

Granted any option they choose could sink them and end up pissing off a their constituency leaving them to pick up the pieces over many many years rather than in time for 2024.