Your thinking is that Trump doesn’t like war hawks?
I honestly don’t know what Trump’s views on war and war hawks are (seems generally opposed?), and it’s certainly clear he’s jumping on something to win some political points for his base.
I’m not making a statement on what Trump’s views are, my argument is that this news source is terrible because it takes things way out of context, and if you actually look at the context, there’s no threat there, just a statement about armchair generals. That’s it, instead of a “round up the dems and shoot them,” it’s “Liz Cheney would act differently if she was the one fighting.”
the more hyperbolic response is actually the right one
It’s absolutely not. He’s not saying Cheney should be shot like the title here says, nor is he insinuating that anyone should shoot her. He actually paints her as incompetent (said she lost her Senate bid “by the biggest margin in history” or something) and therefore not a threat. His statement isn’t a call to action, but a thought experiment of what she would do if she had to be personally involved in the actual fighting (i.e. either she’s fighting, or being held accountable for choices on the ground).
If you watch the actual source video, I think you’ll agree. That said, I don’t recommend actually watching it, it’s about 5-10 min of him rambling about Dick Cheney, Bush, and the Iraq War, and the actual bits about Liz are probably 1-2 min on both ends of that ramble fest.
That’s for the cows and windows quotes.
Yes, but I’m still missing context. I’d prefer a link to the actual speech with a rough idea of where in the speech he says that. Because if the other two things the OOP states are completely misleading (Trump “nearly falling” when opening truck door, and this statement about Cheney), I want a bit more than “this other publication has a paragraph or two about it as well.”
The spin this election is absolutely insane. The left is trying to paint the right as fascists, and the right is trying to paint the left as communists, yet both completely miss the more important negative aspects of the other’s campaign (i.e. Trump’s tariffs and border policy, and Harris’ “anti-price gouging” will likely wreck our economy).
So I’m extra careful about bandwagoning, especially this close to the election.
this extremist website is keeping in mind the very clear context of what Trump has said he wants to do
But Trump made no statements about what he wants to do, other than stay out of the middle east. He basically painted Cheney as incompetent and a liability for Harris’ campaign, and most of his rambling was about foreign policy in the middle east, not about Cheney.
I don’t think it’s solid or sound, it’s peppered with holes that won’t pass even a tiny bit of scrutiny. It’s basically propaganda, similar to the sort that Trump is using this election against Harris. It’s not journalism, it’s just political BS.
I don’t even really disagree with you about this source being maybe hyperbolic garbage, and the importance of focusing on reality in this campaign. I still think you’re being way, way too nice to Trump, using “not freaking out” as a reason to cut him slack he doesn’t deserve.
I honestly don’t know what Trump’s views on war and war hawks are (seems generally opposed?), and it’s certainly clear he’s jumping on something to win some political points for his base.
No he isn’t. His base loves war and war hawks, when he and his people are the hawks. He’s jumping on the opportunity to talk about shooting one of his opponents. Just like he did for Milley, and Mike Pence, and how his supporters talked about doing for Biden. It’s time to stop pretending that his coded language can be taken at face value. If Liz Cheney does something visibly anti-Trump, and he starts talking about her getting shot and having rifles in her face, I think it’s time to start treating that as the stochastic threat that it is, maybe even freaking out about it a little.
His statement isn’t a call to action, but a thought experiment of what she would do if she had to be personally involved in the actual fighting
No it isn’t. It’s a call to action.
That’s not the literal meaning of his words, because he’s a sneaky orange weasel who’s accustomed to avoiding the strictures of law enforcement for decades now, but he doesn’t talk this way about any war hawks that haven’t crossed him personally, and he does talk exactly this way about people of all different levels of war-hawk-ishness that have crossed him personally. It’s a constant refrain of his, and every month that goes by, the more his supporters start to get on board with it. Have you noticed that they’re shooting actual bullets at Harris campaign headquarters? Setting actual ballot boxes on fire? Roaming the hills with actual rifles looking for FEMA people? It’s not a fucking joke. It’s a call to action.
The spin this election is absolutely insane. The left is trying to paint the right as fascists
No. Scholars of fascism are painting the right as fascists. The Democrats and the media haven’t been doing nearly enough to paint the right as the fascists they are, although they’ve started doing it a lot more in the last month or two. I think that’s a good thing, because it provides some motivation for people to start to freak out about it a little bit.
You sound like the guy in the apartment building saying that we need to relax, the fire alarms are going off but we don’t want to disrupt the party or cause a panic. No. It’s time to talk about leaving the fucking building. Anything else is grossly irresponsible.
But Trump made no statements about what he wants to do, other than stay out of the middle east.
I still think you’re being way, way too nice to Trump
I’m only responding to the content of the post and pointing out BS when I see it. If it was instead a pro-Trump piece, I would have a very different reaction.
If there’s BS in a post, I’ll call it out, even if the general tone is something I agree with (i.e. Trump is unfit to be President). I firmly believe the ends do not justify the means.
His base loves war and war hawks
If you’ll look, he pretty much never talks about starting wars, but instead pulling out of or avoiding wars. But he only does that when it resonates w/ his base, such as withdrawing support for Ukraine. He even says we should consider abandoning Taiwan instead of getting in a war with China, despite heavy rhetoric against China (esp. tariffs). His base would surely support a militarily aggressive stance against China, yet he doesn’t take that stance. Likewise for Iran. He could totally score some points with his base if he took an aggressive stance against either Iran or China, yet he doesn’t.
He instead focuses that type of rhetoric on immigrants, especially at the southern border, and increasing our national defense capabilities. But he has pretty consistently avoided suggesting that we’d actually use our defense capabilities against any particular country. The only aggressive moves he has made is moving the embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv in a show of blatant support for Israel. That’s it, he really doesn’t seem interested in getting involved in war militarily, he instead wants trade wars (terrible in entirely different way).
So I definitely don’t think he’s a war hawk. His base may be, but he has consistently avoided tapping into that.
It’s time to stop pretending that his coded language can be taken at face value
I think you’re giving him too much credit. He’s a disappointing candidate, not some fascist mastermind that’s hiding dogwhistles in every speech.
He panders, yes, and he takes a very aggressive tone most of the time, but I don’t think he’s intending to use dogwhistles and whatnot.
he doesn’t talk this way about any war hawks that haven’t crossed him personally
Sure, but he was asked pointedly about Liz Cheney. He doesn’t seem to be on any kind of crusade against war hawks generally, he just uses that when it benefits him. In this case, Tucker Carlson asked him specifically about Liz Cheney (daughter of VP Dick Cheney and a Republican House rep) helping Kamala Harris’ campaign. The gist of the exchange is that Cheney is incompetent and a liability for Harris, and therefore not a threat, but in classic Trump style, he rambles for like 10 min about it.
It’s quite clear in the actual interview.
Have you noticed that they’re shooting actual bullets at Harris campaign headquarters?
And who do you think “they” are?
I read some articles about it, and it seems these shots were fired after hours, and don’t seem organized at all. So we’re likely looking at a lone actor, probably someone with a mental illness who is trying to intimidate the campaign staff. These aren’t assassination attempts, but it does seem to be politically motivated hate crimes.
As for the ballot boxes, it seems the investigation is still ongoing and details are few. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s one person (they have a singular suspect car identified), again, likely with some kind of mental illness or unhealthy obsession w/ the election. It also doesn’t seem organized, because if it was, why attack Oregon and Washington? Those states are lock-ins for Harris, and attacking a handful of ballot boxes won’t change the election results. It’s also unclear what the motivation is, are they against one party or another? There’s no evidence, AFAIK, to link it to Republicans or Democrats, though I lean a little toward Republicans because it happened in a pretty liberal part of the respective states.
And for the militias in N. Carolina, yeah, that’s a bit more organized, but I’m really not sure what the point is. I guess, Biden sent FEMA, therefore FEMA bad? It’s unrelated to the election, so I’m guessing someone who is part of one of those organizations grouped up with other in those organizations and acted largely alone, not on orders by the militia. I’m interested to see the results of the investigation though.
We see far too much of that, and unfortunately, I think we’ll continue to see it, at least for the next week. But I also don’t believe it’s organized in any way, an organized movement would be targeting people tallying votes, people certifying elections, etc.
it provides some motivation for people to start to freak out about it a little bit
That certainly doesn’t help. Yes, there’s a fascist element on the right, and there’s also a communist element on the left. I don’t know the respective sizes of each movement, but it seems the fascist element is more vocal the last several years. It’s important to point that out, but it’s also important to be careful about where exactly the finger is pointed. We should be looking at actual fascist orgs like the Proud Boys and other groups that stirred up trouble on Jan 6, as well as looking into any potential link between Trump and those orgs (i.e. all those lawsuits that are essentially on hold).
But if we actually call Trump a fascist without strong evidence, that just discredits the person pointing the finger.
I’m worried about a Trump presidency, but not because I think he’ll try to dismantle democracy, but because I think he’ll ruin our economy through his tariffs. He’s a 78yo narcissist who thinks he knows better than his advisors, not a megalomaniac, and JD Vance certainly doesn’t seem like the type to push fascist ideas (he’s only relevant because he’s willing to be Trump’s lapdog).
What, a re-“tweet” (I refuse to use their terms) that’s an obviously rhetoric-heavy post. This is largely a “persecution complex” type response, he’s bitter about the lawsuits claiming him to be a traitor, and he’s redirecting that to others.
You sound like the guy in the apartment building saying that we need to relax, the fire alarms are going off but we don’t want to disrupt the party or cause a panic
That really depends on the circumstances. Are there visible flames, gunshots, etc? If not, panicking _definitely doesn’t help, but instead people should calmly exit the building until it’s clear there’s no actual threat (i.e. likely just a prank). If there are flames, gunshots, etc, then yeah, getting everyone out of the party absolutely is the right move.
What I’m trying to do here is cut through the panic and misinformation during the last week of the election so people hopefully take a step back and vote logically instead of emotionally. Amping up emotions doesn’t help anything, and it often causes more problems. Instead of throwing more wood in the fire, I’m saying maybe we should hold off a bit and let the fire die down a bit so we don’t end up with a wildfire.
If you’ll look, he pretty much never talks about starting wars, but instead pulling out of or avoiding wars. But he only does that when it resonates w/ his base, such as withdrawing support for Ukraine. He even says we should consider abandoning Taiwan instead of getting in a war with China, despite heavy rhetoric against China (esp. tariffs). His base would surely support a militarily aggressive stance against China, yet he doesn’t take that stance. Likewise for Iran. He could totally score some points with his base if he took an aggressive stance against either Iran or China, yet he doesn’t.
TL;DR: He assassinated an Iranian general. He killed about 13,000 civilians in Iraq and Syria, as in directly, not this “he didn’t stop our ally from doing it,” but he did drone strikes that created a little mini-Gaza of his own using US forces. He attacked Syria and Somalia. His war ambitions are different from the standard US imperialist model, but mostly just because they are dumber and less directed. He’s fine with war. If you want to talk about what he talked about doing, he threatened North Korea, China, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia.
As for the ballot boxes, it seems the investigation is still ongoing and details are few. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s one person (they have a singular suspect car identified), again, likely with some kind of mental illness or unhealthy obsession w/ the election.
So you think it’s entirely coincidental that Trump talks all the time about what he talks about, and there’s all this explosion of violence in our politics?
What about January 6th? Was that 10,000 individual people with some kind of mental illness or unhealthy obsession w/ the election?
This is what I’m talking about, why I am making a big deal of disagreeing with you about this even if I agree that this source is shady. It’s Trump. It’s always been Trump, and it’s a problem. It’s not someone with a random mental illness.
That certainly doesn’t help. Yes, there’s a fascist element on the right, and there’s also a communist element on the left.
Come the fuck off it.
But if we actually call Trump a fascist without strong evidence, that just discredits the person pointing the finger.
There is evidence. Want me to find some sources that are experts in fascism? Who would you put trust in?
That really depends on the circumstances. Are there visible flames, gunshots, etc?
Yes. Both. I talked about some of the flames and some of the gunshots, although not all. There are also some visible bodies that are the result of the problem. Want to ask them about the circumstances, if there is visible indication yet that it is a big deal?
I’m not saying to panic. But I’m saying to treat it as a big deal and start yelling. That’s not “emotion,” that is the appropriate reaction.
TL;DR: He assassinated an Iranian general. He killed about 13,000 civilians in Iraq and Syria
I’m not saying he’s anti-imperialist, in fact, that’s ridiculous if you take a moment to look at his trade policies. He’s absolutely imperialist, just in a “trade war” way instead of an “open conflict w/ our enemies” way. You can absolutely be dovish w/ the military but still have an overall hawkish attitude.
Yes, he threatened, and he even provoked by moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
As for Syria and Somalia, his involvement was a continuance of “anti-terrorism” activities that both Biden and Obama supported. I disagree with it, but I argue it’s basically “par” for politicians in the US.
So you think it’s entirely coincidental that Trump talks all the time about what he talks about, and there’s all this explosion of violence in our politics?
It’s likely related, but it’s not organized. I think his rhetoric could push someone over the edge into action that otherwise wouldn’t, and I think the rhetoric against Trump has a similar potential. I think the Trump campaign has been more inflammatory than the Harris campaign in general, but that doesn’t make the Harris campaign’s strategy okay.
What about January 6th?
My take is that there were some organized groups who had planned on causing trouble before going to the rally (there’s evidence of a number of people leaving the rally early to prep). I also think Trump knew about those groups, but not their specific plans, and that his aggressive tone at that event was reckless. I also think there’s a good chance he committed federal crimes between election day and Jan 6, as well as on Jan 6, but I don’t think he was affiliated in any meaningful way with the groups who instigated trouble on Jan 6.
It’s always been Trump
I personally blame the various talking heads at places like Breitbart and Fox News more than Trump, they’re the ones pushing a narrative and fanning the flames. Trump certainly has a part in all this, but I highly doubt there’s any particular “master plan” here, I think he’s just a narcissist that says whatever he thinks will grab headlines.
Who would you put trust in?
I’m not sure, but they would certainly need to be separated from the political discourse.
I care more about evidence than the person providing the evidence, so as long as the evidence presented is independently verifiable and they’ve done a good job of exploring alternative explanations, I’m not too picky on who the actual author is.
One book I liked on this topic is How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, so I guess those are two names. That book looks at various fascists, both old and recent, to draw similarities, and they specifically looked at Trump to see how he measured up. However, that book is 6 years old now, and I’d be interested in a follow-up that takes the events of Jan 6 into account, as well as his actual track record in-office. There are a number of first-party sources they could interview for additional context from within the White House.
I’m not saying to panic. But I’m saying to treat it as a big deal and start yelling.
That really depends on what you’re yelling. If you’re yelling facts, I’ll be 100% behind you, but if you lean into propaganda in an “ends justify the means” sense, then you’ve lost me.
I honestly don’t know what Trump’s views on war and war hawks are (seems generally opposed?), and it’s certainly clear he’s jumping on something to win some political points for his base.
I’m not making a statement on what Trump’s views are, my argument is that this news source is terrible because it takes things way out of context, and if you actually look at the context, there’s no threat there, just a statement about armchair generals. That’s it, instead of a “round up the dems and shoot them,” it’s “Liz Cheney would act differently if she was the one fighting.”
It’s absolutely not. He’s not saying Cheney should be shot like the title here says, nor is he insinuating that anyone should shoot her. He actually paints her as incompetent (said she lost her Senate bid “by the biggest margin in history” or something) and therefore not a threat. His statement isn’t a call to action, but a thought experiment of what she would do if she had to be personally involved in the actual fighting (i.e. either she’s fighting, or being held accountable for choices on the ground).
If you watch the actual source video, I think you’ll agree. That said, I don’t recommend actually watching it, it’s about 5-10 min of him rambling about Dick Cheney, Bush, and the Iraq War, and the actual bits about Liz are probably 1-2 min on both ends of that ramble fest.
Yes, but I’m still missing context. I’d prefer a link to the actual speech with a rough idea of where in the speech he says that. Because if the other two things the OOP states are completely misleading (Trump “nearly falling” when opening truck door, and this statement about Cheney), I want a bit more than “this other publication has a paragraph or two about it as well.”
The spin this election is absolutely insane. The left is trying to paint the right as fascists, and the right is trying to paint the left as communists, yet both completely miss the more important negative aspects of the other’s campaign (i.e. Trump’s tariffs and border policy, and Harris’ “anti-price gouging” will likely wreck our economy).
So I’m extra careful about bandwagoning, especially this close to the election.
But Trump made no statements about what he wants to do, other than stay out of the middle east. He basically painted Cheney as incompetent and a liability for Harris’ campaign, and most of his rambling was about foreign policy in the middle east, not about Cheney.
I don’t think it’s solid or sound, it’s peppered with holes that won’t pass even a tiny bit of scrutiny. It’s basically propaganda, similar to the sort that Trump is using this election against Harris. It’s not journalism, it’s just political BS.
I don’t even really disagree with you about this source being maybe hyperbolic garbage, and the importance of focusing on reality in this campaign. I still think you’re being way, way too nice to Trump, using “not freaking out” as a reason to cut him slack he doesn’t deserve.
No he isn’t. His base loves war and war hawks, when he and his people are the hawks. He’s jumping on the opportunity to talk about shooting one of his opponents. Just like he did for Milley, and Mike Pence, and how his supporters talked about doing for Biden. It’s time to stop pretending that his coded language can be taken at face value. If Liz Cheney does something visibly anti-Trump, and he starts talking about her getting shot and having rifles in her face, I think it’s time to start treating that as the stochastic threat that it is, maybe even freaking out about it a little.
No it isn’t. It’s a call to action.
That’s not the literal meaning of his words, because he’s a sneaky orange weasel who’s accustomed to avoiding the strictures of law enforcement for decades now, but he doesn’t talk this way about any war hawks that haven’t crossed him personally, and he does talk exactly this way about people of all different levels of war-hawk-ishness that have crossed him personally. It’s a constant refrain of his, and every month that goes by, the more his supporters start to get on board with it. Have you noticed that they’re shooting actual bullets at Harris campaign headquarters? Setting actual ballot boxes on fire? Roaming the hills with actual rifles looking for FEMA people? It’s not a fucking joke. It’s a call to action.
No. Scholars of fascism are painting the right as fascists. The Democrats and the media haven’t been doing nearly enough to paint the right as the fascists they are, although they’ve started doing it a lot more in the last month or two. I think that’s a good thing, because it provides some motivation for people to start to freak out about it a little bit.
You sound like the guy in the apartment building saying that we need to relax, the fire alarms are going off but we don’t want to disrupt the party or cause a panic. No. It’s time to talk about leaving the fucking building. Anything else is grossly irresponsible.
https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1-5134924/trump-election-2024-kamala-harris-elizabeth-cheney-threat-civil-liberties
I’m only responding to the content of the post and pointing out BS when I see it. If it was instead a pro-Trump piece, I would have a very different reaction.
If there’s BS in a post, I’ll call it out, even if the general tone is something I agree with (i.e. Trump is unfit to be President). I firmly believe the ends do not justify the means.
If you’ll look, he pretty much never talks about starting wars, but instead pulling out of or avoiding wars. But he only does that when it resonates w/ his base, such as withdrawing support for Ukraine. He even says we should consider abandoning Taiwan instead of getting in a war with China, despite heavy rhetoric against China (esp. tariffs). His base would surely support a militarily aggressive stance against China, yet he doesn’t take that stance. Likewise for Iran. He could totally score some points with his base if he took an aggressive stance against either Iran or China, yet he doesn’t.
He instead focuses that type of rhetoric on immigrants, especially at the southern border, and increasing our national defense capabilities. But he has pretty consistently avoided suggesting that we’d actually use our defense capabilities against any particular country. The only aggressive moves he has made is moving the embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv in a show of blatant support for Israel. That’s it, he really doesn’t seem interested in getting involved in war militarily, he instead wants trade wars (terrible in entirely different way).
So I definitely don’t think he’s a war hawk. His base may be, but he has consistently avoided tapping into that.
I think you’re giving him too much credit. He’s a disappointing candidate, not some fascist mastermind that’s hiding dogwhistles in every speech.
He panders, yes, and he takes a very aggressive tone most of the time, but I don’t think he’s intending to use dogwhistles and whatnot.
Sure, but he was asked pointedly about Liz Cheney. He doesn’t seem to be on any kind of crusade against war hawks generally, he just uses that when it benefits him. In this case, Tucker Carlson asked him specifically about Liz Cheney (daughter of VP Dick Cheney and a Republican House rep) helping Kamala Harris’ campaign. The gist of the exchange is that Cheney is incompetent and a liability for Harris, and therefore not a threat, but in classic Trump style, he rambles for like 10 min about it.
It’s quite clear in the actual interview.
And who do you think “they” are?
I read some articles about it, and it seems these shots were fired after hours, and don’t seem organized at all. So we’re likely looking at a lone actor, probably someone with a mental illness who is trying to intimidate the campaign staff. These aren’t assassination attempts, but it does seem to be politically motivated hate crimes.
As for the ballot boxes, it seems the investigation is still ongoing and details are few. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s one person (they have a singular suspect car identified), again, likely with some kind of mental illness or unhealthy obsession w/ the election. It also doesn’t seem organized, because if it was, why attack Oregon and Washington? Those states are lock-ins for Harris, and attacking a handful of ballot boxes won’t change the election results. It’s also unclear what the motivation is, are they against one party or another? There’s no evidence, AFAIK, to link it to Republicans or Democrats, though I lean a little toward Republicans because it happened in a pretty liberal part of the respective states.
And for the militias in N. Carolina, yeah, that’s a bit more organized, but I’m really not sure what the point is. I guess, Biden sent FEMA, therefore FEMA bad? It’s unrelated to the election, so I’m guessing someone who is part of one of those organizations grouped up with other in those organizations and acted largely alone, not on orders by the militia. I’m interested to see the results of the investigation though.
We see far too much of that, and unfortunately, I think we’ll continue to see it, at least for the next week. But I also don’t believe it’s organized in any way, an organized movement would be targeting people tallying votes, people certifying elections, etc.
That certainly doesn’t help. Yes, there’s a fascist element on the right, and there’s also a communist element on the left. I don’t know the respective sizes of each movement, but it seems the fascist element is more vocal the last several years. It’s important to point that out, but it’s also important to be careful about where exactly the finger is pointed. We should be looking at actual fascist orgs like the Proud Boys and other groups that stirred up trouble on Jan 6, as well as looking into any potential link between Trump and those orgs (i.e. all those lawsuits that are essentially on hold).
But if we actually call Trump a fascist without strong evidence, that just discredits the person pointing the finger.
I’m worried about a Trump presidency, but not because I think he’ll try to dismantle democracy, but because I think he’ll ruin our economy through his tariffs. He’s a 78yo narcissist who thinks he knows better than his advisors, not a megalomaniac, and JD Vance certainly doesn’t seem like the type to push fascist ideas (he’s only relevant because he’s willing to be Trump’s lapdog).
What, a re-“tweet” (I refuse to use their terms) that’s an obviously rhetoric-heavy post. This is largely a “persecution complex” type response, he’s bitter about the lawsuits claiming him to be a traitor, and he’s redirecting that to others.
That really depends on the circumstances. Are there visible flames, gunshots, etc? If not, panicking _definitely doesn’t help, but instead people should calmly exit the building until it’s clear there’s no actual threat (i.e. likely just a prank). If there are flames, gunshots, etc, then yeah, getting everyone out of the party absolutely is the right move.
What I’m trying to do here is cut through the panic and misinformation during the last week of the election so people hopefully take a step back and vote logically instead of emotionally. Amping up emotions doesn’t help anything, and it often causes more problems. Instead of throwing more wood in the fire, I’m saying maybe we should hold off a bit and let the fire die down a bit so we don’t end up with a wildfire.
https://www.vox.com/23677654/trump-foreign-policy-revisionist-history-dove-anti-imperial
TL;DR: He assassinated an Iranian general. He killed about 13,000 civilians in Iraq and Syria, as in directly, not this “he didn’t stop our ally from doing it,” but he did drone strikes that created a little mini-Gaza of his own using US forces. He attacked Syria and Somalia. His war ambitions are different from the standard US imperialist model, but mostly just because they are dumber and less directed. He’s fine with war. If you want to talk about what he talked about doing, he threatened North Korea, China, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia.
So you think it’s entirely coincidental that Trump talks all the time about what he talks about, and there’s all this explosion of violence in our politics?
What about January 6th? Was that 10,000 individual people with some kind of mental illness or unhealthy obsession w/ the election?
This is what I’m talking about, why I am making a big deal of disagreeing with you about this even if I agree that this source is shady. It’s Trump. It’s always been Trump, and it’s a problem. It’s not someone with a random mental illness.
Come the fuck off it.
There is evidence. Want me to find some sources that are experts in fascism? Who would you put trust in?
Yes. Both. I talked about some of the flames and some of the gunshots, although not all. There are also some visible bodies that are the result of the problem. Want to ask them about the circumstances, if there is visible indication yet that it is a big deal?
I’m not saying to panic. But I’m saying to treat it as a big deal and start yelling. That’s not “emotion,” that is the appropriate reaction.
I’m not saying he’s anti-imperialist, in fact, that’s ridiculous if you take a moment to look at his trade policies. He’s absolutely imperialist, just in a “trade war” way instead of an “open conflict w/ our enemies” way. You can absolutely be dovish w/ the military but still have an overall hawkish attitude.
Yes, he threatened, and he even provoked by moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
As for Syria and Somalia, his involvement was a continuance of “anti-terrorism” activities that both Biden and Obama supported. I disagree with it, but I argue it’s basically “par” for politicians in the US.
It’s likely related, but it’s not organized. I think his rhetoric could push someone over the edge into action that otherwise wouldn’t, and I think the rhetoric against Trump has a similar potential. I think the Trump campaign has been more inflammatory than the Harris campaign in general, but that doesn’t make the Harris campaign’s strategy okay.
My take is that there were some organized groups who had planned on causing trouble before going to the rally (there’s evidence of a number of people leaving the rally early to prep). I also think Trump knew about those groups, but not their specific plans, and that his aggressive tone at that event was reckless. I also think there’s a good chance he committed federal crimes between election day and Jan 6, as well as on Jan 6, but I don’t think he was affiliated in any meaningful way with the groups who instigated trouble on Jan 6.
I personally blame the various talking heads at places like Breitbart and Fox News more than Trump, they’re the ones pushing a narrative and fanning the flames. Trump certainly has a part in all this, but I highly doubt there’s any particular “master plan” here, I think he’s just a narcissist that says whatever he thinks will grab headlines.
I’m not sure, but they would certainly need to be separated from the political discourse.
I care more about evidence than the person providing the evidence, so as long as the evidence presented is independently verifiable and they’ve done a good job of exploring alternative explanations, I’m not too picky on who the actual author is.
One book I liked on this topic is How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, so I guess those are two names. That book looks at various fascists, both old and recent, to draw similarities, and they specifically looked at Trump to see how he measured up. However, that book is 6 years old now, and I’d be interested in a follow-up that takes the events of Jan 6 into account, as well as his actual track record in-office. There are a number of first-party sources they could interview for additional context from within the White House.
I haven’t read it yet, but maybe their book Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point is that followup.
That really depends on what you’re yelling. If you’re yelling facts, I’ll be 100% behind you, but if you lean into propaganda in an “ends justify the means” sense, then you’ve lost me.